Friday, December 05, 2003
Do we have a pending oil crisis? And does it matter?
British academic and columnist George Monbiot claims in a detailed article that the world is running dangerously short of oil, but we don't talk about it because we cannot imagine it. This is a civilisation in denial.
Here's an extract from his article:
"Oil itself won't disappear, but extracting what remains is becoming ever more difficult and expensive. The discovery of new reserves peaked in the 1960s. Every year, we use four times as much oil as we find. All the big strikes appear to have been made long ago... Our future supplies depend on the discovery of small new deposits and the better exploitation of big old ones. No one with expertise in the field is in any doubt that the global production of oil will peak before long.
"The only question is how long. The most optimistic projections are the ones produced by the US Department of Energy, which claims that this will not take place until 2037. But the US energy information agency has admitted that the government's figures have been fudged: it has based its projections for oil supply on the projections for oil demand, perhaps in order not to sow panic in the financial markets. Other analysts are less sanguine. The petroleum geologist Colin Campbell calculates that global extraction will peak before 2010. In August the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes told New Scientist that he was "99 per cent confident" that the date of maximum global production will be 2004."
Is Monbiot right, and if so, does it matter?
Monbiot draws some fairly pessimistic conclusions from his research, which may not be warranted. For a start, he ignores a large body of research being carried out worldwide into alternative forms of energy, which do not rely on fossil fuel technology or nuclear sources. The biggest problem may not be harnessing this energy, but rather finding a distribution system that large corporations or governments don't hijack.
An article which outlines some of the "free energy" systems being explored can be found here.
British academic and columnist George Monbiot claims in a detailed article that the world is running dangerously short of oil, but we don't talk about it because we cannot imagine it. This is a civilisation in denial.
Here's an extract from his article:
"Oil itself won't disappear, but extracting what remains is becoming ever more difficult and expensive. The discovery of new reserves peaked in the 1960s. Every year, we use four times as much oil as we find. All the big strikes appear to have been made long ago... Our future supplies depend on the discovery of small new deposits and the better exploitation of big old ones. No one with expertise in the field is in any doubt that the global production of oil will peak before long.
"The only question is how long. The most optimistic projections are the ones produced by the US Department of Energy, which claims that this will not take place until 2037. But the US energy information agency has admitted that the government's figures have been fudged: it has based its projections for oil supply on the projections for oil demand, perhaps in order not to sow panic in the financial markets. Other analysts are less sanguine. The petroleum geologist Colin Campbell calculates that global extraction will peak before 2010. In August the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes told New Scientist that he was "99 per cent confident" that the date of maximum global production will be 2004."
Is Monbiot right, and if so, does it matter?
Monbiot draws some fairly pessimistic conclusions from his research, which may not be warranted. For a start, he ignores a large body of research being carried out worldwide into alternative forms of energy, which do not rely on fossil fuel technology or nuclear sources. The biggest problem may not be harnessing this energy, but rather finding a distribution system that large corporations or governments don't hijack.
An article which outlines some of the "free energy" systems being explored can be found here.
You have two cows - politics explained
I know this has been around a long time, but because of that there may be many of you who've not seen it. (And it's so good, it's worth reading again, anyway.)
FEUDALISM:
You have two cows. The lord of the manor takes some of the milk. And all the cream.
PURE SOCIALISM:
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.
BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM:
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as the regulations say you should need.
To read the rest, try this link...
I know this has been around a long time, but because of that there may be many of you who've not seen it. (And it's so good, it's worth reading again, anyway.)
FEUDALISM:
You have two cows. The lord of the manor takes some of the milk. And all the cream.
PURE SOCIALISM:
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.
BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM:
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and as many eggs as the regulations say you should need.
To read the rest, try this link...
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Will gay "marriage" destroy civilisation?
The decision by the Supreme court in the US state of Massachusetts to allow homosexuals a civil marriage has far-reaching implications.
From a purely legal perspective, the ruling raises huge questions, which may take years for the courts to sort out.
Many commentators see the decision as a prime example of judicial activism.
It is also suggested that the result was a foregone conclusion, as the Chief Justice of the court is a close friend of the lawyer who brought the case.
Religious activists say the Massachusetts decision is monumental�and may be cause for civil revolt.
Focus on the Family Chairman James Dobson expressed outrage at the decision and says it signals a systematic dismantling of the nation's understanding of marriage. "The dire ramifications of what is happening in the United States and other Western nations cannot be overstated," Dobson said. "For millennia, traditional marriage -- the union of one man and one woman -- has been celebrated by every culture on Earth as the cornerstone of society. But now, we have this activist court that is arrogant enough to say that those thousands of years of culture are simply wrong.
