On the subject of the impending Energy Crisis.

[MatsP]

But in a free market, that sort of problem solves itself, because prices get higher, which leads to one of two things:
1. It's now possible to pay more for the extraction of oil from sources that were previously unaffordable.
2. Alternative energy resources become more viable, because the oil alternative is no longer the best choice.

As with all new technologies, the cost of doing something "different" is excessive when you start out - LCD TV's, even at 24" was £1000 a few years ago, now shops fall all over each other to sell one at £199. And looking at for example cars: 30 years ago, a fuel injected car was the more expensive models, and the lower end cars were still using carburettors. In case you didn't know, carburettors are less good at adjusting the exact amount of fuel to the conditions, so to be safe, the engine gets extra fuel, producing worse fuel economy. The technical advances has allowed this to transition down the model ranges, and today it's practically impossible to get a new car that doesn't have fuel injection (at least in the western world). Engine efficiency has improved - a 1.6 liter Golf engine in 1974 produced 70 bhp. The current (introduced in 2009) 1.6 liter Golf engine produces 101 bhp. And whilst I can't find figures to substantiate it, I'm pretty certain average fuel economy is BETTER for the new engine.

I can't remember a time when news haven't said "oil is going to run out, we're heading for an oil crisis in the next few years". I'm far from convinced that it's noticably worse than it was 20-30 years ago when I first heard it. I'm not saying oil will last forever, but it's not going to run out in an instant either.


--
Mats

[macvsog23]

The USA have capped its domestice wells and are looking to controll as many sites as it can not a stupid thing to do so they know its on the way out.

[grokefish]

@ Mats to say the free market will find a solution is being very shortsighted and is in fact the main problem with people not taking this seriously, it is the view of the economist, that know FA about the real physical sitiation.

If for example we were to change to solar power (lets pretend it is the answer to all our prayers) if it is left to the market to solve this situation then there would be not enough of our current energy source (oil/gas) to manufacture and taransport that system to its location and then you have the distribution system which will also need AT THE LEAST modification.

How will this occur if there is no ENERGY to carry out these operations, manufacture of the panels, feul oil to transport it from the place of manufacture to its intended destination, food/water to sustain the people installing it, oil to transport/grow that food/water.

It is not just about the monetary expense involved here it is the energy expense also.
If there is not enough energy to create the renewables then the renewables cannot be created.

These so called wonder fields of oil shale and sands are very energy intensive to release that energy, not to mention the absolutely desgusting impact on the environment.
Neuclear fission technology is not near an industrialised point.
Hydro/Tidal cannot take up the slack by any stretch of the imagination.
So where is this energy going to come from?????

The 'Free Market' is what got us into this in the first place, if the free market system could have made cheap plentyful energy from other sources it would have years ago. It is profit driven and there is no profit in it and how can there be in the future, oil prices are going up, the return on investment can only therefore go down, who is going to invest in that? Greedy economists?????????

Why would the oil companies really say the oil is running out? They can control the price in many other ways.
The fact of the matter is that NO-ONE knows how much usefull oil is left in the ground, countries Lie blatantly about their reserves because their quota is calculated on the amount of reserves THEY say they have.
The more thay say they have this year the more they can export.
Quick Buck.

I am not getting political here (as is explained below) there ia a reason that America are in the middle east and it isn't about the poor wee oppressed people there. There are poor wee opressed people in many countries around the earth but they either have no oil or have neuclear weapons.
This is no derogatory comment about the American people or America itself, they are only doing what has been done throughout history, secureing their future, even if it is a short term solution,because they are betting the oil IS running out, you can bet your ass more countries will be on it soon enough.

[macvsog23]

@ Mats to say the free market will find a solution is being very shortsighted and is in fact the main problem with people not taking this seriously, it is the view of the economist, that know FA about the real physical sitiation.

If for example we were to change to solar power (lets pretend it is the answer to all our prayers) if it is left to the market to solve this situation then there would be not enough of our current energy source (oil/gas) to manufacture and taransport that system to its location and then you have the distribution system which will also need AT THE LEAST modification.

How will this occur if there is no ENERGY to carry out these operations, manufacture of the panels, feul oil to transport it from the place of manufacture to its intended destination, food/water to sustain the people installing it, oil to transport/grow that food/water.

It is not just about the monetary expense involved here it is the energy expense also.
If there is not enough energy to create the renewables then the renewables cannot be created.

These so called wonder fields of oil shale and sands are very energy intensive to release that energy, not to mention the absolutely desgusting impact on the environment.
Neuclear fission technology is not near an industrialised point.
Hydro/Tidal cannot take up the slack by any stretch of the imagination.
So where is this energy going to come from?????

