November 11, 2000
Subject: Miscellaneous Subjects #39: Who Needs a President? + A Feedback + Change IS Needed Now - But Let's Do The Math + Pivotal Times in the US + Donate a tree website in Brazil + I DO KNOW WHY, 'CAUSE THERE'S CARBON IN THE SKY, STORMY WEATHER + SURVEILLANCE SAYS + First climate model to incorporate realistic plant life produces dismal predictions + Gates loses faith in computers + The last oil shock: The beginning of the end of the age of oil -- in only 5 years from now!!
If you want to have a shock begin by the end...
The rest is only a side-show!
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
P.S. Check also from http://www.discovery.com
"Massive Solar Storm Batters Earth" - this whole weekend!
The storm, which started Wednesday, has caused a downpour of high-energy protons on Earth - reaching about 100,000 times the normal proton rate. The massive storm has frazzled some satellites and put the crew of the International Space Station on alert.
See also the Petition for a revote for Palm Beach County where 19,120 confusing ballots in the presidential race were tossed out because more than one candidate was picked - at:
And read "Florida Sent Duplicate Ballots to Overseas Military Personnel"
Some US and mostly Republican workers on an air base in England voted twice!
Oh! See also the attached picture ;-)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000
Subject: Who Needs a President?
Hello All: My Soul perspective of the U.S. election is a light-hearted
"IT'S ABOUT TIME"! Truth is surfacing everywhere and the election
reveals as never before the extent of control and manipulation of the
"representative" form of government by powerful elements that include
big LABOR as well as big business (Nader spoke a half-truth)!
Until you awaken to your god-given powers and assume your individual
responsibility as stated in the quote below, you will continue to be
subservient to a system clearly outdated in today's technological world.
Contact me for fundamental reform,
Member, GPA Charter Committee
"Individuals have an Inherent Right to vote directly on Policies of government"
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
From: Mirage <mirage@PObox.com>
Subject: Re: A Wasted Vote? Give me Liberty or give me the lesser of two evils.
And Thank YOU Jean for appreciating and publishing my article. I received a few
lovely and inspiring notes from your readers.
I was wondering if the 'not' president-elect isn't a manifestation of a
consciousness that knows the old ways are dying, and facilitating its change via
these unprecedented circumstances, for it certainly is not 'business as usual'
at this point. Here we have two candidates without a majority vote and an
electoral vote based upon a state with an established and lengthy reputation for
ballot fraud in election chaos. There are other more serious allegations coming
forth that voting cards were mailed out to non-citizens from the Democrats,
which will only increase the level of angst this election is raising, as well as
publicizing the issue of ballot counting and public mistrust of the figures we
are being given. Apparently the corporate media has furnished the
software/hardware for ballot counting, or so I've been reading.
Now the US and the world will have to wait to see who will be president with
court action being filed and doubts about veracity and accuracy of the outcome.
Unless the presidential election is held again nationwide, which will give
people time to think about the choices they've been presented with, we can count
on many dissatisfied voters no matter who is proclaimed president and neither
major candidate will ever be able to claim a real victory. And I have a
difficult time believing that Nader only received 3% of the votes as reported.
But, I believe it was because of the 'conscience voters' this situation turned
out the way it has and who's to say this isn't a manifestation of higher
consciousness that will give this most unusual pause - presidental limbo - to
reconsider our future in a new Light and perhaps allow for the beginning of a
Love and the Light of a New Dawn!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000
From: "Jackie Alan Giuliano" <email@example.com>
Subject: Change IS Needed Now - But Let's Do The Math
The new support that is evolving for the Green Party could be having an
unexpected consequence - insuring a Republican rise to power for many
years to come. Green Party support comes largely from people who would
have voted Democratic as the nearest choice to their values. Rarely do
Green converts come from conservative Republicans. This means that Green
support, if it grows, will continue to split the Democratic vote into
smaller, less viable numbers. If you do the math it is clear that very
quickly, the conservative Republican vote will be the only clear
I explore this disturbing unintended consequence of the third party
movement in this week's Healing Our World article on the Environment
News Service entitled, "Change IS Needed Now - But Let's Do The Math."
You can view this commentary at
I live my life by idealism and conscience. However, it is a harsh
reality of our time that we must protect ourselves from the greater
evils along the way while we are practicing our idealism. Even Ghandi
fed his people and fought the evils while practicing his idealism.
