News   Oct 02, 2024
News Roundup for October 2, 2024
 163     0 
News   Oct 02, 2024
Pieces of the Puzzle
 473     0 
News   Oct 01, 2024
Amexon Partners With Luxury Italian Designer for Missoni Sky on Jarvis
 1.8K     2 

Only the begining (Scientists muzzled)

Are you kidding? New supplies of oil have been discovered at a far slower rate than existing supplies are being depleted. Couple that (decreasing reserves) with demand that grows at 3 - 5% per year, and that is a recipe for continually increasing petroleum prices.

A carbon tax is possible at the federal level. A carbon tax would do a great deal in curbing GHG emissions....

We are some of the greatest consumers of energy in the world, per capita. When oil really starts to become expensive, we will fall the hardest.
 
That's akin to saying that unless everyone else doesn't litter, whether one litters or not doesn't make a difference to the environment, and thus justifies littering as a personal course of action.
Click to expand...

The difference is not littering doesn't cost very much and doesn't have the potential to harm the economy. Again, you can argue whether Canada should participate in Kyoto or not, but I think it's fair to say the impact would be negligible.
 
Higher petroleum prices will drive more research on alternatives, but there is no guarantee that oil prices will remain at this level over the long run.
Click to expand...

This is a common, but not totally accurate, contemporary belief. There have been worries over oil supply for over thirty years, but with no alternative energy source that can replace oil developed over that time.

Producs such as petroleum and natural gas were not originally pursued as energy sources for heating, electricity production or transportation. The early refining of oil was originally carried out in order to produce naptha for home lighting (whale oil was becoming scarce due to over-hunting). Heavier materials produced in the refining process were originally dumped (including bi-products similar to gasoline), and natural gas was released into the atmosphere, as there was no use for these things.
 
IMO, when oil reserves are gone, we'll find something else to utilize, or change our way of doing things. Perhaps we'll need to build hundreds of nuclear reactors to power electric trains, cars, ships, etc... There's a good article in National Geographic this month about how countries are again pushing reactor construction, including the USA and France, plus the usual China, India.
 
Nuclear power isn't renewable, either. I think we have an estimated 70 or 80 year reserve of uranium at the current rate of consumption. Of course that becomes much shorter if consumption increases drastically.

Abeja, you seem to have the misconception that we will flat run out of oil. This will never happen. Oil will become impractically expensive before we run out. Not to say we won't still have pharmaceuticals and such made out of petroleum, but we will stop wasting it by simply burning it.
 
To say that when oil is gone, "we'll find somemething else to utilize" does not work so well. With the end of oil, and nothing in its place, our society would be up a certain creek without a paddle. Alternatives have to be found while oil is still available, not after it is gone.

In the meantime, oil will be used up graudually, prices will continue to increase slowly and conflicts will eventually emerge over the increasing scarecity of this resource. The time frame over which this happens is open to debate, but something like this will happen (and already is).

I am neither a pessimist or an optimist when it comes to the idea of finding a replacement to oil. Because there is no agreement when oil will run out, there is not a huge amount of pressure to seek out more useful alternatives. For the time being, it is price and not scarecity that is motivating much of the talk about replacing oil.
 
The big thing that needs to be kept in mind when talking about the end of oil is that we're not simply talking about finding a new technology, but a new source of energy. As so far, the alternatives to oil in industrial processes that have been touted, such as hydrogen, are simply ways of storing energy, not sources of energy themselves. There is a strong argument out there that we won't be able to find an alternative to oil, and ultimately our lifestyles is what will have to change. A paradigm shift as big as the industrial revolution.

Remember, there are only three root sources of energy on earth: the sun, geothermal, and nuclear.
 
The world's economies and societies successfully functioned for thousands of years before oil. In the history of mankind, the blip in widespread oil use from the early 20th to the late 21st centuries will seen as a 200 year timeframe, before and after which, dependence on other means of energy were utilized.

Do not underestimate the inventiveness and adaptability of humanity. I imagine when my Great-Grandchildren look around in 2206 that our world today would appear like ancient history.
 
The economies and societies that existed a thousand years ago in no way resemble our society or economy, neither in scale nor in scope.

In Western economies, oil replaced coal as a cheap and easy source of energy for industry. Coal was gradually adopted after available sources of wood for burning became increasingly difficult to access. Coal was very useful due to its superior burning capacity as compared to wood.

The switch to oil looks like a natural transition because we look back in time and see it that way. There was no guarantee in 1850 that oil would ever be useful, or so central to economic activity.

