johntheexpat
Distinguished Member
The impending changes to climate, whilst probably not to be avoided, can - the experts say- be delayed by a drastic reduction in consumption of fossil fuel. For this to have any credibility the west will have to take the lead. Which I suppose is not unreasonable as we have, over the last few decades, benefited the most from fossil fuel and are the most able to implement change.
According to, as far as I can ascertain, a majority of opinion, global oil production has peaked. While there is still plentiful oil around, (what with reserves that are only economic with the current high price, oil shale, undiscovered fields and improvements to extraction technology on current fields) the days of plentiful oil, gushing forth from wells are limited. Presumably this will mean that our access to black gold will be relatively restricted by supply problems, ignoring any political shenanigans that those who perceive us as the enemy may come up with (eg Iran and Peru, plus others if the radicals gain power elsewhere). This will force us into finding ways of cutting consumption, without particularly (hopefully) reducing our standard of living.
If the technology does develop rapidly enough and oil production remains at a relatively level volume for the foreseeable future, there is no doubting that the tiger economies of the far east, for example, will soak a rising proportion of the production, as they develop more economic muscle. The price will undoubtedly rise, due to simple supply/demand economics, but the tigers strength will ensure they get what they require. While the west gets less.
Hopefully it's now clear where I am going with this thread. Whatever the scenario, 20 years down the line the west will be burning less oil. What is needed now is heavy investment to ensure that with the reduced consumption, we are efficient enough to at least maintain current productivity levels in all areas, while consuming less oil. Does it really matter what the driving force behind this reduction is? For those unconvinced by the Climate scientists, then perhaps the economists will provide a more convincing reason. For those who adhere to the evidence presented by IPCC amongst others, then consumption cuts are a no brainer, the mid to long term economic benefits provided by greatly improved efficienct, are an added benefit.
The problem will be convincing people that the investments should be starting sooner rather than later. And they will cost, big time. Who is going to pay? You and me, that's who.
The cynics amongst us may say that perhaps the softening up process has begun. All this Global warming stuff is supposed to scare us into dipping deeply into our pockets without complaining. Maybe there is mileage in that view. There is no denying that the media have really gone to town with CC. Polar bears on icebergs, Jeremy Clarkson (unfortunately??) not on one but surrounded by ice, every time it rains its CC. They have made the whole thing laughable and a joke. But the impending changes aren't. So we will have to become hugely more efficient and cut consumption, for whatever reason.
As ARP Warden Hodges from Dad's Army would say 'Put that light out!'
According to, as far as I can ascertain, a majority of opinion, global oil production has peaked. While there is still plentiful oil around, (what with reserves that are only economic with the current high price, oil shale, undiscovered fields and improvements to extraction technology on current fields) the days of plentiful oil, gushing forth from wells are limited. Presumably this will mean that our access to black gold will be relatively restricted by supply problems, ignoring any political shenanigans that those who perceive us as the enemy may come up with (eg Iran and Peru, plus others if the radicals gain power elsewhere). This will force us into finding ways of cutting consumption, without particularly (hopefully) reducing our standard of living.
If the technology does develop rapidly enough and oil production remains at a relatively level volume for the foreseeable future, there is no doubting that the tiger economies of the far east, for example, will soak a rising proportion of the production, as they develop more economic muscle. The price will undoubtedly rise, due to simple supply/demand economics, but the tigers strength will ensure they get what they require. While the west gets less.
Hopefully it's now clear where I am going with this thread. Whatever the scenario, 20 years down the line the west will be burning less oil. What is needed now is heavy investment to ensure that with the reduced consumption, we are efficient enough to at least maintain current productivity levels in all areas, while consuming less oil. Does it really matter what the driving force behind this reduction is? For those unconvinced by the Climate scientists, then perhaps the economists will provide a more convincing reason. For those who adhere to the evidence presented by IPCC amongst others, then consumption cuts are a no brainer, the mid to long term economic benefits provided by greatly improved efficienct, are an added benefit.
The problem will be convincing people that the investments should be starting sooner rather than later. And they will cost, big time. Who is going to pay? You and me, that's who.
The cynics amongst us may say that perhaps the softening up process has begun. All this Global warming stuff is supposed to scare us into dipping deeply into our pockets without complaining. Maybe there is mileage in that view. There is no denying that the media have really gone to town with CC. Polar bears on icebergs, Jeremy Clarkson (unfortunately??) not on one but surrounded by ice, every time it rains its CC. They have made the whole thing laughable and a joke. But the impending changes aren't. So we will have to become hugely more efficient and cut consumption, for whatever reason.
As ARP Warden Hodges from Dad's Army would say 'Put that light out!'