Allowing a Republican stranglehold on the Presidency may go down in the
history books as the greatest miscalculation of the progressive movement
ever. This could set back positive environmental and social efforts for
a generation or more.
I welcome your comments and ideas about how to find some way to convince
conservative voters that their needs are being met through recognizing
that the environment is crucial to our survival.
I wish you peace in this time of great upheaval.
Note from Jean: Another compelling opinion statement about the US election, its blatant crookedness and its aftermath of uncertainty... It is long but worth the read.
From: "Wade Frazier" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: Miscellaneous Subjects #37
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000
This is an interesting day to be an American. Our vaunted political system
has been rather creaky of late, and we will have to wait another day to see
who won the presidential election. I voted for Clinton in 1992, for no
other reason than doing my part to make sure that George Bush, Invader of
Panama and Destroyer of Iraq, among other titles, did not get re-elected. I
was not voting for anybody, but against somebody. That is known as
realpolitik, and I was not too proud of my pragmatism, but I preferred the
devil I did not know to the one I did, and even though I was a business
executive, I was raised in a family of Democrats. To my surprise, Clinton
has actually been worse for the world at large than George the First was, as
Clinton's reign has seen, among other outrages, over a million Iraqi
citizens (most of them children) die due to our genocidal sanctions, where
the Iraqi people have been systematically denied food, medicine, clean water
and the like. I do not plan on ever voting against somebody again. I did
not really like the feeling then, and the succeeding years have made it into
almost a shame that I voted for Clinton.
I voted for Nader yesterday, with the cleanest conscience, although I, like
many others, were bombarded with emails and media accounts of how voting for
the movement that Nader is leading was a vote for Bush, and other "get in
line with the herd" tactics. Our electoral system has largely degenerated
into voting for one of two prostitutes who work for the same masters (the
rich). In logic classes, it is called a false dichotomy. The Gore/Bush
"choice" was not much of a choice, and if I had not voted for Nader, I would
not have voted for president. Real voting takes place with each moment of
our lives, as we buy our groceries, put gas in our cars, buy our clothes,
etc. Voting for tweedledum or tweedleidiot every four years is not much of
a political process, and as Nader said many years ago, it is pretty much a
meaningless ritual. But that is the way the controllers want it, and public
apathy is what they are depending on, where the "freest" nation on earth has
the lowest voter turnout among the "free."
I have fielded numerous attempts to get me to fall in line and vote for
Gore, and I not would do that. I learned my lesson. Appeals were made on
behalf of the environment (I had first-hand involvement with Gore's true
environmental commitment, or lack thereof, partly documented at
http://www.halcyon.com./wfrazier/medicine.htm ), on behalf of women's
rights, and the underprivileged. The abortion angle had little merit, as
the two most "anti-choice" Supreme Court justices have been Scalia and
Thomas, both approved by Democratic-controlled legislatures. Nixon's
appointee, Blackmun, was the author of Roe Vs. Wade. Scalia paraded his
ideological leanings, and was unanimously approved in the Senate, including
the approval of Senator Al Gore from Tennessee. Clarence Thomas was the
most obvious "token" nomination in history (to replace Marshall, while Bush
somehow kept a straight face while saying that nominating Thomas had nothing
to do with his race), who was also approved by the Democrat-controlled
legislature, even after all the sexist scandal came up during Thomas'
confirmation hearings (where it came to light that he boasted to the ladies
that he was bigger than Long Dong Silver, among other enlightened acts).
