Here is some interesting information I have been collecting;

The latest measurements confirm that the world's oil and natural gas supplies are running out too fast. At some time between 2010 and 2020 the world's supply of oil and gas will fall below the level required to meet international demand.

The US government is aware that we are about to endure a disastrous international energy shortage. According to Dr James McKenzie, a senior member of the climate change programme at the World Resources Institute in Washington, USA: "That's why we went to war in Iraq."

We always knew the world's oil reserves would run out eventually. The oil was formed by natural geological processes which occurred over millions of years. Oil consumption presently exceeds 25 billion barrels a year and demand continues to spiral upward, out of control. The outcome is inevitable.

In the 21st Century we rely on oil (petrol) and gas for transport - cars, lorries, ships, aircraft - as well as electrical power. We cannot survive without oil and gas, and when the supply runs out the great engine of Western civilization will finally grind to a halt. We are heading for an event that will be remembered as one of the great disasters of human history, and life is going to get harder for everybody as the day of reckoning draws nearer.

In the years ahead, wars will be fought over oil and fuel as the oil-dependent superpowers struggle in vein to preserve our unsustainable way of life. We are entering a period of great change and there are be difficult times ahead. The process has already begun. Students of prophecy will be familiar with certain relevant verses from Christian scripture concerning the signs of the end times (Matt. 24.8; Mk 13.8, Rom. 8.22; Rev. 12.03, 21.1-4). As it was translated in 1961 in the New English Bible: "With these things, the birth pangs of the new age begin" (Mt.24:8; Mk.13:8). Whether you are religious or secular, you should be aware that the tide of history is turning.

In North America, where we use far more oil than anywhere else on Earth, the vast majority (71%) of electrical power generation is entirely dependent on fossil fuels - coal (52%), gas (16%), and oil (3%). The world's natural gas is running out along with the oil, and the coal supply is not unlimited either. Nuclear energy contributes only one-fifth to the US power network, and 7% of power is hydroelectric. Only 2% of US electricity production is from renewable sources. As we continue to burning up the world's dwindling fossil energy sources at a terrifying rate, we simultaneously unleash catastrophic damage to the natural environment.

The Insider recently reported a wave of four major electrical power outages which struck the US; then the UK; followed by Denmark and Sweden; and then Italy, Switzerland, Austria and France. The effects only lasted a few hours, but each case was the biggest power failure in the history of the affected country. These massive power cuts were separated by a matter of days. The governments were only practicing this time. This is just the beginning.

It would be prudent to pursue alternative energy sources before it is too late, but the oil corporations will never allow this to happen. So important is oil as a resource that it brings great wealth and power to those who control it. Consequently, our corrupt politicians, whose power is lavishly funded with oil money, prefer to serve the short-term interests of greedy oil executives than the long-term interests of ordinary people like you. But as long as we have food in our bellies and entertainment to keep us busy, why should we care? Thus, it is the immorality and indifference of our species that ultimately leads to our own demise.

Nothing lasts forever. Like all the great civilizations in the past, ours has a limited life-span. A few years from now the Westernized world will reach the point where there is no longer enough fuel to sustain civilization in its present form. This will literally be the end of civilization as we know it.


SOURCES:

The Independent (UK), "Oil and gas running out much faster than expected, says study", p 5, 02 October 2003.
[ http://news.independent.co.uk/wo ... ry.jsp?story=449053 ]
    WORLD OIL and gas supplies are heading for a "production crunch"
sometime between 2010 and 2020 when they cannot meet supply, because global
reserves are 80 per cent smaller than had been thought, new forecasts
suggest.
    Research presented this weekend at the University of Uppstala in Sweden claims that oil supplies will peak soon after 2010, and gas supplies not long afterwards, making the price of petrol and other fuels rocket, with potentially disasterous economic consequences unless people have moved to alternatives to fossil fuels.
    While forecasters have always known that such a date lies ahead, they have previously put it around 2050, and estimated that there wuld be time to shift energy use over to renewables and other non-fossil sources.
    But Kjell Aleklett, one of a team of geologists that prepared the report, said earlier estimates that the world's entire reserve amounts to 18,000 billion barrels of oil and gas - of which about 1,000 billion has been used up so far - were "completely unrealistic". He, Anders Sivertsson and Colin Campbell told New Scientist magazine that less than 3,500 billion barrels of oil and gas remained in total.
    Dr James McKenzie, senior assistant on the climate change programme at the World Resources Institute in Washington, said: "We won't run out of oil - but what will happen is that production will decline, and that's when all hell will break loose."
    Present annual oil consumption is about 25 billion barrels, and shows no signs of slowing. That would suggest a "production crunch" - where consumption grows to meet the maximum output - within the next couple of decades.
    Dr McKenzie said that on this topic the argument split between economists and geologists. "The economists think it will just force the price of oil up, which will mean it will become economic to extract it from all sorts of unusual places, such as tarry sands or deposits which are 90 per cent rock and 10 per cent oil. But the geologists say - you tell us where the deposits are and we'll find them. We've looked and we can't."
    One side-effect of having lower oil reserves might be that the worst predictions of climate change would be forestalled - because there would be less fuel to burn, and therefore less carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas, produced.
    The Uppsala team's estimates are lower than any considered by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose minimum estiimate for the total reserves was 5,000 billion barrels.
    But Nebojsa Nakicenovic, an energy economist at the University of Vienna in Austria, who headed the IPCC team that produced the reserves forecasts, said the Swedish group were "conservative", and that his team had taken into account a wider range of estimates. Dr Nakicenovic added that, if oil and gas began to run out, "there's a huge amount of coal underground that could be exploited".
    Dr McKenzie said: "We have to accept the fact of oil and gas production peaking, and get concerned with substitutes. It's not when will we run out, it's when will production be unable to meet demand.
    "And 97 or 98 per cent of transport depends on it. You can use coal to make methanol to power your cars or buses. But the reality is that it's all about where the oil is."
    The Gulf countries - Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates - produce about 25 per cent of the world's oil at the moment, and hold 65 per cent of the world's oil reserves.
    "That's why we went to war in Iraq," said Dr McKenzie. "Gas might have comparable reserves to oil, but it's not in the right place and we don't really have the infrastructure to transport it."


CNN (US), "World oil and gas 'running out'",
[ http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/10/02/global.warming/ ]
        Global warming will never bring a "doomsday scenario" a team of scientists says -- because oil and gas are running out much faster than thought.
    The world's oil reserves are up to 80 percent less than predicted, a team from Sweden's University of Uppsala says. Production levels will peak in about 10 years' time, they say.
    "Non-fossil fuels must come in much stronger than it had been hoped," Professor Kjell Alekett told CNN.
    Oil production levels will hit their maximum soon after 2010 with gas supplies peaking not long afterwards, the Swedish geologists say.
    At that point prices for petrol and other fuels will reach disastrous levels. Earlier studies have predicted oil supplies will not start falling until 2050.
    Alekett said that his team had examined data on oil and gas reserves from all over the world and we were "facing a very critical situation globally."
    "The thing we are surprised of is that people in general are not aware of the decline in supplies and the extent to which it will affect production.
    "The decline of oil and gas will affect the world population more than climate change."
    According to the Uppsala team, nightmare predictions of melting ice caps and searing temperatures will never come to pass because the reserves of oil and gas just are not big enough to create that much carbon dioxide (CO2).
    Alekett said that as well as there being inflated estimates, some countries in the Middle East had exaggerated the amount of reserves they had.
    Coal-burning could easily make up the shortfall. But burning coal would be even worse for the planet, as it would create even more CO2, he said.
    Predictions of global meltdown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sparked the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an agreement obliging signatory nations to cut CO2 emissions.
    The IPCC examined a range of future scenarios, from profligate burning of fossil-fuels to a fast transition towards greener energy sources.
    The Uppsala team say the amount of oil and gas left is the equivalent of around 3,500 billion barrels of oil -- the IPCC say between 5,000 and 18,000 billion barrels.
    Alekett said his team had now established what they called the "Uppsala Protocol" to initiate discussion on how the problems of declining reserves could be tackled -- protecting the world economy but also addressing the problem of climate change.
    The conclusions of the Uppsala team were revealed in the magazine New Scientist Thursday, and Nebojsa Nakicenovic, of the University of Vienna who headed the IPCC team said it was standing by its figures.
    He said they had factored in a much broader and internationally accepted range of oil and gas estimates then the "conservative" Swedes.
    A conference in Russia this week heard a warning that global warming kills about 160,000 people through its effects every year. The numbers dying from "side-effects" of climate change, such as malaria and malnutrition, could almost double by 2020, the climate change conference in Moscow was told.
    "We estimate that climate change may already be causing in the region of 160,000 deaths... a year," Andrew Haines of the UK's London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said.
    Most deaths would be in developing nations in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, says Haines. These regions would be worst hit by the spread of malnutrition, diarrhea and malaria as a result of warmer temperatures, droughts and floods.