While I applaud your optimism, there is simply no way to predict how future generations will view, or even if there will be future generations. But I would agree with cdl42 when he points out:

Remember, there are only three root sources of energy on earth: the sun, geothermal, and nuclear.
Click to expand...

These will probably still be major sources of energy way down the road.
 
I imagine when my Great-Grandchildren look around in 2206 that our world today would appear like ancient history.
Click to expand...

Not planning to have kids until you're one-hundred-forty?
 
Ottawa seeks closer watch on top general
Outspoken Chief of the Defence Staff is asked to clear remarks with minister
MICHAEL DEN TANDT

OTTAWA -- Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier has been asked to submit advance copies of his public speeches for vetting by the Harper government, a move critics say shows mistrust of the country's blunt-spoken senior general.

"That is highly inappropriate," Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said yesterday. "[General Hillier] is not a member of the cabinet. His role is to be a strong voice for our military and in that sense he's independent, so he can speak about the needs of the military."

Defence Department sources confirmed yesterday that Gen. Hillier, a voluble and at times controversial speaker, was asked to run his public remarks by the Minister of Defence before delivering them -- a practice that did not occur under the Martin government.

"There's a lot of information that we're providing a lot further in advance, or trying to," a senior DND source said.

The source said requests for greater central oversight are typical in transition periods, and have occurred in every change of government dating back to the Mulroney years.

"Where I saw it the most was in 1984," the source said. ". . . Where you have a group of people who haven't had their hands on the levers of government before, and it takes a while."

The source played down the importance of the practice. "People are just trying to get used to the flow and the pattern and the rhythm and the content," the source said.

Others in Ottawa were less sanguine.

"I think they should have more confidence in their Chief of Defence Staff," said Senator Colin Kenny, the former head of the Senate defence committee and an outspoken critic of the previous Liberal government's military policies. "By the time you get to be a general or a flag officer, you've developed a fair bit of competence. The system clearly has trust in you and confidence in your ability."

Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's senior spokeswoman, referred questions to the PMO media line in Ottawa. A call to communications director Sandra Buckler was not returned.

Opposition reaction was ferocious, signalling that the Harper regime's at times autocratic style is wearing thin in the House of Commons.

Mr. Dosanjh, and the defence critics of the Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party -- Claude Bachand and Dawn Black -- said the policy makes a mockery of Mr. Harper's promises of greater openness in government.

"I think it's kind of a dictatorship going on," Mr. Bachand said. "I think that is not what Quebeckers expected from Prime Minister Harper. And I think it's bad for democracy. You have to keep a certain distance, especially in national defence . . . this guy is nominated by cabinet. If he becomes a puppet for the Prime Minister . . . this is not looking good."

Mr. Harper has made it clear that he mistrusts the senior bureaucracy and Parliament itself, Mr. Bachand said. "He didn't permit a vote in the House for the deployment in Afghanistan. He would have won the vote, so it's only stubbornness."

Ms. Black said the vetting of Gen. Hillier's remarks is of a piece with earlier restrictions on cabinet ministers and MPs.

She added that it also raises questions about the relationship between Gen. Hillier and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor. "Clearly, there are some tensions between the minister and the Chief of Defence Staff," she said.

Mr. Dosanjh pointed out that, in his recent speeches, Gen. Hillier has said that tactical, short-haul aircraft to replace the military's ancient C-130 Hercules transports are his priority.

Mr. O'Connor, by contrast, has said frequently that strategic or long-haul lift must come first. The Tories have also promised three new icebreakers for the Arctic.

According to a source familiar with the situation, Gen. Hillier and Mr. O'Connor have discussed procurement, but nothing has been resolved.

"They are polite to each other, they are very courteous, but they don't like each other," the source said. "They have completely different visions of the Forces."

McGill University historian Desmond Morton, an expert on Canadian military history, said that until relatively recently, prime ministers have always kept their defence chiefs on a tight leash.

"Certainly you were supposed to go upstairs and check it with the minister," he said.

Gen. Hillier became the exception to that rule, Prof. Morton said. "His predecessors were noted for their caution, their careerism and their absolute refusal to stick their necks out on anything. . . . Hillier was the bluff [Newfoundlander] who was going to set a difference. And he did, for a while."
 
I have to admit that is interesting to see how controlled the Conservatives are over communications. As I posted elsewhere, avenues of communication to the public regarding general government services are under heavy pressure to start including political messaging. Some, like the Canada site have already been taken over.

This is not an issue of policy directives, but a top-down attempt to infiltrate the general work of the government with political messaging.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top