Ironically, the biggest blow to women of this past generation was the
"Welfare Reform" that Clinton/Gore pushed through, and Gore even was proud
of his involvement, which has meant financial devastation to millions of
single mothers across America, a burden which has fallen heavily on their
children. Arab-Americans were particularly afraid of Gore's candidacy,
especially with his running mate who is a virtual mouthpiece of the Israeli
lobby. As I am writing this, the Israelis are in the midst of barbarities
that make Milosevic's crimes appear tame, as they are literally using their
military prowess to shoot Palestinian women and children in the eyes, knees
and other vulnerable places, so they are merely maiming Palestinians and not
killing them, as several thousand Palestinian corpses would arouse too much
world opinion that even the U.S. might have to acknowledge. So instead,
they are shooting to maim, while Clinton makes half-hearted appeals to the
Israelis, and Gore is silent. On this and many other issues, little about
Gore's candidacy appealed to me. Oh yes, Bush would want to strip mine
paradise if there was a buck to be made, but in the larger dynamics of
global environmental devastation, Gore was even worse than Bush in
To raise the specter of another Bush in the White House to scare people who
wanted to vote for Nader will be a subject for books and articles in the
future. In 1948, a progressive third party movement, led by a man named
Henry Wallace, got about 15% of American voters excited of voting for it,
which may have taken away Truman's chance of victory. Similar herd
management tactics were trotted out then, with Truman co-opting parts of
Wallace's platform, and doing red-baiting, and they worked, like the scaring
of Nader-leaning voters did. Wallace got only 2% of the vote come Election
Day, the movement was crushed, and we then had the Cold War, McCarthyism and
a host of wonders. Short term "gain" nearly led to the annihilation of the
human race. I never got on the case of those who wanted me to vote for
Gore. I told them to vote for who their heart told them to. Bush rightly
scared millions of people, and I would not hold it against anybody for
voting for a Democrat, if they were so afraid of Bush. I did the same thing
eight years ago. Heck, nearly fifty million Americans voted for Bush, and I
will not get on their case, however dismayed I am. I will break no laws,
and even though Gore and Bush supported a novel idea of democracy when Nader
was forcibly ejected from even being on the premises as a spectator and news
commentator for "debates" two and three, I will still play by the rules,
however rigged and unfair they may be. They have not yet outlawed
elections. I do not and will never advocate violence or anything resembling
the ends justifying the means, because I believe that the means become the
Gore gives me nothing to cheer about, however....
It is increasingly looking like there have been, to put it charitably,
"voting irregularities" in Florida. The South has long been the place where
the black people have had a rough ride. From slavery to lynchings to poll
taxes, it has been a very hard journey for people of African descent in
America. In Florida, over 90% of the black voters voted for Gore, and
already there are stories coming from Florida that blacks were prevented
from voting in Florida on a variety of pretenses, like their face and I.D.
did not match, the ballots were broken, the polling location was "out of
ballots" (wink, nudge) and the like. Florida is deep in what was known as
Jim Crow country, and racism is still very alive and well in America. In
Dade County, Florida, a lawsuit was filed today on the issue of a confusing
ballot, where apparently about two thousand votes that were cast for Gore
ended up being tallied for Buchanan. Last night was very weird when the TV
stations announced that Gore took Florida, then they said there was bad data
and retracted their predictions, something I have never seen in a
presidential election. Then, reports came out that ballot boxes were
missing in Florida, but were safely found in the possession of sheriff's
deputies. All this in a state where Jeb Bush is governor, and pledged to
deliver the state to his brother. I have first hand experience with
sheriff's deputies committing felonies and covering it up, which I document
at http://www.halcyon.com./wfrazier/synop2.htm , though in a backwater
California County, not a backwater Florida county. Do we have a case of
actual vote fraud, where the governor has helped his brother more than he
will admit? Across the globe, millions of people are wondering just that.
In our banana republic dictatorships that we so heavily armed and
subsidized, those kinds of shenanigans were merely days at the office, and
George the First ran the CIA, which specialized in that kind of
electioneering. There are protests already being planned across the nation
for Saturday (see http://geocities.com/countercoup/ ). I cannot say that I
agree with all that they are planning on protesting. Even though Al Gore
won the popular vote (at least among those who bothered to vote), Bush will
win the electoral vote if he takes Florida, and I do not agree with changing
the rules now to demand that Bush step down because Gore won the popular
vote. On the other hand, actually preventing people from voting, or
purposefully confusing them to vote for the wrong person, is not playing by
the rules, and wayward and missing ballot boxes should make all Americans
My fellow Americans, these are interesting and possibly pivotal times. I
will do what my heart feels is right. I encourage you to do the same.
Date: 9 Nov 2000
From: "Oca Brasil" <email@example.com>
Subject: Donate a tree website in Brazil
Can't thank you enough for being the source of much essencial readings.
Seeing the link you put in your site for the saverainforest.net I thought
you might like this one:
Although only in Portuguese, it will plant a tree on the brazilian atlantic
forest for every click.
