That’s bother me especialy Digger.
Yea the lack of fresh water could force the CHineses to search the expansion way to the Syberia- where in fact the a lot of fresh wather rivers and lakes ( for instance the World biggest Lake Baikal).
The wood, oil, water, territory - they everything is enought in SYberia.
Althought for the while the China-Russian relations in the most friedly stage for last 50 years - who know what will happened later when limit of the resource would slow down the “China progress”
So i think we need to develop the our nuclear forces VERY hard - to prevent the possible agression of enemy that has at least 10 times popultion superiority.
Which is the way all nations, and the selfish leaders of all nations, think.
But not necessarily the way all people think.
Most people just want a good life with their families.
I’ve never met anyone who prefers war to peace, even including a few borderline psychotics in the army. And out of it.
If we could learn to share our resources for the common good, we wouldn’t have these problems.
Yeah, I know, it’s never going to happen.
But it’d be best for all of us if it did.
Well i do not think the liquid fuel is the so bad .
The ethanol or liquid metan is enough good fuel. Besides the scientist promised to creat enough cheap the Fuel-elements that produce the electric enegry fron a hydrogen or a spirit( kinda used on the Space Shuttle).
The other effective way to solve the transport problem is to use the new materials for the bodyes of the cars - for instance intead steel - the carbon and plastmass compaunds. In fact the modern average car weight is over 1 tonn- used for transporting of the 1-4 peoples i.e. no 50-300 kg. i.e. they effectivety of transportation just 5-20% . The rest spend for the wind ( i.e to the atmosphere).
If to create the car at least 500 kg from the new materials- you get the rise of effectivety in twice!!!
However the peoples prejudices toward those “little cars” - they want to drive a Jeeps and Minivens( especially this is lovely hadit of Americans)
So we have indeed a lot of technical ways to improve the effectiveness of using the fuel ( i.e. to decrease the consumption).
We need just to solve this problem insteal to tell about it.
That’s holy true…
However do you know the proverb : Want a peace - be ready for a war?
Besides as youmay be guess there a lot of nations who prefer to “share” the resource of their neigbours instead to let the own resources for to use
Why do people always have to bring America into these sorts of discussions?
Here’s a test.
Let’s say Russia and Australia are in dispute over Russia wanting more prime kangaroo meat with koala butter and us wanting more blonde Russian brides for ugly fat Aussie slobs who can afford better than the Filipino mail order brides they usually buy.
-
Would you rather resolve it by agreement or war?
-
Do you want to die over it?
-
Do either of us really care about our fat ministers for kangaroo meat and Russian bride export having a pissing contest that could send us to war?
If your answer to any question is no, or yes, that’s why we’re going to be fighting each other in a war we don’t believe in caused by our politicians who’ll send us to the death over any of the three questions.
Stupid, huh?
Mate i think to die for meat of kangaroo or brides is not the worstest think in the our life.
But usially we die for nothing …for personal wishes of our politicans, their lack of their sexual life and ets, and simply for thier personal wishes to demonstate thier power over us.
Usially the situations is much worsen - the our stopid politicans even could not explain WHY they send us to die.
How could they explain the war in Iraq or in Checnia for instance- is it for the meat of camels or for Taliban brides:D;)
That depends. Buffalo sits on the shore of the great lakes in the Northern US/Southern Canada and receives almost constant, abundant wind coming in off the lakes. I really don’t know enough about the topic and am a bit too busy to research it. But I think the turbines need not run 24-7 in order to be a net positive gain to the power grid.
Sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age at more or less a constant rate, they are not rising any faster now than they were early in the 20th century (in some places they were rising faster then), and some other places such as the Maldives has seen sea level drops of around a foot in the last 30 years (most likely due to ocean currents). I live below sealevel, so I should know. all these enormous estimates of sealevel rises are based on the flawed computer models mentioned above, and political exaggerations.
Yes, it’s crazy shipping prawns from Scotland around the world and back, no arguments. I’ll make no comment about workshy jocks though (thought I’d add that into rile firefly:D)
I’m not sure really where you’re getting your information from, but in fact the arctic ice sheets and numerous glaciers are melting. For instance - I think Canada has had serious problems with its polar bear population dying off, getting smaller in size, and generally becoming gradually more and more isolated. And it seems unlikely to me that the vast majority of scientists, absent the few hacks who take bribes from the oil and gas industry, would perpetuate a continuance of “flawed computer models”…
I do know where the money is, and I know who stands the most to gain/lose from research and gov’t action or inaction into global warming, and who are just people doing their jobs…
As indeed, there is no more real scientific debate as too whether the CO2 pumped into the atmosphere by human activity for the past 10,000 years, since the rise of organized agricultural societies, has had an effect on the environment. The only real debate is what we can do about it…
As far as i know the stientist still not sure that the CO2 punmed by human activity for the lates time have serious influence to the Global warming.
If you wach to the history of Eath - for the last 1 millions years there were at least several global cycles of Ice ages and Global warmings.
There are a great cyrcles that limits with the Global changing of Eath weather ( even with the ecological catastrophe like the death of all dinosaurs) and temperature and much more less periods ( about 10 000) with relatively soft Global cyrcle.
So as the science speaks - today we survive the JUST next stage of 10 000 Glabal Warming.
