[identity profile] green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
Life after the oil crash.
Ok, last time, I went and pinned it on a vid that most people cannot read at work.
So I am letting y'all boot up something you can read quitely when you oght to be working :)

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

In case you have trouble reading graphs, this one has a Blue Peter style 'talk you through the implications' - complete with original sources, for those who wanna check.

It might seem like I am doom mongering , but I just want to say -
Let's put more into Planned Parenthood, make it optional, but make it a damned sight easier at home and abroad.

Let's have oil rationing, sooner rather than later. Let's also have everything rationed if it's made with oil.

let's try to be civilised about the few resources left and share them out among ourselves.

Let's start reducing consumption , reusing things and recycling more.

let's remember that civilisation as we know it will be over by 2050, if it lasts that long.

(no subject)

Date: 30/5/10 19:06 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
Giving rich people everything and letting poor people starve is hardly what I would call ' responding correctly'.

Good thing that isn't what's advocated then.

(no subject)

Date: 30/5/10 22:17 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
We believe that all people have a right to food, housing, education, medical care, a living wage job and support in times of hardship.

This sounds good on the surface, except that it requires others to provide it, and those policies end up hurting more than they help.

We advocate the use of "true cost pricing", which reflects the total cost of production based on its impact on the ecosystem.

This is crap, as there's not way to measure it, and trying to do so will again cause more problems than it will fix.

In general, platform statements always sound better than the actual policies they support as a result of them. For example, saying "we want more environmental energy" is nice, but then they fight against nuclear power, which is the best alternative to coal and oil at the moment. They often want to shut down what we're doing now whether or not there's an equivalent alternative, which will end up killing people if they actually could get any of it passed.

(no subject)

Date: 31/5/10 21:20 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
No - if you want to see a government where policies are killing people, go to the USA.

Seriously? ok, I think we're done discussing rationally here. Good day.

For reference, you're comparing apples to ants, not even oranges.

(no subject)

Date: 1/6/10 17:49 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
I didn't say already. But I'm not surprised you heard what you wanted to hear.

(no subject)

Date: 1/6/10 19:59 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] gunslnger.livejournal.com
The rioting was specific to your example where rationing was extreme and immediate.

I never said anything about people dying in the streets.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M T W T F S S
   12 3 4
56 78 91011
12 13 1415 161718
19202122 232425
262728293031 

Summary