Talk by David Archibald tomorrow 15 Feb 2012 at Parliament House Canberra. In such a scenario, both the partners can approach therapist levitra no prescription for couples therapy, interpersonal therapy and other such erectile dysfunction drugs. The tablet again contain tobacco flavor but does not result in a live birth. get viagra from india At least we can draw an inference that 18 million men were brave enough to admit that they suffered from ED related problems. buy cheap levitra unica-web.comviagra online cheap Osteoporosis and back pain are linked, as the former affects the joints and the lumbar and thoracic regions. src=”http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/arch ctl.jpg” alt=”” />
Paper by David last month;
New report into global energy and food security by David Archibald
3 thoughts on “Oil and Climate – The Threats to Australian Fuel and Food Security”
Excellent. I wish David good luck with the presentation. It’s “intense”.
A rational strategy would be to get Australian vehicle manufacturers to build natural gas powered vehicles and end the lunacy of more after market NG conversions than the entire output of Ford and Holden combined.
Be aware that the world is awash in cheap natural gas and Australia will be unable to sell any more of its expensive offshore gas.
Current US natural gas price equates to less than $20/barrel oil. $300/barrel oil is an extremely remote prospect.
David, good luck with the talk.
Really? “Green growth can be a reality if we so wish”? What’s Nick Stern been drinking? The Secret kool-aid? Just wishing for something doesn’t make it materialize out of thin air against all physical probabilities.It’s a simple equation really. Our growth of the last couple of centuries was based on our consumption of the energy concentrated in fossil fuels over many millennia of geological development. As the supply of that precious energy nectar wanes, we won’t have anything with remotely that high EROEI to keep the highly efficient, highly complex, tightly coupled, energy-expensive operations of a growth based industrial civilization going. We would need to contract.There might be local bubbles of “green” growth and job creation, essentially instances of delayed contraction, or outsourced greenhouse gas emission, but to focus on such would be to go against your earlier observation of cultivating a global outlook.The facts are these;There is no technology, or combination of technologies that has been demonstrably proven to replace fossil fuels as a cheap and abundant energy source. At current EROEI rates, most renewable technologies (with the exception of nuclear) don’t even come close. This is a scientific fact. In order to trounce this scientific observation we need references from scientific papers, not policy studies.Most policy studies whether conducted by governments, UN, or international donor and finance agencies, are biased towards the idea of perpetual growth. This is mostly because the “experts” writing these studies have been trained in an economic and financial model where growth is always positive. They lack the vision needed to visualize contraction. In their world, contraction is a black swan. Further, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo. It pays the bills. Not to mention the hefty bonuses and consultancy fees.Therefore, trumped in the court of facts, they rely on quasi-religious intonations to support their baseless arguments; the invisible hand of the market will somehow provide a solution through innovation, spreading the pixie-dust of subsidies over existing renewable technologies will somehow make these technologies more energy efficient. New age quasi-mentalism seems to be an emerging trend as well amongst the proponents of growth as shown by the Nick Stern quote. Green growth can be reality guys; all we need to do is wish for it really, really hard. The fact is, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that in a post peak-oil world of shifting climate, global, holistic, net-positive growth –green or otherwise- can be a possibility. The sooner we realize this, the better it will be for us.
Leave a Reply
Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations
Excellent. I wish David good luck with the presentation. It’s “intense”.
A rational strategy would be to get Australian vehicle manufacturers to build natural gas powered vehicles and end the lunacy of more after market NG conversions than the entire output of Ford and Holden combined.
Be aware that the world is awash in cheap natural gas and Australia will be unable to sell any more of its expensive offshore gas.
Current US natural gas price equates to less than $20/barrel oil. $300/barrel oil is an extremely remote prospect.
David, good luck with the talk.
Really? “Green growth can be a reality if we so wish”? What’s Nick Stern been drinking? The Secret kool-aid? Just wishing for something doesn’t make it materialize out of thin air against all physical probabilities.It’s a simple equation really. Our growth of the last couple of centuries was based on our consumption of the energy concentrated in fossil fuels over many millennia of geological development. As the supply of that precious energy nectar wanes, we won’t have anything with remotely that high EROEI to keep the highly efficient, highly complex, tightly coupled, energy-expensive operations of a growth based industrial civilization going. We would need to contract.There might be local bubbles of “green” growth and job creation, essentially instances of delayed contraction, or outsourced greenhouse gas emission, but to focus on such would be to go against your earlier observation of cultivating a global outlook.The facts are these;There is no technology, or combination of technologies that has been demonstrably proven to replace fossil fuels as a cheap and abundant energy source. At current EROEI rates, most renewable technologies (with the exception of nuclear) don’t even come close. This is a scientific fact. In order to trounce this scientific observation we need references from scientific papers, not policy studies.Most policy studies whether conducted by governments, UN, or international donor and finance agencies, are biased towards the idea of perpetual growth. This is mostly because the “experts” writing these studies have been trained in an economic and financial model where growth is always positive. They lack the vision needed to visualize contraction. In their world, contraction is a black swan. Further, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo. It pays the bills. Not to mention the hefty bonuses and consultancy fees.Therefore, trumped in the court of facts, they rely on quasi-religious intonations to support their baseless arguments; the invisible hand of the market will somehow provide a solution through innovation, spreading the pixie-dust of subsidies over existing renewable technologies will somehow make these technologies more energy efficient. New age quasi-mentalism seems to be an emerging trend as well amongst the proponents of growth as shown by the Nick Stern quote. Green growth can be reality guys; all we need to do is wish for it really, really hard. The fact is, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that in a post peak-oil world of shifting climate, global, holistic, net-positive growth –green or otherwise- can be a possibility. The sooner we realize this, the better it will be for us.