Mankinds Energy Future

[kintaro]

An Essay.

Human's with complex language permitting concepts specifically allows values to exist and judgement to exist. All value judgements depend on humanity and all value and every concept this planet has ever known have been man made. We change our environment to survive and we are the source of all innovation on the planet. Change to the environment is our mandate, our purpose, and our right.

 

Because for a human at least survival is derived from concepts and knowledge - and thus we can exist in as many manners of existence as we can make possible. Space travel is one many believe can be possible - yet stunningly there is a lack of faith in our ability to survive minor changes to the weather we have effected.

 

In fact the best thing we can do to counteract climate-change is to consume. Consumption can be enjoyed in various ways, Investment consumes specifically for future production. Thus, if we respond to climate change by increasing our productive output, burning more coal, and so on we might have a chance of replacing the fossil fuels and uranium to do it with energy sources derived with the interests of an investor in mind: long term, sustainable investments meaning a next generation of energy production (extraplanetary solar, geothermal, fusion, you name it).

 

Yet instead, Enteprise is derided, production is threatened to be stunted. Irrational self-sacrafice is the primary response to climate-change. Actions with specific and obvious conseqences as to make sustainability: a process involving human cognition as a step, become completely stunted as the productive means to reach this end are reduced through suicidal emmisions trading and tax policies - a response to climate change that brings us closer to disaster.

 

The fact that as individuals we are capable of realizing our environmental effects no matter how late, and voting populistically for our own destruction is evidence that we can also become inspired enough to trade, produce, and innovate towards a better future. This is further evidenced historically.

 

Oil once sat in the ground useless to human beings for centuries. Individuals innovated turning this material into a fuel source and it became the lifeblood of civilization. This is the same with coal and every other form of enery. This includes even the pulling power of a work mule, which was bred and kept by human value judgements and decisions. Oil became mankinds largest energy source to date - before then we consumed many other sources. Alternative energy has been growing for some time.

 

Other sources exist all around us to obtain energy. Sources yet to be discovered and other sources exist which mankind currently relies about extending its industrial output to exploit. Grand projects and discoveries need to occur for humanity to reach a new age in energy production.

Yet instead, in response to climate-change and our future energy needs constraint is urged on the very elixer of life and modern pursuits in a world dependant on mans ability to survive based on the facts and thus more industrial growth.

Investment is completely dependent itself on resources including energy being availble for investment - including investment in sustainable energy. Limiting energy and thus limited mankinds productive ability is the worst possible answer to climate change ever concieved. The real road to survival exists on the grounds of massive consumption through investment in next-generation energy sources - yet the proclaimed solution is to starve our ability to actually make a difference in this world by sabotaging our own production.

[Aloone_Jonez]

I don't think that many scientists seriously believe we are capable of establishing a colony on another planet with today's technology.

I also think the problem with climate change is that people in certain parts of the planet will not be able to continue to live there, for example a rise in sea level will mean people will have to move away from the coast to higher land. Unfortunately this is easier said than done because the free market doesn't make it easy as undesirable lowland will suddenly become very cheap and highland will become very sought after and expensive, making things worse.

I do agree that the claims about climate change are often exaggerated to satisfy various political agendas.

Anyway, regardless of climate change, we need to find a more sustainable source of energy because living off non-renewable sources will fail in the long term.

[kintaro]

I don't think that many scientists seriously believe we are capable of establishing a colony on another planet with today's technology.

We could easily do this with current technology but here is a drawback I am sure we've all heard of: lower gravity and weightlessness on extended ventures into space adversely weaken the human heart. Not only do we need a risk free transplant, we also need to be able to grow them before this kind of living becomes viable for anything other than banning people from the earth. On that last note, I should get hopeful, because it looks like I'll be the first man to send to mars to live if they don't solve this.

Another thought, Bush's suggested trip to Mars would have had him sending even more men to early graves. 

[Calum]

It's okay, they found more oil, and all they have to do to get it is melt the polar ice caps! yay for private enterprise!

http://ssy.org.uk/2010/09/cairn-energy-the-worst-oil-company-youve-never-heard-of/

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/corporate-sme/regulator-will-supervise-cairn-energy-drilling-1.1034418

http://www.silobreaker.com/cairn-energy-drillers-strike-greenland-oil-5_2263741903679782952

[Aloone_Jonez]

Call me a left wing loony socialist bug I think nationalising energy companies would be a good thing.

Oil companies are so large that competition is virtually non-existent, it's not free market so the government owning majority shares would be be a good thing.

[Calum]

except these are multinational companies. which government would own them? Would the UK government control BP? If so the direction of BP would be under the aegis of the elected government of the UK, do you think the US would be comfortable with BP operating in its territory (as it does now) under those arrangements?

No idea why they'd prefer the current arrangement though, it's just as nuts imo.

PS - oh yes, to avoid misunderstandings, i also think that large sectors with only a small number of players (who ultimately do not compete) should be nationalised, in principle.

[Refalm]

Call me a left wing loony socialist bug I think nationalising energy companies would be a good thing.

Oil companies are so large that competition is virtually non-existent, it's not free market so the government owning majority shares would be be a good thing.

You're describing what happened in Venezuelans. The nationalized oil company is bureaucratic and inefficient. This is because the government wanted Venezuelans in charge, and because salaries of geologists and oil experts were lowered significantly, thus driving them away to other companies.

[Calum]

so, are you saying nationalised services are bad? Or just nationalised oil provision? And did you just disregard the issue of companies sourcing oil outside of their government's jurisdiction?

In fact what are you actually saying?

[Refalm]

Nationalizing doesn't mean that companies get a blank check for doing whatever they want.
It's still the governments' responsibility to preserve nature, and of course allocate zoning.

You can't blame a corporation for setting aside ethics if that means a higher profit margin. It's their mission to grow.

On nationalizing companies, in many areas like telephone, cable, electricity, etc. privatizing works great. In other areas, like post and public transportation, it doesn't work. Of course that differs between countries, and their implementation of privatizing.

[Aloone_Jonez]

Saudi Arabia seems to be doing pretty well with its nationalised oil fuelled economy.

[Calum]

You can't blame a corporation for setting aside ethics if that means a higher profit margin. It's their mission to grow.

There's some very good reasons why you can blame them for that. Here are a couple:

1) these companies are all made up 100% of humans. Humans all need planet Earth to function adequately. Any company contributing to the destruction of planet Earth's current mode of functioning is actually destroying their own habitat. While this may not be a "blame" issue, it is certainly one which has only one possible way of viewing it, ie: those humans are very stupid.

2) again, blame not necessarily being the issue, why does a large company have growth as their never changing mission, for ever, into the future? Have you noticed that we won't be able to expand for ever? our resources are finite. At some point maintenance becomes more important than growth, however the simplistic way our economies are set up in most parts of the planet, appear to make it necessary for a comnpany to make growth a priority, since the next quarter is more urgent than the next quarter century (as they say). Ultimately, if our goal is to continue to have a functioning ecosystem for humans to live in, then the way our freemarket economy is set up is fundamentally flawed and needs revising. This isn't a priority because of the short-term-profits approach that the freemarket economy encourages, but also because most companies seem to believe they can get their profits now, and by the time the consequences become serious enough to be detrimental, it'll be their kids or grandkids that will have to deal with it.

How ignorant and selfish we are as a species if that's the legacy we leave to our children, proudly disguised as endeavour and progress.