Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oil is at a 12-year low

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Malthuseans were proven incorrect - the problem with them is that they only focused on the feeding and material well-being of the human population of the planet.

    The Malthuseans had a far too narrow of a focus. Sure, there's enough food grown on Earth to feed 7 billion people. If only 10% of food went to waste, and half as much meat was eaten - perhaps 15 billion. Pure veganism (I adhere to none of the veg- practices) would push the limits of population with current technology to perhaps 20 billion.

    However, we have been destroying and are continuing to destroy our planet in the process. As somebody from New Zealand, surely you cannot believe that the extinctions that occurred with and since the arrival of the Maori, and the even greater extinctions that occurred with and since the arrival of the British - are the result of solar fluctuations and orbital oscillations? The fact that all but the fringes of Europe are a human-engineered landscape with most species now extinct? Is that solar fluctuation and orbital oscillation at work?

    7 billion people can live on Earth, perhaps even 15 billion. Maybe 20 or 30 billion. But not by consuming every last drop of oil under the ground, by consuming more and more and paving everything we can, and consuming all that we can. The good Earth can provide, but it cannot provide for 7 billion living the current Western lifestyle, with Western levels of consumption and waste, with Western levels of pollution and beyond.

    Not with toxified rivers completely dead of all life in China, and formerly in the US when entire rivers lit aflame from tires, solvents, chemicals, and oil thrown in. Not with rivers in India that are canyons filled with sewage, garbage, and dead animal and human bodies. Where the rivers have been drunk dry and all that is left is sewage gurgling through a landfill canyon that is a few hundred miles long.

    Energy poverty led the world from charcoal to coal. All the forests gone in Europe - they were put into piles and smoldered to manufacture charcoal. When that ran out, the world switched to coal. Then from coal to oil.

    Hanging onto oil and the current energy infrastructure makes as much sense as a charcoal lobbyist in 1700s England trying to get legislation passed to shut down coal mines, ban railroads, and steam locomotion. Advocating against renewable energy and moving past oil is the same exact shit, just a different century.

    You're a denialist - the world will move on despite the best efforts of the denialists. When that day will arrive is a matter of debate, as none of us can read the future with precision. None of us are Nostradamus. Oil, except for niche uses, and those desperately trying to hang onto what will become an obsolete technology, will be consigned to the dustbin of history.

    I'm a minimalist and a post-materialist, and never has my life been richer and more vibrant since the day I shook loose of the past and embraced the future. I teach friends my ways - some of them adopt them in part. I've converted 20 people so far completely to LED lighting out of my own pocket. They weren't initially convinced - but now they are spreading the word themselves. I've introduced people to bicycling sharing programs, and Uber and Lyft. I've encouraged people to opt for condominiums rather than suburban houses.

    I am discussing hard facts. My gut tells me to act on hard facts. So I do. There is almost nobody of any renown or intellect saying the same thing you are - as far as I'm concerned, climate change denialism is fake news and a fraud.

    We have no common ground on this subject, obviously. I'll live the way I choose to live, and you are, of course, are free to live the way you choose to live. I'll keep doing what I'm doing, and reach out to several people a year for as long as I live to bring them around to a more correct way of doing things, and they in turn, perhaps, will do the same in turn with others.

    I practice what I preach, and put my money where my mouth is. How about this - every time I see you post denialism - I'll network through friends to convert an entire home, apartment, or condo to LED lighting out of mine own pocket. Or I'll re-imburse somebody for a yearly subscription for a bicycle sharing program. I'll do this as someone might read your posts and get the wrong ideas - that CO2 is good and we should be pumping more and more of it. For every action, there needs to be a reaction. ;-) You're obviously free to go about buying people Chevy Suburbans and $500,000 houses in the suburbs. I hope you can keep up. Over 80% of my income is disposable. :-)
    Last edited by Ironduke; 03 May 17,, 10:15.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      The Malthuseans were proven incorrect - the problem with them is that they only focused on the feeding and material well-being of the human population of the planet.