Department of Energy (US), "Statement of Robert S Kripowicz Acting Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy ... to the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, and Climate Change Committee on Environment and Public Works, US Senate", 29 January 2002.
[ http://www.fe.doe.gov/news/testimony/02/02_krip_senenviron.html ]
[ ]
[ ]
    ...
    As the pie chart shows, fossil fuels supply about 70 percent of the Nation's requirements for electricity generation. Coal, alone, accounts for more than 50 percent of the electricity Americans consume.
    Primarily because of the power sector's use of abundant supplies of American coal and natural gas, consumers in the United States benefit from some of the lowest cost electricity of any free market economy.
    America's economic progress and global competitiveness have benefited greatly from this low cost electricity.
    Electricity is an essential part of America's modern economy.
    As this chart shows, while the Nation has made dramatic progress in "decoupling" overall energy consumption from economic growth, increased economic activity remains closely linked to the availability of affordable electric power - and is likely to remain so for well into the future.
    The Nation's demand for electricity is projected to grow significantly over the next 20 years. Between now and 2020, the United States will likely have to add from 350,000 to 400,000 megawatts of new generating capacity to meet growing demand. This is equivalent to adding the entire power generation sectors of Germany and Japan, combined, to the U.S. power grid. Or put another way, to keep up with demand, the United States will have to build 60 to 90 new generation units of typical size each year for the next 20 years - in other words, adding more than one new plant every week.
    ...


FURTHER READING

The Guardian (UK), "Oil cut puts heat on Brown", p 22, 25 September 2003.
[ http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1049161,00.html ]
    Motoring organisations yesterday called on Gordon Brown to defer next week's expected rise in fuel duty after a surprise production cut by oil exporting countries sent crude prices rocketing.
    With prices at the pump already up 2p a litre since July, analysts warned of further increases in store for drivers following Opec's announcement that it intends to shave nearly a million barrels off its daily output to keep crude prices from sinking over the winter.
    Prices rose on the decision, causing jitters in global stock markets. In London, benchmark Brent crude for November delivery rose by $1.21 to $26.73 a barrel, while in New York US light, sweet crude was trading at $28.40 a barrel, up $1.27.
    Mr Brown is expected to announce a 1.28p a litre rise in fuel duty ahead of next week's Labour party conference. The increase was planned for the Budget but delayed for six months by the volatile state of the markets in the aftermath of the Iraq war.
    "This is very much a triple whammy for the motorist and even a quadruple whammy if you happen to drive a diesel-powered vehicle," said RAC Foundation traffic and road safety manager Kevin Delaney. Lorry drivers' organisations said the rise would add ?500 a year to the cost of running a heavy goods vehicle.
    "The government must take a sensible and flexible approach to road fuel taxation and make tax decisions in the light of the prevailing oil prices rather than treating road users as the taxpayer of last resort," said Freight Transport Association chief economist Simon Chapman.
    But, with the public finances stretched and a delayed duty increase built into the arithmetic, Mr Brown is not expected to forgo the extra ?300m in revenue.
    Opec said it had decided to act "preemptively" to stop the hoped-for recovery in supplies from Iraq depressing prices. Yesterday's announcement will cut 3.5% from Opec's daily 24.5m barrel output, restoring quotas to pre-Iraq war levels.
    Opec pumped up supply during the war to offset the loss of Iraq's supplies and a strike which crippled Venezuela's industry. Iraq's interim oil minister, Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum, attended the meeting, the first time his country's seat has been filled since the ousting of Saddam Hussein.
    With the UK-US governing coalition promising further increases in Iraq's exports, Iranian oil minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh called the cut a possible "first step" and did not rule out a further reduction. "It is better that we start before we witness a very bad situation in the market."
    On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average tumbled 122 points to 9,454 within minutes of the opening bell. In London the news checked an early rally but the FTSE 100 index still managed to break a three-day losing streak to close up 14.7 points to 4,236.4.
    The Opec decision "caught everyone by surprise", said Peter Dunay, chief market and options strategist at Wall Street Access in New York.