Interestingly, not all homosexuals are in favour of gay marriage. Paul Nathanson, a homosexual, argues with research colleague Katherine Young that recognising civil unions will destroy marriage. In this, they seem to agree with Dobson et al.
The decision by the Supreme court in the US state of Massachusetts to allow homosexuals a civil marriage has far-reaching implications.
From a purely legal perspective, the ruling raises huge questions, which may take years for the courts to sort out.
Many commentators see the decision as a prime example of judicial activism.
It is also suggested that the result was a foregone conclusion, as the Chief Justice of the court is a close friend of the lawyer who brought the case.
Religious activists say the Massachusetts decision is monumental�and may be cause for civil revolt.
Focus on the Family Chairman James Dobson expressed outrage at the decision and says it signals a systematic dismantling of the nation's understanding of marriage. "The dire ramifications of what is happening in the United States and other Western nations cannot be overstated," Dobson said. "For millennia, traditional marriage -- the union of one man and one woman -- has been celebrated by every culture on Earth as the cornerstone of society. But now, we have this activist court that is arrogant enough to say that those thousands of years of culture are simply wrong.
Interestingly, not all homosexuals are in favour of gay marriage. Paul Nathanson, a homosexual, argues with research colleague Katherine Young that recognising civil unions will destroy marriage. In this, they seem to agree with Dobson et al.
As AIDS spreads, Uganda offers positive lesson
Reports from the United Nations in the past week have highlighted the continuing AIDS epidemic, which infected and killed more people than ever this year, spreading rapidly in eastern Europe and gaining a stronger foothold in India and China. Sub-Saharan Africa, where there are more than 11 million AIDS orphans, remains the worst-affected region, says the UN. But infection rates are falling in Uganda and Senegal, and for pregnant women in the capital cities of Rwanda and Ethiopia.
• Uganda is one of the world's earliest and best success stories in overcoming HIV/AIDS, according to a report from the United States Agency for International Development based on evidence presented by four individuals with long-term experience of HIV prevention in Africa. After spreading rapidly during the 1980s, HIV prevalence peaked at around 15 per cent in 1991 and had fallen to 5 per cent in 2001 - a unique phenomenon worldwide.
The report, What Happened in Uganda? says the decline came mainly from behavioural changes promoted by strong political leadership. There was an emphasis on abstinence in messages directed at youth, with the result that in one district the proportion of youths aged 13-16 who reported having sexual experience dropped from 60 per cent in 1994 to less than 5 per cent in 2001.
Condom promotion has played a lesser role, with the decline in transmission rates beginning well before the widespread promotion of condoms from about 1995. The most important factor in the decline of HIV incidence in Uganda appears to be a decrease in multiple sexual partnerships and networks. The lesson of Uganda, says the report, is that "sexual behaviour itself must change" in order for the incidence of HIV to change.
Reports from the United Nations in the past week have highlighted the continuing AIDS epidemic, which infected and killed more people than ever this year, spreading rapidly in eastern Europe and gaining a stronger foothold in India and China. Sub-Saharan Africa, where there are more than 11 million AIDS orphans, remains the worst-affected region, says the UN. But infection rates are falling in Uganda and Senegal, and for pregnant women in the capital cities of Rwanda and Ethiopia.
• Uganda is one of the world's earliest and best success stories in overcoming HIV/AIDS, according to a report from the United States Agency for International Development based on evidence presented by four individuals with long-term experience of HIV prevention in Africa. After spreading rapidly during the 1980s, HIV prevalence peaked at around 15 per cent in 1991 and had fallen to 5 per cent in 2001 - a unique phenomenon worldwide.
The report, What Happened in Uganda? says the decline came mainly from behavioural changes promoted by strong political leadership. There was an emphasis on abstinence in messages directed at youth, with the result that in one district the proportion of youths aged 13-16 who reported having sexual experience dropped from 60 per cent in 1994 to less than 5 per cent in 2001.
Condom promotion has played a lesser role, with the decline in transmission rates beginning well before the widespread promotion of condoms from about 1995. The most important factor in the decline of HIV incidence in Uganda appears to be a decrease in multiple sexual partnerships and networks. The lesson of Uganda, says the report, is that "sexual behaviour itself must change" in order for the incidence of HIV to change.