      The Malthuseans had a far too narrow of a focus. Sure, there's enough food grown on Earth to feed 7 billion people. If only 10% of food went to waste, and half as much meat was eaten - perhaps 15 billion. Pure veganism (I adhere to none of the veg- practices) would push the limits of population with current technology to perhaps 20 billion.
      the UN projects between 9 and 11 billion at stasis circa 2100, depending on which department is talking.
      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      However, we have been destroying and are continuing to destroy our planet in the process. As somebody from New Zealand, surely you cannot believe that the extinctions that occurred with and since the arrival of the Maori, and the even greater extinctions that occurred with and since the arrival of the British - are the result of solar fluctuations and orbital oscillations?
      No I do not and nor can I be bothered being preached at with idiot strawmen.
      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      The fact that all but the fringes of Europe are a human-engineered landscape with most species now extinct?
      The human race lives on roughly .6% of the earths landmass, (urban, suburban) and agriculture accounts for another 10%
      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      Is that solar fluctuation and orbital oscillation at work?
      See above about strawmen.
      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      7 billion people can live on Earth, perhaps even 15 billion. Maybe 20 or 30 billion.
      See above
      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      But not by consuming every last drop of oil under the ground, by consuming more and more and paving everything we can, and consuming all that we can. The good Earth can provide, but it cannot provide for 7 billion living the current Western lifestyle, with Western levels of consumption and waste, with Western levels of pollution and beyond.

      Not with toxified rivers completely dead of all life in China, and formerly in the US when entire rivers lit aflame from tires, solvents, chemicals, and oil thrown in. Not with rivers in India that are canyons filled with sewage, garbage, and dead animal and human bodies. Where the rivers have been drunk dry and all that is left is sewage gurgling through a landfill canyon that is a few hundred miles long.
      Polution is not global warming. You are aware of this yes?
      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      Energy poverty led the world from charcoal to coal. All the forests gone in Europe - they were put into piles and smoldered to manufacture charcoal. When that ran out, the world switched to coal. Then from coal to oil.
      Cheap energy is the entire reason we can prolong peoples lives, provide them with clean potable water and feed them properly. The move from charcoal to coal was easily achievable. The move to post-oil energy is far more difficult as no suitable alternative is readily available. Solar and wind are vanities for the moment but I'll be delighted when they can replace oil. In the meantime I'd prefer people to live healthy well fed lives rather than the drastic restrictions you'd put in place, especially as it will be the poor, that is the worlds poor, that bear the brunt of your aims.
      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      Hanging onto oil and the current energy infrastructure makes as much sense as a charcoal lobbyist in 1700s England trying to get legislation passed to shut down coal mines, ban railroads, and steam locomotion. Advocating against renewable energy and moving past oil is the same exact shit, just a different century.
      You have no viable replacement, which is precisely WHY you have to enforce energy poverty by raising taxes.
      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      You're a denialist -
      And you're a religious cultist, neither of which is pertinent to the argument. Try again.

      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      I'm a minimalist and a post-materialist, and never has my life been richer and more vibrant since the day I shook loose of the past and embraced the future.
      Nope, as someone living in a city you consume huge amounts of energy to keep the infrastructure of that city going, regardless if you live only by candlelight and only eat three peas a day. You're energy consumption, as a dweller in a major American city would be twice mine, as default. And LED bulbs? Really? NZ has 80% renewables energy consumption. America has 12%

      Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      I am discussing hard facts. My gut tells me to act on hard facts. So I do. There is almost nobody of any renown or intellect saying the same thing you are - as far as I'm concerned, climate change denialism is fake news and a fraud.
      Find a paper, post a fact, rather than preaching some political pap.
      Last edited by Parihaka; 03 May 17,, 11:06.
      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

      Leibniz

      Comment


      • in the material world, seek utility
        I'm living the very embodiment of the second half of your signature quote by Gottfried Leibniz.

        This is what I do. I only own things that provide me utility. I have a toolbag with the least number of maximally useful tools I use to do IT work with. Otherwise, I sleep uncomfortably and live uncomfortably. When I don't have IT work - I sell beer in stadiums, climbing hundreds of thousands of stairs a year. Not comfortable at all, but it keeps my relatively fit.

        Yes, I have a roof over my head, but I prefer 80% disposable income. I use my excess income to help family and friends in major ways. I'm quite Spartan in my outlook and cannot stand unnecessary luxury or comfort - the idea does not sit well with me - personally, I see it as a sign of weakness and softness. I may or may not be right about that - perhaps it is not a sign of weakness or softness - perhaps everyone is entitled to comfort and luxury if they have the income for it - it's just how I choose to live.