The Independent, "British Energy nuclear stations could go for ?1 each", p 23, 2 October 2003.
[ http://news.independent.co.uk/bu ... ry.jsp?story=449024 ]
    British Energy's eight nuclear stations will be taken over by the Government for a nominal payment of ?1 each should yesterday's ?4bn rescue of the embattled company fail to secure its future.
    The deal, finally clinched after all-night negotiations with bond-holders, will see shareholders emerge with just 2.5 per cent of British Energy and the company's ?3.9bn in nuclear liabilities offloaded to the taxpayer.
    Creditors owed ?1.2bn will receive ?425m in new British Energy bonds and 97.5 per cent of the equity. The lion's share of the bonds, ?170m worth, will go to the banks which financed British Energy's ill-fated purchase of the Eggborough coal-fired power station. But bondholders will emerge with 52.3 per cent of the equity.
    ...
    Friends of the Earth's energy campaigner, Roger Higman, said: "This agreement may save ministers' blushes but it shouldn't hide their shame. This whole sorry episode highlights the economic madness of nuclear power."
    Tim Yeo, the frontbench Conservative trade and industry spokesman, called on the Government to end the "dithering" over the future of nuclear power. "Until ministers decide whether there is a role for nuclear power in Britain's long-term electricity generation needs, expertise will drift away and British Energy will operate in a climate of uncertainty," he said.
    ...


Daily Telegraph (UK), "Deal keeps lights on at British Energy", p 33, 2 October 2003.
[ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money ... 3/10/02/cnben02.xml ]
    British Energy, the UK's stricken nuclear power generator, avoided bankruptcy yesterday but left its creditors to gamble about ?900m on the firm's survival in the coming year.
    Lenders agreed to forfeit the ?1.3 billion they are owed in return for ?425m worth of bonds and 97.5pc of the restructured energy company's equity, gambling on a turn-round in the group's fortunes and it surviving a European Commission investigation into the rescue package.
    ...
    The company, which provides a fifth of the country's power, plunged to a ?4.3 billion loss last year as the market price for electricity fell below the company's generating costs.
    Under the terms of the deal, taxpayers will foot a ?200m-a-year bill to cover the group's decommissioning and nuclear waste disposal programme over the next decade.
    ...

Sorry, but I'm sick of hearing dire predictions about the end of the world as we know it.  In the late 18th century, Thomas Malthus predicted mass starvation as population growth outstripped food supplies.  Are we dying of hunger today, after over 200 years?  The Club of Rome in 1972 preached the gospel of Limits to Growth, arguing that economic growth could not continue indefinitely because of the limited availability of natural resources, particularly oil.  It's now 37 years later...  We're still using oil.  Has economic growth stalled?  If so, please tell China and India, since they don't seem to have gotten the message.


Yawn...  Another conspiracy theory...  Except for OPEC -- which occasionally does exert short-term market power over oil -- the oil markets are surprisingly competitive.  No congressional study, however much they would have loved to prove the opposite, has ever succeeded in idenitfying a significant abuse of market power by the oil companies.  The oil industry is actually surprisingly competitive, relative to most other industries (if you don't believe me, just try comparing Herfindahl-Hirschman Indices across different industries).  Oil companies are heavy investors in alternative energy sources.  They make their money by supplying energy.  They don't care whether it comes from oil or wind or pig-shit methane.

Supply will fall below demand?  Sure, that could happen if policy-makers panic and screw up the world fuel markets that do surprisingly well at allocating scarce supplies to those actually willing to pay for them.  If not, however, markets will react...  As supplies fall, prices will go up...  demand will fall...  alternative energy sources will become available.  Who knows, maybe even every environmentalist's favorite baby -- renewable energy -- will actually make economic sense...  instead of being subsidised at a cost to us all.

If you really think that the supply of oil will fall below demand by 2020, send me a PM.  We can arrange a large bet that could make you rich.  If you're going to spout doomsday predictions, at least be willing to put your money where your mouth is.  That's what the energy companies do every day, when they take huge risks to create supplies to meet our demands.

Have fun, CGP

[ Last edited by  Caligynephiliac at 29-7-2009 21:44 ]

Surely you mean capable of paying. We are exhausting many of the worlds resources: fish stocks are collapsing, ground water levels are at historic lows, the world's forests are being chopped down to provide grazing land and feed for cattle. The earth cannot produce enough fish or animal protein to enable even a fraction of the world's population to consume these products at American or European levels. I've read somewhere that it would require the resources of several earths to allow all of the world's 6.6 billion people to live like Americans.

Note the increasing trend of rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Korea to buy up arable land in Africa to grow food for their own people.