Ad the human activety has indeed a small influence at this process.
But none of the previous global changes directly correspond with with human behaviors in such a short time. Also, the cycles didn’t “change” on such short time frames. The Earth was warmer, then suddenly colder in Medieval times (vineyards were grown in England for a while which rivaled those of France), but there are theories accounting for this, such as the Dark Ages being preceded by either a volcanic on meteoric event that dramatically changed temperatures within months rather that decades or centuries.
The fact that 10,000 years is a “soft cycle” is what makes the temperature changes dramatic…
Again, no scientists with any credentials “debate” global warming. Only special interest groups and right wing American think tanks that have been shown to take money from he oil industry, and in some cases, literally reword oil company press releases and present them fraudulently as a “news articles,” “debate” this.
Nope, this is not the edge of science, it maybe was 10 years ago. Today we have far more CO2 in the atmosphere than in any of the preceding warmer periods. This much can be said with certainty after the analysis of approximatly 350.000 years worth of ice records from antarctica. The only thing they really argument about is the scope of the effect that this fact will have. And of course the climate was never as stable as one human thinks based on the experience in his lifetime. Humans have had an enormous effect on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, what we can’t know with absolute certainty is, how the increased concentration actually affects the warming. It certainly has an effect, but for my 2 cents the climate is such a complex issue, that I personally believe that none of our models comes anywhere close to the future reality. But before anyone jumps to wrong conclusions. I don’t think we should just sit back and relax. We have to do everything in our power to minimize our influence. What we do know is, that we had a “stable” situation for the last 3 billion years, stable meaning, that the climate changed within certain boundaries. Our influence might very well tip the whole pretty fragile thing over an edge of no return into a chaotic phase and then we’re screwed. So even if that is unlikely, the potential risk is so big, that the product of the two factors justifies the measures we are about to take and even much more.
Do you remember the 15-20 years ago the scientists frightened us the Ozon hole over Antarctida?They explain this as the resault of the humam activety: ejection of the Freon and Chlorine to the atmospher.
So what we could observe today? The Hole is dissapearing periodically, althought we know that the we still
use the danger gases in industry in the increasing scale.
Actually we do not use it on big scales anymore and stopped doing so in the 80ies, now look what happened.
WE stopped to use.
Howeve look for the Asia - they even do not wish to stop something.
So the total average output of Chlorine and freon ate least not decreased.
Sure the chinese (80% contributer of all developing countries) played “buhu we can’t afford to look for environmental issues, please pay us and we’ll try” like they always do, but they signed and ratified the montreal protocol. The output of flour-chlorines has dropped more than 95% since the early 1990’s, substitutes like H-FCKW (halogenized flourchlorines) are also to be banished until 2020 and they are not the ozonkiller type, they are just very potent greenhouse gases (2000 times as potent as CO2).
no oil=no more new plastic=no more plastic models
save our oil!
Also, global warming is bad.
What’s the price of gasoline today where you reside?
This morning I paid 1,60€/liter.
$1.34 Canadian today…I don’t know what that converts to, but the Canadian dollar is a about 2 cents less than American dollar…(although it was almost a dime above the greenback 6 mths ago, thanks to the the unfortunate inflation hitting the U.S. economy. What I don’t get is why we didn’t capitilize on the Iraqi oil reserves since Sadam regime collapsed.In desperate times there calls for desperate measures.Open the Alsakan tundra for oil exploration and give bigger and better incentives to the auto manufacturing industry to explore better alternatives faster, cause I can’t take much more of paying double the value of gas today from last year
Figures from EXXON execs tell the tale of the price increases…
World oil production per year = 86,000,000 barrels.
World Demand per year = 87,000,000 barrels.
The million barrel shortfall is not being closed. Demand from China and India are combining to drive the basic cost through the roof…
Get set for oil at $250.00 per barrel by the end of next year…
By the year 2015, it could be as high as $500.00 per barrel…
What this sudden modernization of China and India means for us all is that GLOBAL ECONOMICS has arrived…and it’s here to stay.
You all wanted EQUALITY of opportunity. This is the price we all have to pay because the Second World wants to improve the lives of 1 in 6.5 of us at the very least…Market forces will now determine the basic oil consumption, and therefore, exactly what you will pay.
My advice is to walk more, and only use your car when absolutely necessary. Rural people could well benefit from going back to the horse and buggy.
We have oil reserves for about 42 years left at current rates of consumption. New fields will open up, but with increasing demand, oil will not last more than another 100 years.
Damn the Global Village…
Oil will probably never be 500$ per barrel, since it will no longer be traded on an open market by that time, but by bilateral agreements and allocated by a rationing system to the most critical consumers such as farmers etc…
Btw. the world consumes 86 million barrels per day, that’s all liquids, the actual oil production is ~74 million barrels and the light sweet crude/heavy sour crude fraction and the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) are already plummeting. This 42 years is a highly theoretical number, the shit will hit the fan long before that. There is an interesting analogy which pretty much explains the problem. Oil is to the economy what water is to the human body. If you dehydrate just a few percent you’ll die, so does the economy if the daily oil supply drops those few percent, which it will and it will never recover, but continue to drop and drop and drop. The great depression will look like a kindergarten compared to that crisis.
We live in interesting times, unfortunatly.