        Personally, I can understand people with children and wives seeking out more material possessions and comfort than I do. I can understand when a friend of mine buys a Jeep Cherokee for its child safety rating. I get it. Up to a point. Most people in my nation cross the threshold, however. A slippery slope of more and more for the sake of more and more - for reasons of social status rather than material well-being.

        There were more people living in the 1950s American Dream house with half the square footage, than the 1990s-2000s American Dream house, which houses less people.

        People are no longer primarily consuming based on need. They are consuming primarily to gain social status - that is beginning to change with the "New Economy".

        I do what I can with a portion of my disposable income to put a thumb on the scale in a small way - after all - charity begins at home. I don't pressure or railroad people into it - I try to use the soft sell. What I'm doing is quite charitable - in keeping with the best of American traditions regarding charity.

        If I were living in 1700 - I would be singing the praises of coal, and advocating, by law, the preservation of the forests of England for the sake of the maintenance, repair, and building of the Royal Navy. As occurred historically.

        No I do not and nor can I be bothered being preached at with idiot strawmen.
        I had addressed extinction several times before - you replied with one-liners, while completely holding back from expounding your diametrically opposed beliefs, and let it go unanswered. When I finally asked you to expound your views based on my previous posts - it turns out everything you bothered to address was diametrically opposed to my viewpoint. It is not hard to say - "I disagree with you on this, but you have a point on that" - you don't lose a debate because somebody you are mostly disagreeing with on a certain subject - you happen to agree with them on one small thing.

        So, you agree then, humans caused the extinction of the vast majority of the species that have gone extinct in New Zealand - I'm glad we're on the same page.

        Nope, as someone living in a city you consume huge amounts of energy to keep the infrastructure of that city going, regardless if you live only by candlelight and only eat three peas a day. You're energy consumption, as a dweller in a major American city would be twice mine, as default. And LED bulbs? Really? NZ has 80% renewables energy consumption. America has 12%
        Higher density = lower per capita energy consumption. The suburbs consume far, far more per energy capita than a city dweller living in dense development. The ecological footprint of a suburban house is far, far greater. My ecological footprint is perhaps 10% of the per-capita suburban dweller.

        From the EPA. Still up on the EPA website, so it must have passed the Trump test:
        https://www.epa.gov/sites/production...ciency_btu.pdf

        And you're a religious nutcase, neither of which is pertinent to the argument. Try again.
        I'm an atheist. I'm also a libertarian. Probably what would be considered a left-libertarian nowadays. With regards to religion, I fully respect people's choice to follow the dictates of their conscience, so long as they do not impose their will upon other people. I actually see many of the prophets of existing religions as the men of their time and place - I simply don't believe anything they said is relevant anymore.

        I'm not one to impose my will upon you - I'm not like Bill Maher or Richard Dawkins, but if you wish to consume vast amounts of energy and material goods - that's up to you. I'm not going to get in your way.

        The human race lives on roughly .6% of the earths landmass, (urban, suburban) and agriculture accounts for another 10%
        One cannot farm Greenland, Antarctica, the deserts except under very limited circumstances with mass irrigation, nor can the mountains be farmed to any extent. According to the FAO, 36% of the land that can be farmed, is farmed:
        http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4252e/y4252e06.htm

        Polution is not global warming. You are aware of this yes?
        I agree - a river contaminated with lead, mercury, or is a 500-mile canyon choked with sewage, corpses, and landfill is not global warming. A river devoid of all life is not global warming. A river that catches fire due to being choked with tires, oil, solvents, and chemical waste is not global warming. It is merely another symptom of our failures, in addition to global warming.

        Find a paper, post a fact, rather than preaching some political pap.
        I don't really see the point - everybody you disagree with is going to be portrayed as a political pap. Sometimes people who are correct reach out to policymakers - and barely making an impact as there is little money backing their truths. A scientist, geologist, or physicist seeking to be heard out by the government - he has the right to as he is one of the people as well. It does not make them political hacks. The denialists also reach out to policymakers, with vast amounts of lobbyist dollars, campaign contributions, and astroturfing.

