Yes, computers are a lot smaller nowadays.

The world is going to undergo a massive change before 2050. Ray Kurzweil predicts “the next half century will see 32 times more technical progress than the last half century”. Also that artificial intelligence will be with us.

“or indeed told anyone in the West that fossil fuel depletion … would be a serious concern

They would believe that. The idea was first introduced to Congress around 1910 if memory serves, and reports of it have been hitting headlines ever since.

http://liberty.pacificresearch.org/docLib/20070920_Hysteria_History.pdf

“Predictions of oil shortages have run throughout the last half-century. In 1943, U.S. Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox predicted a serious oil shortage by 1944 and oil exhaustion in the United States by 1963.”

Nonetheless, social and political change can be faster than you expect. Again, it’s 42 years. Compare the world in 1900 with that in 1942, or 1984.

Hell, just look at 1966 to 2008. In 1966, poor civil rights in the US, most of Africa still or only recently colonies, few or no satellites, military dictatorships in most of South America and significant parts of Europe, the Red Army across most of Eastern Europe, much of African and Asia under the threat of mass famine, computers still the size of houses… and 42 years later…?

Many changes since 1966 have been very positive, or at least neutral (eg people living in sub-Saharan African countries are overall neither better nor worse off independent than they were as colonies) for the world - and most of them haven’t depended on cheap fossil fuels, though they have to some extent depended on technology, for example many civil rights and liberation movements were greatly helped by television and radio.

Now, I don’t mean to say that everything will automatically turn out alright. It may or may not. But I do mean to say that while the obstacles to positive change are significant, they are not insurmountable. Had you told people in the US in 1966 that in 2008 a half-African man would be campaigning for the US Presidency with a significant chance of victory, or told Chinese that they’d be able to put men in space, or told Muscovites that the entire Soviet empire would fall with barely a shot fired in the process (though some shots after it’d fallen), or indeed told anyone in the West that fossil fuel depletion and climate change would be a serious concern, well…

We can do a lot in 42 years, if we set our minds and hands to it. Sustained effort may or may not bring results, while giving up will definitely not bring results.

Negative change always seems terrifyingly fast, and positive change painfully slow.

The reason I am focusing on this is because it was used in a open meeting here by a AGW proponent on Thursday Night while discussing the Carbon Tax just introduced by my regional Government. Norway has a similar tax.

I promply produced the report by his own environmental group that clearly states that Norway is side-stepping the system and not addressing actual emissions, and chopped him off at the knees debate wise. Should have read his own and other research, but when you are so sure you are right you do not think you have to.

Norway is cash rich so why cannot they solve the problem with money like environmentalists keep telling us can be done?

Because of the conditions, both geogaphically and climate wise, the current options DO NOT WORK for Norway. I really believe they are trying, I mean they built the seed vault after all, should be worth a couple of points to save all the plant species on the planet. So I am sure they are actively seeking solutions.

So their current solution is to off-set as they are not even close to their Kyoto commitments, they have actually increased emissions so they are scrambling to meet their carbon-nuetral claims!

I say real reductions must be made in self-proclaimed carbon-nuetral countries, you want to lead then lead, so we can judge the impact economically to allow for real progress in the managing of these changes, as far as carbon credits, sorry they do not count, please hang up and try your call again.

I agree with you in part, that over the next 42 years a lot will be possible. And from a purely technical standpoint I am sure that we will make great advances.

But socially, politically, and financially I think it will be very difficult to effect real change. The UK is a case in point - despite seemingly huge political will, what has been practically achieved is very little.

This is really the point of this post.

I had hoped the expected results of the UNFCCC talks ending in 2009 would be the starting point for global action.

So the messages in the media will change until that time and we will have to roll with the punches until a clear message is arrived at.

The goal posts have been moved many times since 2001, that is part of my personal view of the problem, there is no clear targets.

So as with all things political, they will have to do it no less than 5 times to either get it right or give up.

Yes there are obstacles. No, it’s not easy. If we try, we may fail. If we don’t try, we’ll certainly fail. I’ll take possible or even probable failure over certain failure any day.

Whenever I see a wail of helplessness like this I think of that scene in The Godfather when Johnny Fontane is wailing and crying. “I don’t know what to do!”

*SLAP, SLAP* “You can act like a man!”

It’s amazing what can be achieved when you act like a man, or act like a woman, instead of a whining adolescent, and just plain give it a go. It’s 42 years, for God’s sake. A hell of a lot can be achieved in 42 years, provided we don’t sit around wailing about how impossible it is.

and think of all these poor people who now will have ample resources for easy money. this scheme could be applied to nutritional deficiency as well.

all my obese neighbors could purchase food credits which would nourish a third world country, thereby absolving them of gluttony, zowie!

from here the view is dismal.