The 'Free Market' is what got us into this in the first place, if the free market system could have made cheap plentyful energy from other sources it would have years ago. It is profit driven and there is no profit in it and how can there be in the future, oil prices are going up, the return on investment can only therefore go down, who is going to invest in that? Greedy economists?????????

Why would the oil companies really say the oil is running out? They can control the price in many other ways.
The fact of the matter is that NO-ONE knows how much usefull oil is left in the ground, countries Lie blatantly about their reserves because their quota is calculated on the amount of reserves THEY say they have.
The more thay say they have this year the more they can export.
Quick Buck.

I am not getting political here (as is explained below) there ia a reason that America are in the middle east and it isn't about the poor wee oppressed people there. There are poor wee opressed people in many countries around the earth but they either have no oil or have neuclear weapons.
This is no derogatory comment about the American people or America itself, they are only doing what has been done throughout history, secureing their future, even if it is a short term solution,because they are betting the oil IS running out, you can bet your ass more countries will be on it soon enough.

Spot on i could not have put it better myself

[MatsP]

@ Mats to say the free market will find a solution is being very shortsighted and is in fact the main problem with people not taking this seriously, it is the view of the economist, that know FA about the real physical sitiation.

If for example we were to change to solar power (lets pretend it is the answer to all our prayers) if it is left to the market to solve this situation then there would be not enough of our current energy source (oil/gas) to manufacture and taransport that system to its location and then you have the distribution system which will also need AT THE LEAST modification.

My point is that oil/gas/coal isn't going to run out all of a sudden with no warning (you'll say the warning is now, and I'm saying that the warnings have been called for 30+ years). There are technologies that can solve the problems. It's just that currently the alternatives are too expensive to be a mass-scale viable solution.

Economists may not care about the oil-reserves directly, but they do care about continuing to run their investments, which requires (short and long term) access to energy. So it is in their interest, as well as everyone elses, to have something that works.

Are you proposing we do something dramatically different? Like kick out government, burn the banks, and that will fix everything? There is no easy solution to any large scale problem - there will always be someone that benefits, and someone that looses out - anything else is a pure fantasy [in a small scale, yes, you can have a commune that lives happily in peace and with no money, but for millions of people].

How will this occur if there is no ENERGY to carry out these operations, manufacture of the panels, feul oil to transport it from the place of manufacture to its intended destination, food/water to sustain the people installing it, oil to transport/grow that food/water.

I do not believe that we are anywhere near a crisis like this.

It is not just about the monetary expense involved here it is the energy expense also.
If there is not enough energy to create the renewables then the renewables cannot be created.

These so called wonder fields of oil shale and sands are very energy intensive to release that energy, not to mention the absolutely desgusting impact on the environment.
Neuclear fission technology is not near an industrialised point.
Hydro/Tidal cannot take up the slack by any stretch of the imagination.
So where is this energy going to come from?????

The 'Free Market' is what got us into this in the first place, if the free market system could have made cheap plentyful energy from other sources it would have years ago. It is profit driven and there is no profit in it and how can there be in the future, oil prices are going up, the return on investment can only therefore go down, who is going to invest in that? Greedy economists?????????

So what do you propose? That we stop using oil today?

It has been quite clear that major restrictions from governments on resources do not lead to any form of success...

Why would the oil companies really say the oil is running out? They can control the price in many other ways.
The fact of the matter is that NO-ONE knows how much usefull oil is left in the ground, countries Lie blatantly about their reserves because their quota is calculated on the amount of reserves THEY say they have.
The more thay say they have this year the more they can export.
Quick Buck.

Sure, I can see how all of that is true. So, perhaps I should just shoot myself, as I waste a lot of fuel driving around picking up fish from Wales and North of England. That's clearly of no benefit to anyone. I'm not helping solve the problem, as I work with comptuers (which use energy).

But oil companies would go bust pretty quickly if they ran out of oil next week or next year. Clearly stock-holders and other financiers (e.g. banks) would also not be happy about oil companies not making money all of a sudden, because they have been lying about how much oil they can get. I'm not saying they aren't fibbing a bit, but it's kind of self-evident if all of a sudden BP (other large oil-companies exist) can't deliver what they've promised to deliver to their customer. And yes, when that happens, there will be big problems.

I'm just not quite so paranoid to believe that EVERYONE involved in all oil companies, and other researchers, are able to lie so convincingly. After all, there are INDEPENDENT people who understand these things too.

--
Mats

[Viktor Jarikov]

The 'Free Market' is what got us into this in the first place, if the free market system could have made cheap plentyful energy from other sources it would have years ago.