        Really? NZ has 80% renewables energy consumption. America has 12%
        It makes me glad to hear this. Since you have firsthand experience on the renewable sector and its benefits - perhaps you can offer some advice for the Americans on this forum to increase that percentage beyond 12% - perhaps up to 80% just like New Zealand. Teach a man to fish, as they say. Come to the US and make yourself a millionaire with the lessons you've learned from NZ renewables as a consultant, if you care to. I do what I can, but perhaps you can do more.
        Last edited by Ironduke; 03 May 17,, 11:37.
        "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
          If I run into a wall of denialism and am merely in a circle where I'm re-iterating previous points ad infinitum - with a one-liner outright denying everything I have said, holding all I say to be false - there are better uses of my time. I'm a truly busy man and don't have time for circular arguments. As they say in American football - there has to be forward progress. I don't play small ball with endless turnovers, only to end the game in a 0-0 tie. That being said - in intellectual debate - there only way to be the loser is to choose to be - intellectual debate can very well be a game with two winners.

          Imagine Vidal and Buckley debating, before they started calling one another a homo and a fascist, respectively.

          If someone were to say - "I agree with you here, here, and here, but I have a difference of opinion, and believe there is evidence to support my point on this matter I disagree on you with, here is what I have to say" - then that's where the debate re-starts. I've offered arguments based on hard science facts that have been proven from the climatological and geological records - proven by hard science - and followed up on them with theories and inferences - which is the foundation of the scientific theory itself.

          Not being a geologist, archaeologist, physicist, or even a scientist myself - I acknowledge the intellectual contributions and superior wisdom and ability of those who are renowned in their fields who have put forward their own discoveries, knowledge, and ideas - and added a few of my own. Cross-fertilization of ideas from people in other fields is also vital to science and discovery. That being said, I'm also not a researcher, fellow, or ivory tower guy.

          Neil deGrasse Tyson is not an archaeologist or geologist - he surely has the intellectual capability to be these things, but he chose to specialize in physics, but in the new Cosmos and his writings - he acknowledges the intellects and contributions of those who studied and specialized in these fields, then leverages his own celebrity and appeal, to spread facts and knowledge discovered by people who are not Neil deGrasse Tyson to a mass audience.

          I would go as far to say - the sign of a true intellectual is the person who recognizes and defers to those who are their superior, whether in their own field or in other fields, and goes on to layer their own contributions on top of pre-existing discoveries, theories, facts, and knowledge, and also propagate these things to people in their own field who would be otherwise unaware of them.

          They may have unproveable theories - at least at first - but they then either go out and discover whether their theories are factual - or at the very least, encourage or create an environment conducive to others doing so through their own efforts, or a combination of efforts.

          I'll withhold my ideas and debate for another topic if all I see is one-liners in response to what I wrote. Not a big deal - I'll also keep an eye out for substantive and well-thought out replies on this subject matter as well.

          Dok - if you've got substance to add - don't hold back. This is the ideal I co-founded WAB in July 2003 with - no one-liners (except perhaps to lighten the mood if things get too serious), rather - I looked forward to intellectual debate with breadth, depth, intelligence, and wisdom. Mocking people and making light is a great way to cut them back down to size if their ego gets out of control - deeply intellectual comedians who have chosen comedy as their intellectual prism do this all the time - but they also come forward with substantive arguments incorporating comedy, to make it appealing to a broad audience who appreciates both humor and intellect rolled into one.

          It seems thus far from what I've seen - is that you're holding back on us. ;-)
          It is not denialism, it's curiosity. Yes, I question everything, especially when it goes against the accepted norm and I am sorry for seeming arrogant, I was not. I am open to learn new things. But if they are new, they can't hop out of nowhere, they must beat the belief d'jeur, right?

          What is it that we were thought about the climate, the vegetation and the humans there?

          I still can't link the massive agriculture efforts (paraphrase) to floods that occurred milion of years before first human ever put a step. Humans (yes, Neanderthals) live there for ~90 K years. How they picked the place and stayed if it wasn't workable in the first place? Tools came much later.

