|
|
On Tuesday 11th October 2005 I went to a sold out conference in London entitled "The End of Oil". The delegates were generally very knowledgeable people with (ironically) diverse backgrounds. The attendees included politicians, economists, dyed in the wool greenies, ngo officials & energy techies. The conference was united, however, in its common wish for sustainable future days & whilst the exact timing of 'peak oil' is still the subject of conjecture, little time was wasted on discussing 'if' - it was acknowledged by all that it is a question of 'when' and that the 'when' is imminent. A separate 'peak oil' muse can be found on this site if you need more information about this inevitable global event Peak Oil is a highly charged subject and I'm sure that governments and big business would like to close their eyes and wish the issue away. It doesn't fit in with any of their economic models. Why? Because they are all based on growth. The trouble is that the peak oil argument won't just go away ~ it is more than just a political or economic argument, it is also a physical argument ~ physical geography that is, or nature as we like to call it and nature has limiting factors. Up to now, modern economics has required that when something is desired, it is made available. The raw materials and energy needed to manufacture, market, package & transport these desired goods form an integral and necessary part of this transaction. Market forces then come into play with supply and demand affecting the price. Therefore more demand increases the price which can: 1. make it more attractive to provide more supplies which in turn keeps the price down 2. encourage innovation of supply and diversity (choice) This creates an illusion of stability with growth necessary for investment. Peak Oil, when it comes, will shatter this illusion. The supply of oil will simply not be able to keep up with the demand. The price will therefore increase which should reduce demand and / or encourage innovation and diversity of supply. The problem is that the current economic models upon which we base our lives require that a supply of energy is always available to satisfy demand at rates that allow steady growth to continue. This simply will not hold when 'peak oil' comes unless we do something about the demand side of the equation. When peak oil comes; these economic models will cease to work correctly. Perhaps it will only be then that we realise just how much of our lives are based on hydrocarbon energy sources. Our dependence is in every aspect of our lives ~ transport, food, heating, healthcare, manufacturing etc, etc. Peak Oil has exposed the ridiculous paradigm of modern economics for what it is which is this We are rapidly coming to a point where the fundamentals of supply and demand can no longer hold because of the following two statements: 1. Growth, by definition, has to tend towards infinity. 2. The resources that supply our way of life come from a finite planet. Economics has no end game formula for this (it assumes that we can keep going in perpetuity!) but the answer is really simple ~ if growth does not stop, then the resources of the earth will reach a limiting point where growth is made to stop. At some time in our common future, bar some extra terrestrial involvement, this is an inevitable fact " it will happen. It may happen to us, our children, our children's children or even further down the line " but it will happen. There is no logical argument that can refute this. A further logical extension of these facts, therefore, is that we are on the wrong course NOW! We must change direction now! If the conclusion is forced upon us it will be far more of a violent jolt than if we plan for and achieve a soft landing. The growth potential seemed limitless and, to many, without penalty in the heady days of the 1950's and 60's. Since then, in real terms, the global output of goods has grown from $5 trillion in 1950 to $29 trillion" Thom 2000. This is a staggering amount of growth and newly created money. These increases just cannot be sustained for much longer. There are 'no growth' systems that could be adopted, like contraction and convergence (do an internet search if you want to find out what it means!) but we need to show a willingness to embrace these systems before any new world order could be truly effective. The alternative is to live life to the inevitable conclusions reached earlier in this piece. One of these is an 'eyes wide open' sustainable future " the other is a blind oblivion that may be just around the corner or 100 years away. "If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading" Lao Tzu Richard Sabin Green Light Construction October 2005
Along with the usual subjects ~ communication masts, housing developments on sports fields and the closure of local schools ~ the relentless march of wind farms was also given as an issue that threatens our way of life.
Only Parties that have become Parties to the Protocol (i.e. by ratifying, accepting, approving, or acceding to it) will be bound by the Protocol's commitments. The individual targets for Parties add up to a total cut in greenhouse-gas emissions of at least 5% from 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008-2012. Remember, George W Bush couldn't sign up to Kyoto because he said it would wreck the American economy! By signing up to a Kyoto greenden from greenlight, you will be making a sustainable choice and if you are currently a commuter you will dramatically reduce your emissions!
The treaty was originally signed in 1987 and substantially amended in 1990 and 1992. The Montreal Protocol stipulates that the production and consumption of compounds that deplete ozone in the stratosphere--chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform--are to be phased out by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform). Scientific theory and evidence suggest that, once emitted to the atmosphere, these compounds could significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer that shields the planet from damaging UV-B radiation The ozone hole at it's maximum extent for 2001. The image was recorded on September 17 2001. Image courtesy NASA Earth Observatory.
There are many definitions of sustainability and sustainable development. The most widely recognised first came to prominence in 1987 when the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission) produced a report for the United Nations called 'Our Common Future'. Its definition of sustainable development
|
 |