Alto Paraiso de Goias - Brazil
09 Nov 2000
I DO KNOW WHY, 'CAUSE THERE'S CARBON IN THE SKY, STORMY WEATHER
Representatives of some 180 countries will gather in the Hague,
Netherlands, next Monday to begin two weeks of talks to nail down the
details of how to implement the Kyoto climate change treaty. French
Environment Minister Dominique Voynet said this week that the
European Union is united behind the idea that countries should meet
most of their binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
through domestic action, rather than through trading emissions
credits with other countries. She also said the EU would push to
limit the use of carbon sinks, such as forests, to meet reduction
goals. Both positions run counter to those held by the U.S. The
Hague talks will occur against the backdrop of a rash of severe
storms and floods in Europe that some officials are attributing to
climate change. On Monday, Prince Charles said that widespread
floods in Britain were the result of humans' "arrogant disregard" of
nature, and Prime Minister Tony Blair has said the floods show the
importance of taking action to combat climate change.
Planet Ark, Reuters, 08 Nov 2000
Planet Ark, Reuters, 08 Nov 2000
do good: Tell the U.S. not to cheat on climate change
SURVEILLANCE SAYS ...
Brazil launched a $435 million program yesterday to fight illegal
logging, mining, and drug trafficking in the Amazon rainforest, which
is home to about 50 percent of the world's plant and animal species.
The program will establish an air surveillance system and send police
out across the region's 1.9 million square miles. Last year, illegal
logging and farming destroyed an area of the Brazilian Amazon larger
than Hawaii. In a more local effort to protect Brazil's environment,
Fabio Luis de Oliviera Rosa, a fellow with the nonprofit Ashoka
organization, is working with rural people around the country to make
their farming practices more sustainable and to improve their lives
through the use of solar-generated power.
CNN.com, Reuters, 08 Nov 2000
A day in the life of Fabio Rosa, Ashoka Brazil
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000
From: Mark Graffis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: First climate model to incorporate realistic plant life produces dismal predictions
A new climate model that incorporates realistic plant life suggests
much faster global warming than previously predicted.
Peter Cox and his colleagues at the Hadley Centre in Berkshire,
England, have created the first model that takes into account
interactions between plant growth and other environmental factors,
such as temperature and carbon dioxide levels.
The results are dismal. By 2050, Cox predicts that the biosphere will
make a quick switch from sucking up a small amount of carbon dioxide
to belching out a lot.
Land temperatures could rise significantly - by 6 ÉC instead of the 4
ÉC predicted by models that don't allow for changing patterns of
"The severity of this surprised us," says Cox. "We didn't anticipate
the biosphere would be this important."
Using 'coupled' models is vital, says Ian Woodward, a vegetation
modeller from the University of Sheffield, England: "What we've got
now is the best way forward."
Plants usually absorb more carbon dioxide as more is pumped into the
atmosphere. But as it gets hotter, the amount absorbed by plants
levels out, while the amount expelled by microorganisms in the soil
This means that overall the biosphere begins to have a warming effect.
(New Scientist, 23 October 1999, p 20) Drying and warming will turn
large areas of the Amazon into grassland, further accelerating the
effect, Cox predicts. (New Scientist, 6 May, p 7)
However, Woodward cautions that other models don't predict such a
large die-off of vegetation in the Amazon.
More at: Nature, (vol 408, p 184)
Correspondence about this story should be directed to
1900 GMT, 8 November 2000
New Scientist Online News
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
From: Anna Hamilton <email@example.com>
Subject: Bill Gates on Electricity.
Gates loses faith in computers
They can't cure world's ills, admits Microsoft boss
by Edward Helmore in New York and Robin McKie in London Observer
Sunday November 5, 2000
Microsoft boss Bill Gates has renounced the machine that has made him the
world's richest man. In a startling proclamation, Gates has announced that
computers can do little to solve the planet's gravest social ills.
'The world's poorest two billion people desperately need healthcare, not
laptops,' he said.
The declaration represents a major personal transformation for Gates, and has
sent shockwaves through America's high-tech business community. Had the Pope
renounced Catholicism, the surprise would not have been greater.
Speaking in Seattle at a conference on using computers to help the Third
World, Gates said he still had faith in the ideal that technology could bring
about a better world, but added that he doubted that computers - or global
capitalism - could solve the most immediate catastrophes facing the world's
People who thought that developing countries could benefit from the e-economy
had no idea what it meant to live on $1 a day with no electricity, said
Gates. 'You're just buying food; you're trying to stay alive.'