I have no doubt there eventually will be technological breakthroughs sufficient to meet our energy requirements; it's the other resources that will present the more difficult challenge. Either the poor continue to go hungry or Joe sixpack learns to like tofu.

But hopefully the coming crisis will provide the necessary stimulus for innovation. I remain optimistic; in fact, I see oil shortages as good in the long run. No more KY for one thing. Tho, in the short term, governments will increasingly turn to coal to compensate for dwindling oil supplies.

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 30-7-2009 15:32 ]

I have full belief in the bright minds of this world.  Even IF oil was to run out there will be viable alternatives to keep us moving forward.  Unfortunately Marsupial I am sure they will develop a synthetic KY first off

Tell me somethign i dont know....

no need for a hybrid yet then

The first world countries will probably all follow the lead of the European countries and develop renewable energy alternatives.  Most of Europe is being strangled by Russian which controls a good part of the natural gas they need to heat their homes.  Every time Russian has problems with Ukraine, they refuse to send natural gas through the pipelines there and cuts of Europe's gas supplies.  Maybe soon enough the USA will be held hostage by the OPEC countries.  Don't forget Iran and Venezuela both hold huge reserves and both are sworn enemies of the USA.  We'll just have to wait and see.

haha alot of leader knows about this issue but choose to close 1 eye as all these wont happen during their term in office

Dear Donorg,

Maybe I have missed it, but what is your point to post this? I mean I cannot catch the intention behind it. Do you want the board members to be more energy efficient? Are you taking any personal consquences - like don't operate aircons 24/7 or don't cool below 25.5C? Only have a beatiuful working girl in the dark to save energy? (sorry for being ironic here)

I would think your press collection is missing out an important point. Lot's of the things we use on a daily basis are made from plastics... and many of them are made from... You guess correctly.... oil derivates. Just to name a few things that will be vanished... Foam mattress... CD's...Synthetic leather.... and also no more sexy stocking....

Dim suen ah?

haha but those plastic that are oil derivatives do not necessary have to come form the crude oil that was mentioned in the press collection, furthermore they can be recycled
scientist have already came up with biodegradable plastic alternative that is made from unwanted plant parts like the husk from corn stalks

Hello Homer168;

You are right. I am also trying to cut down on the unnecessary too, like switching off and using less. But the ironic thing is, look at Hong Kong and their lights used. Have you walked along Nathan Road (TST and Mongkok areas) or Causeway Bay (SOGO) during the evening. Over there it is like day time then. Too many lights used. WHY CAN'T THEY USE LESS LIGHTING FIXTURES? Not to forget the 周生生 & 周大福, their shops can be seen miles away in the night. Mid-Autumn Festival (中秋节) is just round the corner. How many countless tin boxes will Hong Kong discard when they finished the delicacies of the double york mooncakes.

Homer - you forgot to mention the paper used in the offices. Have you notice how most people when printing their email. It is like 5 or 6 pages when the main content is only half a page. We should delete the previous replies so that the email will not be that long with repetition. Look how lazy we have become with technologies. What I am saying is human being are creatures of habits and naturally selfish. Most of us will think of ourselves first before considering others needs.

The worst of our human nature emerge when we are offered free stuff. Have you seen gluttons and greedy people at a buffet table? They generally take more than they should. Let's not forget when people travel to foreign lands for a holiday, they tend to leave the air-con on 24/7 after leaving their rooms. The main reason for such behavior, I think, they have already paid for the full amount and they intend to get more than what they had coughed up. DO you agree with my arguement?

I AM ALSO GUILTY OF WASTAGE. I am no better than the next guy, but I am trying to cut down on plastic and such. I was in Bangkok a few days ago. Stayed at Baiyoke Sky Hotel. In Bangkok, the weather is so DAMN hot, so I thought, when I return, I want to be in a cool room. Thus, the air conditioner is being switched on while I was out. Felt guilty but on the other hand, screw it! Who would know and who cares? This is the careless attitude I am talking about.

Let's make another arguement, look at China now. The development pace is so freaking fast that NOBODY cares about their tradition and culture anymore. The mainlanders only want anything that can be plugged into a socket irregardless whether they need it or not. They want branded handbags, solid gold watches, latest model of electrical goods. Even the "Out of this World" ERNOMOUS Three-Gorges Dam's electricity output is not enough to satisfy the demand of power.

