Eco-loons say: time to put democracy 'on hold'

[myksav]

James Lovelock on the value of sceptics and why Copenhagen was doomed
James Lovelock on the value of sceptics and why Copenhagen was doomed | Environment | guardian.co.uk


"We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.

But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."

-----

Of course he is asking the impossible... how can you put democracy on hold, when it has never really existed? Example? Copenhagen was supposedly a failure... and yet the "authoritative" powers that be simply went right ahead with their plans to implement cap&trade, carbon taxes, and various other schemes. There is no real debate, just theatre for the masses. All of the key geo-political decisions were make by the uber-rich, behind closed doors, decades ago.

Well, Mr Lovelock is wrong there. During the American Civil War (what's civil about that?), Presidential elections went ahead, as did State and Local elections.
Likewise during other wars the US was directly involved in, like WW2.

[Éireann go Brách]

Don't you think the energy companies would have introduced alternative technologies if they were:
a) cost effective?
b) actually worked?

Fossil fuel energy is ridiculously cheap.
Would you prefer if we moved to more expensive forms of energy?

Good point but the true cost of fossil fuels is at the pump.
Its in the enivromental damage thats being done.
That needs to be taken into the equation or its a false equation.

My point is
If we lived in a true democracy and I speaking globally here not in the Irish sense. we would have a very different energy model today.
Your energy policy is based on profit and not the whats best
for the people and planet.
Carter knew in 1970s , Big Oil had other ideas.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA]YouTube - President Jimmy Carter - Address to the Nation on Energy[/ame]

[Heorditas]

Good point but the true cost of fossil fuels is at the pump.

The "true" cost is the cost minus tax and excise - i.e. still very cheap.

Its in the enivromental damage thats being done.
That needs to be taken into the equation or its a false equation.

Environmental figures vary drastically.
One needs to determine if the cost of fossil fuels plus the cost to "repair" the environment is less or more than the cost of using alternative energy sources.

My point is
If we lived in a true democracy and I speaking globally here not in the Irish sense. we would have a very different energy model today.

Why? If it isn't economical (see point above), why would anyone pursue it?

Your energy policy is based on profit and not the whats best
for the people and planet.

What's best for the people?
Cheap energy isn't what's best?
Investment in energy companies isn't good for people? That same investment that helps fund many peoples' pensions? It's not good?

[fiannafailure]

Tick tock tick tock ..... how long until "energy independence"?

Oh come on now sir

The book must have a happy ending

[Mark.Keogh]

Don't you think the energy companies would have introduced alternative technologies if they were:
a) cost effective?
b) actually worked?

Fossil fuel energy is ridiculously cheap.
Would you prefer if we moved to more expensive forms of energy?

That and the fact that it has locked in the transport energy industry and the dependent communting customers. New technology means the entrance of uncontrolled competitors into the market and already sunk capital/infrastructural resources. Wind, wave and sun are pretty cheap once the capital investments are sunk. Loss of power and perpetual profits is more realistic reason.

Wait until the traditional energy companies have control of the sustainable market, infrastructure and patents. Then we'll make a quick and smooth rebranded switch.