          From what I know the whole area went dry after heavy floods for a prolonged period, that washed away virtually everything but the limestone. So, how is it human made was my initial question.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • Cheap energy is the entire reason we can prolong peoples lives, provide them with clean potable water and feed them properly. The move from charcoal to coal was easily achievable. The move to post-oil energy is far more difficult as no suitable alternative is readily available. Solar and wind are vanities for the moment but I'll be delighted when they can replace oil. In the meantime I'd prefer people to live healthy well fed lives rather than the drastic restrictions you'd put in place, especially as it will be the poor, that is the worlds poor, that bear the brunt of your aims.
            This is why we need a "Space Race" to get us there. Instead of spending trillions of dollars on oil wars - it needs to be spent on independence from oil.
            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
              I still can't link the massive agriculture efforts (paraphrase) to floods that occurred milion of years before first human ever put a step. Humans (yes, Neanderthals) live there for ~90 K years. How they picked the place and stayed if it wasn't workable in the first place? Tools came much later.
              When natural climate change occurs, human populations are pushed out of formerly habitable areas that become desertified.

              These human populations then even more intensively engage in agricultural practices in the new marginal areas bordering the desert just to be able to survive. Stripping the soil of its nutrients and erosion controls that comes from being vegetated to some degree or another.

              The desert expands. The catalyst may or may not have been naturally occurring climate change - humans make it worse.

              I would point out the vast number of cities and archaeological sites in the Levant and Middle East for which there is hard, undebatable archaeological evidence for. There were once rivers, streams, tributaries, and lakes in these regions. There are riverbeds and many of the wadis were once rivers that had year-round flow - now the wadis only flow when there's a rare, heavy rain.

              Since then, the Fertile Crescent has progressively clung tighter and tighter to the major rivers that were left - mainly the Tigris and the Euphrates. Fertile farm fields, that once extended for hundreds of miles beyond the Tigris and the Euphrates, all that is left are archaeological sites in the middle of a desert, or tiny villages where cities once stood.

              The land became increasingly silted, lost its nutrients, as well as its natural erosion controls in the form of native vegetation, and the desert advanced closer and closer to the river due to intensive agricultural practices. And that's where we are today with this particular example. There are many others across the world.

              And yes, humans can suck an entire river dry. The Colorado River is a rather extreme example of this. What happened to the Marsh Arabs - they lost 90% of the area to desert when Saddam Hussein diverted the river from the marshes. They were able to do this in Babylonian and Sumerian times - and Saddam Hussein did it in the 1970s-2003. Proven, hard historical fact with actual physical evidence in living memory, with regards to the Marsh Arabs. It's not a subject that's open to debate or interpretation - it happened and the satellite pictures prove it.

              Here is a picture representing human-caused desertification in southern Iraq:



              ^^^ That is NOT the result of some backroom environmentalist propaganda conspiracy, or political hackery. It happened.

              The retroactive term for these states in ancient times is that of the "hydraulic empire".

              A brief reader from Wiki:
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_empire
              Last edited by Ironduke; 03 May 17,, 11:55.
              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                I had addressed extinction several times before - you replied with one-liners, while completely holding back from expounding your diametrically opposed beliefs, and let it go unanswered. When I finally asked you to expound your views based on my previous posts - it turns out everything you bothered to address was diametrically opposed to my viewpoint. It is not hard to say - "I disagree with you on this, but you have a point on that" - you don't lose a debate because somebody you are mostly disagreeing with on a certain subject - you happen to agree with them on one small thing.
                Duke, my two one liners were these
                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                There's still plenty of oil and when scarce will price itself out of the market without any help from taxes,
                A self evident fact born out of your charcoal to oil example
                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                and even Gavin Schmidt puts Sahara's current condition down to orbital fluctuation. (he's a 'tipping point' advocate for obvious reasons)
                Again an easily demonstrable fact, with link to latest thoughts.
                Everything else in this conversation has been trying to deal with your numerous tangents and conflation of those tangents. Nothing about the simple facts I stated as two one liners
                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                Leibniz

                Comment




                • Explain the cause.

                  Keep in mind - I'm not just talking about global warming. I'm talking about the entire breadth and width of human damage to the environment, which also happens to include global warming, but is not restricted to it.