To TS: Just by using less and planting more trees will not stop the disappearance of oil. The most we could do is to prolong the oil quantity by using less. Questions for you - will you sacrifice your car and take the public transport or buy a bicyle instead? Have you done anything thing meaningful to SAVE THE EARTH?

Just my humble 2 cents worth.

If we as a society were really serious about wanting to save energy, there's an easy solution...  tax the hell out of energy and use the proceeds to lower the income tax rate.  That would -- in one fell swoop -- increase our incentive to produce and lower our desire to use energy.

The problem is that we the people don't really want that.  We LIKE cheap energy.  We can blame it all on the politicians, but really they are only pandering to us and giving us what we really want.  Walt Kelly was right...

Have fun, CGP

Donorg1, in my opinion you have been misinformed and quite naive, typical of any one who is not an engineer/scientist in the energy industry.  Its unhealthy to think that the world governments are moronic idiots that do not plan 10 years in advance when I have been on government projects that spanned 20 years.  Civilization as we know it will end? Come on get real civilization as we know it is changing every 2 years, you just dont notice.  Computers, robotics, automobiles, civilization has changed and there is nothing to worry about it.  Your imagination is often scarier than reality, films like "The day after tmr" doesnt help either.    Society evolves, there will not be riots for energy, that is fiction.

Dear waikeekee,

You are correct - there are other things as excessive use of lights, paper waste, plastic waste and many more.
Well, who should take the first step to do something? Governements can make laws, but many of them want to be reelected. Others might want to keep their citizens quiet or to prosper more. So relying on them to do something does not sound helpful to me.  So it's every person to make a small contribution. This can ease the problem a little. Since this does not solve it though, there will be a need for more drastic measures. I leave them to each reader's imagination
And by the way... If I remember correctly the landfills in HK will be full before 2015...

Oil will never run out. It will just get too expensive and no one will be able to afford it - can never get all oil you know, only a small part of it.

Governments may set up committees and research groups to examine various issues, but whether or not they act according to the advice received is another matter altogether. Ultimately it's politicians who decide policy, and their decisions are determined primarily by personal and party electoral priorities, secondly by the wishes of deep-pocketed lobbyists and the industries they represent, and coming in a very distant third, by what's good for the country. Economists have been telling politicians to raise taxes on oil for decades to no avail. Washington has consistently bowed to pressure from Detroit and refused to raise gasoline mileage standards. The EPA has ignored it's own scientists and refused to tighten standards on mercury and particulate pollution emissions. The list is endless. So tho governments might not be stupid, it's the nature of the political process, esp. in democratic countries, that governments are often incapable of doing the intelligent thing. Never forget that a government is mostly just a swarm of politicians looking out for number one.

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 1-8-2009 02:11 ]

The list sure goes on and it never ends. No Policy is perfect. No Policy benefits 100%. No Policy is immune to criticism. Anyway, here goes! I hereby, apologies in advance. I am going to open a can of 'enviromental' worms. I can't remember when I heard/read this but I am very sure some high ranking offical in a Country with red flag and some stars said it.

"The West and the Americas have enjoyed the earth's natural resources for a century. They cut down the virgin forest/jungle, plough the deserts for black gold and and consume the seas' children. We 'Country's Name' has emerged to be a super power in the 21st century. We, too wants to enjoy the fruit of our willingness to open-up, embrace new things and accept the new World. Why are the West and the Americas suggesting and asking us to stop and consume less? It is now our turn!"

Please comment?

RGDS
WKK

The point in posting that was to give fellow forum members a different perspective and provide information in the sack of shit the oil supply is

You guys should watch a movie called "Home".   It's a super good movie that tells about humans' impact on planet earth.  It first talks about how carbon was absorb by blue-green algae from the environment which took millions of years.  Now the atmosphere is filled with oxygen for humans to breath.  But humans have learned to harness the energy in coal and oil and releasing it back into the atmosphere.  The industrial age increased this process until it has become unstoppable.

the only reason the world has yet to switch to alternate sources of energy is.........money.

its all about money, wind, solar, electric cars, whatever, the only reason they are not being mass produced
is because the cost of switching over.  This and the fact the big oil companies are keeping a lid on any
potential opponents that will reduce their profits.  I was quite sad that the recent oil crisis did not raise
oil prices high enough.  Had the crisis gone on a little longer, viable alternatives would have been brought
forth.  Alas we have yoyo'd back to where gas prices are merely 'expensive'

The longer we wait before switching away from oil the more painful the transition will be.