Comments on Elizaphanian
Sam, you might wnt to find a way of just posting the first few paragraphs of these long articles on your front page, and then giving a link (I think there's a way to do that in Blogger somewhere). It would definitely make your front page more user friendly. My two cents' worth.
Good idea, I'll try and find out how.
I have a question which I would be interested to hear you discuss. To what extent do we have to live by our beliefs if the world makes it difficult?
1. Cameron does not deny taking drugs (and some of his supporters are said to have wider knowledge).
2. Almost no one gives away enough of their income such that they are left only with the average income (of those who earn more than the average).
3. Almost everyone who believes in global warming (or PO for that matter) flies at least occasionally.
Would we be better if:
1. No one could speak in favour of the current policy of drug prohibition unless they had never broken the policy or at least were truly repentent?
2. No one could advocate tax increases unless they had given away at least an equivalent proportion of their money in the previous tax year(either to charity or - if one is certain that only the state should have it - to the state; it does accept gifts).
3. No one could advocate limits to CO2 output unless they limited their own. The Greek environmental commissioner turned up in a Merc to advocate 20% cuts in car fumes. He is able to choose a car with 20% lower fumes (and still very luxurious) right now and it costs him nothing because we pay for it.
Interestingly people who live by a stringent personal morality have tended to be very poor leaders, perhaps due to limited understanding of human weakness. Conversely if no one actually does what they say is needed there is not much point in analysis.
I am fairly convinced in global warming even if unsure of the details (CO2 holds more heat than O as I understand it so more CO2 must mean more heat). I don't waste resources but nor do I really save them. I know the easy practical answer (we should all do a bit more at the margins - I do that). What interests me is the moral answer.
What value is my care for those who are starving when I have money in the bank?
Sam,
good post! I come back from time to time to your blog.
As regards PO, I certainly believe it is now, that we are going to see a kind of crunch this summer, before recession drives prices down.
A few comments:
1) I find extraordinary that, you, as a priest, tell people to get ready and consumme less. Why can't we see more of that?
2) PO it self, even if we are without any preparation, could be manageable given a good political leadership. I don't believe that the current type of leadership we have is able to do that, partly because it reflects how people are today on average. Based on my own experience, we do have a big problem.
3) Finally, I believe PO is going to give us a surprise, a nonlinear one. I feel that oil is going to slip away much faster than we think because oil producing countries may want to keep the oil from now on. Today, basically, we (developped countries) exchange oil against US dollars or Euro or whatever (which is not energy). These dollars are used by these countries to buy our added-value products, most of them obtained by using this oil. These industries which produce these things are among the most vulnerable industries. They will disappear first. Then what's left to buy oil??? Food maybe? Water? That's the 100 $ question.
Davidov - that's a big ask, I'll have a think about that. Jean-michel, I strongly agree about the 'non-linear' point. My growing feeling is that the West in particular is capable of weathering the initial shock of PO, but it is the secondary effects (wars and migrations) that will be the most difficult to cope with.
Commenting by HaloScan