The billionaire technologist became positively vitriolic about the idea of
using computers in the Third World: 'Mothers are going to walk right up to
that computer and say, "My children are dying, what can you do?" They're not
going to sit there and, like, browse eBay or something.
'What they want is for their children to live. Do you really have to put in
computers to figure that out?'
For a man who has benefited more than anyone from the IT revolution, this
reappraisal is extraordinary and comes after several months of growing
disillusionment in Gates about the state of the planet, and the potential for
technology to help it out of its current crisis.
He confessed he had been 'naive - very naive' when he began giving away his
fortune six years ago. At that time, he said, he expected that computers and
information technology would make up the bulk of his philanthropic donations.
'Computers are amazing in what they can do, but they have to be put into the
perspective of human values,' he said.
Having visited Africa and other Third World countries his priorities had now
shifted, he said. At least two-thirds of the grants offered by the $21
billion Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would now be devoted to Third World
healthcare and the development and distribution of vaccines.
In the past year the Gates Foundation has given more than $200 million to
health-related causes, including $25m for the International Aids Vaccine
Initiative, $50m to prevent maternal and child mortality, $20m for
international family planning efforts and $100m towards children's vaccines.
'As a father of two children, thinking about the medicines that I take for
granted which are not available elsewhere, that sort of rises to the top of
These remarks have angered many of Gates's wealthy, hi-tech philanthropist
counterparts. They say he has unfairly placed computers at odds with
providing food and healthcare in developing countries. Others argue that
Gates is wrong to think that technology cannot help improve even the poorest
'After listening to three days of serious analysis and work, and then to have
Gates rather flippantly say, "You've got to have clean water and food" - that
wasn't exactly furthering the point of the entire meeting,' said Sun
Microsystems chief research officer John Gage, who heads Netday, a charity
committed to wiring the world's classrooms to the internet.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2000
NOTE FROM JEAN: I saw a TV interview with Colin Campbell (a very credible man!) yesterday on BBC World and was compelled to seek out more info -- and found this for you.
The time of reckoning is nearing...
The last oil shock
Britain faces the prospect of closed filling stations and empty supermarket shelves as the fuel protesters once again threaten blockades. Last time the problem went away within a week or two. The hope is that this time too, the crisis will quickly evaporate. But there are scientists who believe that the recent problems are just a foretaste of what is to come - all the time and very soon. They predict that from 2005, the world will face a permanent and deepening shortage of petrol and diesel.
Geologist Dr. Colin Campbell warned, "The recent disturbances in Britain are like the tremors that precede an earthquake. The earthquake, which is almost now upon us, marks the beginning of the end of the age of oil." He and a growing band of supporters believe that, in the crisis we now face, we have glimpsed the future. And the future is about to arrive.
The world is utterly dependent on oil. The first modern oilfields were discovered in Pennsylvania, in the United States, in 1861 and global prosperity grew as the torrents of oil flowed. We depend on oil for petrol and diesel and therefore for transport. On land, sea and air. We depend on oil for the transportation of goods and food. We depend on oil for plastics. We depend on oil for agricultural fertiliser. Everyone is agreed that oil is running out. In 1998, the world consumed more than three times the amount discovered, according to IHS Energy Group, a leading petrochemical consultancy. When the oil does run out, without an alternative, the consequences will be severe. The question is when and how. The school of thought predicting early depletion is led by Dr. Campbell. In a 45-year career as an exploration geologist, working for BP, Texaco, Amoco and Fina, he has looked for oil all over the world.
After studying data from the world's 18 thousand oil fields, Campbell concluded that the oil will begin to run short in five years time. He said: "From 2005 onwards, we see the beginning of the long term decline in conventional oil production. I think it will probably fall roughly 3% a year. "Demand, on the other hand is growing at 2% a year. That means there's a shortfall, and by about 2020, there will be a shortfall of something like 40%." Scarcity will drive up the price. Economist Andrew Oswald of Warwick University explained what that means: "Some kind of economic slow down is inevitable. We've seen more than a trebling in the oil price in the last year and a half. "If the price went up to say 50 dollars a barrel then it would become very serious indeed for western economies. "Currently we don't know how bad an economic slow down would be produced, but certainly if the price keeps going then in the long run we're in trouble."
