In the end, the REAL problem is right in the mirror. POPULATION GROWTH. More people, who need more resources, simply to survive, let alone prosper.
Those of you who mention Greenland being farmed should consider how small the worlds population was back then, and what an abundance of water land and vegetation they had available.
The problem is that fossil fuel has permitted the growth of populations for nearly the last century and that the rate of growth is not sustainable either in fuel reserves, nor in the other resources needed for a larger future population to have quality of life.
If one wants a perspective on what life in the future will look like, one only has to look at Bombay or Calcutta to see what things will come to when religion and poverty prevent any rational form of population control and where it is up to nature to eliminate the weakest and poorest.
I grew up in South Africa, where the birth rate resulted in the DOUBLING of the size of the population every *edit* 20 years. That pace never slowed one bit, until the aids epidemic, and then only because of a culture where certain death was apparently not a sufficient motivation to change the behavior of the male of the species. Eastern countries have a different set of values and with their gigantic populations we are sure to be facing trouble when the last of the glaciers that feed their rivers has melted and the great thirst sets in.
One has every right to be skeptical of politicians and their schemes, but at the same time, fair comparisons need to be made regarding the true cost of securing current energy supplies. The cost of a gal of gas or diesel is not just the pump price, but also the cost of securing the sources of that fuel. To imagine that in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, it is not possible to repair, rebuild or even maintain primary road, rail and airport infrastructure, let alone even consider expansion is mindboggling. And the reason for that is primarily military spending.
If the population seriously reduced their fuel consumption by not driving one to a truck or suv 7 days a week (and car companies actually sold vehicles here that get 70mpg like they do in europe), and spent some time insulating their homes to reduce heating and air conditioning cost. And corporations paid more than lip service to reducing energy consumption and constructed more efficient buildings, these things all add up.
My employer probably heats and cools 1000sq ft of floor space with 20-30ft ceilings for every employee (300 employees at 1 facility). All exterior walls are uninsulated cinder block in a 7000+ heating degree day climate. The building is fed via a 3" diameter high pressure natural gas main. Can you imagine what a financial waste it is continuing this practice, compared to simply building an efficient building in the first place, making the best use of available solar for natural light and heat. One thing I can tell you is that you don't have to be a genius to understand which building will be more pleasant to work in. Yet no-one seems to think that there is anything the slightest bit wrong with this state of affairs. Its the way things have been done for decades. Sounds just like the way GM and Chrysler would have thought of things.
The truth is that conservation is a fundamentally sensible thing to do, yet apparently our "conservative" leaders (or any of them for that matter) are not really trying to do anything about it. The liberals want to force the issue through a tax, which is painfull and is bound to make several of them with the right connections a heap of money. Unfortunately, it may take a tax to make people and corporations change their habits. After a short romance, the public get to vote in the "other guys", who could repeal the tax, but only if they could wean themselves of all that extra dough instead of spending it on their defense contractor buddies.
Whichever way, the interstates apparently will never get fixed until the day arrives that we plow up the asphalt and go back to dirt roads... don't laugh, I have lived it in colonial africa and we are headed the same way if something doesn't change. And all of that is assuming we aren't at war with china in ten years, by which time they will be exceeding all western countries industrial output combined and would have stockpiled $ and Euros to fund their expansion plan.