                  Or explain this:



                  And there's this:

                  Last edited by Ironduke; 03 May 17,, 12:02.
                  "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                    Higher density = lower per capita energy consumption. The suburbs consume far, far more per energy capita than a city dweller living in dense development. The ecological footprint of a suburban house is far, far greater. My ecological footprint is perhaps 10% of the per-capita suburban dweller.
                    Mean't to comment on this once I'd read your link but it turned out to be on land use, not comparative energy budgets. The suburbs are your city. They are just as much a part as your street lighting, waste disposal and office towers. The people who live there are your office workers, cleaners and the ones you sell beer to. Your cities commute budget, heating budget, maintenance budget, food budget, waste budget, et cetera all contribute to each individuals budget within the city. Just because you may not use it doesn't mean your city can exist without it.
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                      This is why we need a "Space Race" to get us there. Instead of spending trillions of dollars on oil wars - it needs to be spent on independence from oil.
                      Fine, divert the money you currently use on weaponry to R&D for energy production. Just don't increase energy costs by taxation, because that kills people
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • Hitting some people with facts is like Ali boxing Fraizer.
                        No matter how hard you hit them, they keep coming back for more, regardless of the damage they're taking or the futility of it all.
                        They just can't see why the pain needs to stop.
                        Trust me?
                        I'm an economist!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post


                          Explain the cause.
                          http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-1463823.html

                          Keep in mind - I'm not just talking about global warming. I'm talking about the entire breadth and width of human damage to the environment, which also happens to include global warming, but is not restricted to it.

                          Or explain this:

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_S..._public_health
                          And there's this:

                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_S...ental_concerns

                          As you say, none of this has to do with any of our previous posts, so what's this about? The evils of deniers? Of mankind in general? Or specific mismanagement?

                          Here's a random photo of a city, explain that in terms of whatever I'm supposed to be explaining.
                          Click image for larger version

Name:	aerial_view_of_new_york_city_tilt_shift_photography-wallpaper-2560x1600.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	725.4 KB
ID:	1470848
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                            When natural climate change occurs, human populations are pushed out of formerly habitable areas that become desertified.

                            These human populations then even more intensively engage in agricultural practices in the new marginal areas bordering the desert just to be able to survive. Stripping the soil of its nutrients and erosion controls that comes from being vegetated to some degree or another.
                            As I've asked several times, how do you explain that the fertile crescent has remained fertile over at least 12,000 years of occupation?
                            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                            Leibniz

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                              It makes me glad to hear this. Since you have firsthand experience on the renewable sector and its benefits - perhaps you can offer some advice for the Americans on this forum to increase that percentage beyond 12% - perhaps up to 80% just like New Zealand. Teach a man to fish, as they say. Come to the US and make yourself a millionaire with the lessons you've learned from NZ renewables as a consultant, if you care to. I do what I can, but perhaps you can do more.
                              And finally, you don't need me as a consultant, just put the majority of your big rivers into canals, arrange buffer holding ponds at the top of each of a staged series of hydro stations ala The MacKenzie Country (worked on that myself)

                              http://energynzmag.co.nz/hydro/a-hug...-a-long-build/

                              and of course geothermal

                              http://nzgeothermal.org.nz/elec_geo/
                              (I'd suggest Yellowstone)

                              as well as the obligatory wind generation

                              http://www.windenergy.org.nz/wind-energy/nz-windfarms

                              We're replacing the old coal and diesel generators, which we're currently phasing out.
                              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...nd#Fossil_fuel

                              The downside is of course massive degradation of river valley ecosystems.
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                              Leibniz

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                                As I've asked several times, how do you explain that the fertile crescent has remained fertile over at least 12,000 years of occupation?
                                If being a mere shadow of it former self constitutes continuous, uninterrupted, unchanged fertility in your book... imagine you have a million dollars. You lose $750,000. You're not a millionaire anymore with a mere $250,000 left over. It is likewise the case with the Fertile Crescent.

                                Judging from archaeological sites that used to be located within the Fertile Crescent, but are now hundreds of miles from the Fertile Crescent.... the Crescent is perhaps 70-80% gone. 20-30% of it still exists.

                                More recent articles, both from journalists and academics on this subject. I don't really have a lot of time at the moment, I'll just leave these here.
                                Jared Diamond addresses the subject of the Fertile Crescent in this short, publicly available excerpt from Guns, Germs, and Steel: Pages 409-411
                                "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X