Speaking in a personal capacity, Richard Hardman, vice president for exploration for American oil producers Amerada Hess, went further: "I think there will be a real crunch. There will be a competition for this scarce resource - the oil. It means that there could be famines and wars." Campbell and Hardman acknowledged that doom mongers have falsely predicted oil dearth before. And they have been proved wrong by new discoveries. But, they said, high tech "global X-rays" now enable the industry to determine far more accurately how much oil is left to discover -- and it's not much. Said Hardman: "People have cried wolf in the past many times. I believe that this time the wolf really is at the door. "And I believe that, because, for the first time, we have a systematic survey of all the major sedimentary basins in the world. And we've got a calculation of what reserves they can contain."
Campbell and Hardman have updated a theory first expounded by Shell geologist King Hubbert in the 50s. He said that the big oil fields are discovered first, they are easier to exploit and the oil runs freely and cheaply. When they've gone, the industry turns to the smaller, more difficult fields. There will always be oil in the ground. But as the oil depletes, it eventually becomes impossible to pump. Oil discovery in the United States peaked in the 50s and then declined. Hubbert argued that production rises, peaks and falls in the same way after a time lag. He predicted that US production would peak in 1970 and then decline inexorably. It has. Campbell calculated a "Hubbert curve" for the world which sees production peaking in 2005 and thereafter declining. The decline will start first outside the middle east. The world will then become increasingly dependent on countries such as Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, said Campbell. But their production will start to decline not long after. And then the need for an alternative will become ever more pressing.
Campbell dismissed gas as a viable alternative long term on the grounds that gas field discovery and production follow the same pattern as oil -- and gas supplies will decline not long after oil. The Germans, with hardly any oil of their own, take the issue more seriously than in Britain. They have formed a coalition of oil companies, car companies and Government to seek long term alternatives. As part of that project, BMW has spent vast sums developing vehicles run on hydrogen. They emit only water vapour. BMW chief of science Detlef Frank said: "We can face the future only if we have unlimited access to fuel for mobility -- and the only alternative we know of is hydrogen." But there are only two hydrogen filling stations in Europe -- at Munich Airport and in Hanover. A vast new infrastructure to supply hydrogen would have to be built.
BMW has a vision of a future powered by non-pollutant hydrogen fuel produced from water by electricity created through solar power in a totally clean and renewable cycle of production. Dr. Roger Bentley of Reading University, applauds BMW's efforts but concluded: "There's nothing wrong with the idea of a hydrogen economy. But none of it can happen in the timescale to help solve the oil crisis. "Hydrogen needs energy to produce it. Solar panels may be one of those sources, but its all very expensive at the moment. There's a lot more development to be done. And as yet the infrastructure is not in place." So what hope for the world? Are the doomsayers wrong?
Putting the optimistic case is Ged Davis, Shell International's vice president global business environment. He believes we've got 20 years before oil depletion becomes "an issue." At the moment only 35 per cent of oil reserves are recoverable. Ged Davies believes better technology will enable the industry to extract a greater proportion of existing known reserves. He also believes that the industry will discover more oil fields. He said: "I think you can make a very clear case that if one looks for example over the next twenty years, that most of the additional oil that will be needed in the marketplace will be met either from exploration and equally from improved recovery." American oilmen, however, believe that, with oil as with much else, what happens there first then happens all over the world. And the annual rate of oil production in America has been in decline since 1970, falling by a third.
Texan oil producer Jim Henry said: "I've seen it decline. Elsewhere they've seen production increase and they don't realise that some time it peaks. And when it peaks then it starts declining. "Production goes down because the large fields are declining, the smaller fields are on stream but they don't produce nearly as much as a larger field. And overall the production declines. "High technology in my opinion can never stop the decline. It might at some time arrest it for a year or two, but the decline is inevitable."
Dr. Colin Campbell might be expected to condemn the fuel protestors for demanding cheaper prices and thus hastening the depletion of reserves. Instead he said: "The fuel protesters have done us a service by letting us know just how utterly dependent on cheap, abundant oil we have become." However he looks forward to the day when protestors take to the streets to demand - not cheaper oil - but renewable alternatives to oil.
See also The coming global oil crisis from http://www.oilcrisis.com/
(LOTS of convincing material at this site above!)
The Twenty First Century
The World's Endowment of Conventional Oil and its Depletion
BACK TO THE FIRST HOME PAGE OF THIS SITE