1. Peak oil is here right now or very soon
2. We may already have passed a climate tipping point

If #2 is right then we will need more than just going back to wearing hair shirts and eating lentils. We are going to need a manhatten project on international scales. That will require a lot of energy.

So unfortunately we may have to run harder to jump the chasm instead of slowing down and falling in.

As the saying goes: “He who rides the tiger cannot get off”

We’ve got to start working NOW to safeguard the lifestyles of the infinite generations that will follow ours. We need ONE grassroots society to promote both transition towns and the study and construction of the aforementioned global solutions – why not put Britain in the lead in this crucial movement once again!?

Let’s get this up and running NOW!!!

Thank you for your consideration

Kim Gyr

Re impact – I can’t see it. Coal will let us warm our homes and provide most of our energy needs while screwing up the planet for decades to come.

Maybe, but have you seen the latest report from the Energy Watch group? It suggests that peak coal is a lot closer than many assume. But peak oil is not about heating homes, it’s primarily (though not exclusively) about transport fuel. Coal will not substitute for the quantities required and, if it did, would peak within years.

Peak oil will have a much greater impact than most imagine including, it seems, you and George.

Issuepedia hasn’t taken off yet, but I like the concept. Appropedia is taking off, so information placed here will be seen by a lot of people.

But let’s not debate it here – it’s distracting us from what we should be doing (and I’m directing that at myself as much as anyone). I’d really encourage people to add info and reliable sources – re implications of peak oil as well as scientific consensus – to the Wikipedia article on peak oil. Far more people will see that will see this page, and the structured nature of the info makes it easier to follow for someone looking for info. The other advantage is that it’s scrutinized by people with different perspectives on the debate, which is healthy and makes it more believable in the eyes of a doubter, compared to the site of an advocate of one POV.

I’m not sure you’ve quite grasped it, Chris. Devastating means a starting point of the Great Depression, only getting worse and with no end in sight. It won’t be a case of getting over it and settling to a new prosperous energy efficient society, it will need a completely new society. If we do it in an orderly fashion, it might turn out OK, but very different. If we do it as a kicking and screaming reaction, then you have no reason to be complacent about it, because it ain’t gonna be pretty.

“Where’s a source? Repeating a claim doesn’t make it true.”

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Look for “peak oil”. There are plenty of reports of scientists and oil analysts stating likely dates for peak production, with many suggesting it has happened or will happen within a few years. Colin Campbell is still touting 2010, Jean Laherrere is going with a couple of years later. Kenneth Deffeyes cites May 2005 as the peak production (backed up by EIA figures). Matthew Simmons also says peak is now, as does T Boone Pickens and Ali Samson Bakhtiari. The optimists, CERA (with Daniel Yergin) goes for 2030, or therabouts (though they have been badly wrong with their predicted discoveries so far). Oh, yes, there is plenty of consensus, if one regards 25 years as a very short time to come up with alternatives, if there are any (which is by no means a given). As for a consensus on whether oil production will peak at all, I think you’ll be hard pressed to find many who give that serious consideration.

This is why Monbiot is very wrong. There is certainly no reason to assume that the 40 year decline in discoveries will be reversed enough to push peak out to a time frame where climate change will be a serious problem well before peak oil.

That’s the whole point of the leader being able to listen; someone will identify his errors.

Or if he’s just wrong. Both are fundamental problems of autocracy – they don’t always happen, but by the nature of the system, they generally do. (Fair assumption that it’s a he.)

“An outsider to the UK would speak to people on the street and come away with the impression that the government fleeces them at every opportunity.”

But they wouldn’t freeze in fear at a knock on the door, in case it was the secret police. I know what you mean about CIA interference. I don’t find it an adequate excuse for autocracy and repression, but I’m not getting into that here.

“By the way, I didn’t mean that Cuba isn’t autocratic; it clearly is. I meant that it isn’t centralised.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Economy says:

The Cuban Government adheres to socialist principles in organizing its largely state-controlled planned economy. Most of the means of production are owned and run by the government and most of the labor force is employed by the state. Recent years have seen a trend towards more private sector employment. By the year 2006, public sector employment was 78% and the private sector at 22% compared to the 1981 ratio of 91.8% to 8.2%.[48] Capital investment is restricted and requires approval by the government. The Cuban government sets most prices and rations goods to citizens.

I imagine that a lot of business (selling of food) goes on at the lowest levels of the economy, but it still sounds quite centralized.

Their government “democracy” caused them to spend too many years not getting involved in WW2 in the first place, despite Churchill’s badgering. Democracy yields indecision.

Their military “democracy” meant that thousands of their troops died at the beaches of Normandy because subordinates failed to follow orders to bring the ships close to shore (the amphibious craft were deployed too far out to sea and didn’t make it to shore).

When the USA touts “democracy”, what they’re really saying is they want everyone to buy into their system of commerce, that always puts them at an advantage. Take a look at the WTO. Or the Petrodollar. Or Sterling convertability.

Autocracy fails when the leader lets the power go to his head and stops listening. This happened to Hitler during WW2, he stopped delegating responsibility to his immediate subordinates; making every decision go through him, slowing down their ability to adapt (e.g. generals had to ask for his permission to respond to the D-Day landings).

It is true that Castro initially ignored the permaculturists, but as soon as it became obvious to him their methods were needed, he called them in, and rapidly deployed their solutions. Castro has to hold a tight reign on his society because of the degrees of interference from the CIA over the years.

An outsider to the UK would speak to people on the street and come away with the impression that the government fleeces them at every opportunity.

Now why is it that the work shown by the “community solution” documentary never finds its way onto mainstream TV?

I would suggest you point out that diminishing availability of energy will make Climate Change mitigation a lot harder than people think it will be. In other words, CC mitigation should utilise the absolute minimum amount of technology.

TV programmes such as “Superstorms” that immerse themselved in the technofix are completely unrealistic when viewed through “PO+CC” tinted spec’s.

“Remember that autocratic regimes are better at responding to emergencies. That’s why the Armed Forces are run in that way.”

Sometimes, and to some extent. JK Galbraith concluded, in his study of the German war economy made immediately after WW2, that the American democracy was more efficient, because bad decisions were challenged, instead of being implemented out of authority and fear.