The discussion above leaves my head spinning as there are many good arguments presented but not enough knowledge in my head to sort them out. But lean to agree with Mats more. Things take time to develop even in free market because whoever has the market right now, has the advantage, the cash, the research facility, the momentum so to speak. And they know new kids on the blocks are starting to breath on their necks and this makes them try to evolve and develop and perfect their current technology faster.

LCDs are a good example. They were invented 75 years ago. Still, 30 years ago, all they managed were primitive watch displays with very poor characteristics: black on dark-grey - what a nice display! It took 70 years before they started to be everywhere and CRT displays are on their way out, after 50 years of world domination.

My specialty OLED displays - I worked 9 years for Eastman Kodak on this new tech that is touted to be the superior tech and the next big thing that will replace LCDs. But everyone knows how tough it will be, LCD industry is hundreds of billions strong and the money are being poured into the LCD facilities that are able to build larger and larger displays and faster and faster and more and more = cheaper and cheaper, and billions are poured into LCD R&D.

It may take many years, decades or never at all, albeit anybody who saw the best LCD display next to the same size OLED prototype display would say that the latter is significantly better. And it uses significantly less energy.

Anyway, things take time to develop even in free market: there is always a conflict of interest. The same huge LCD companies all have OLED R&D groups and keep their hand in the fire so that their competitor did not all of a sudden attain a break-through in OLED and gained an edge on them. That's free market at its best and survival of the fittest.

[grokefish]

Are you proposing we do something dramatically different? Like kick out government, burn the banks, and that will fix everything? There is no easy solution to any large scale problem - there will always be someone that benefits, and someone that looses out - anything else is a pure fantasy [in a small scale, yes, you can have a commune that lives happily in peace and with no money, but for millions of people].

I am not proposing anything of the sort in fact I am not proposing we do anything at all, I am asking other people what they are doing/ are planning on doing.

I believe that we are somewhere near a crisis like this, you may never see it I may never see it but my/your kids will.

My reply was not a personal attack in anyway by the way, I was merely pointing out that I would rather that the transition to these other majik forms of energy production is done on our own terms rather than forced on us as would happen if we wait for the market.

"It still astounds me quite how selfish people are. Selfishness blantantly flows from certain misunderstandings about the nature of being human and what achieves the greatest happiness and sanity. But then, of course, we've all grown up conditioned by various media forms which have told us and narrowed our belief that happiness is found in the short term gains of having this or that be it an object, an activity or convenience. "Having is the most important thing" is a dominant philosophical presupposition of our time. However, this also says something about the general stupidity with which people haven't been able to step back and recognise their blind conformance to the social trends (greed, selfishness, short sighted, etc.) within which they're being carried.

All you retards that can't see that you're probably going to end up bringing children into a world that can't sustain them and that you'll massively regret that when it happens should take a moment to think. Of course it's a shame that people can't extend their compassion beyond the socially constructed ties of family but it's better, at least, than absolute selfishness.

And of course we can do something. Is anyone really that stupid to think otherwise? People that don't want to admit it do so because it means facing a loss of their current state of, often superficial, having.

edit: Ummm, perhaps excuse the form in which my points have taken.... Although the points still stand regardless of the mood which they've been expressed in."

That is a quote from another forum discussing this problem.
Even though the froum it is on, is mostly made up of zitty teenage kids, there is more positivety occuring there, than on a forum of people who are obviously interested in nature.

Please can we get off the point of whether or not there is or is not much oil left or if the oil production capability has or has not peaked. Clearly no-one here knows for a fact what is going down.
These are facts that even if they have not occured in the last 5 years, will happen at some time in my decendants future, in the human races future
My experience is that many people I have talked to, in both the oil and energy industries, are expressing the opinion that it has in all probability oil production has peaked.
Certainly and factually EVERY oil rig I have worked on their production has peaked I have made a point of asking.

Here are some links that have been put on the other forum:

http://www.aerocivic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I

[Viktor Jarikov]

Hey Groke! Sorry if I am not conforming to your thread. Sincerely. But I am not sure what it is that you'd like people to provide? Should we focus on what we do on a personal level? A lot of stuff has flown around (above) and I am lost as to what it is that you'd like to see? Except that you are not comfortable with where and how the exchange's been going.

My other cent: I believe, positivity leaves when name-calling begins. They are like light and dark: where there is light, there is no dark and where there is no light, there is dark.

I understand the author of your quote was perhaps merely being passionate and emotional but the moment he calls his opponents retards is the moment where it becomes senseless to talk about positivity, IMHO. I grant yours is different, and that's ok

[Viktor Jarikov]

You said: (VJ:#1) I was just wondering how many people realize that this will be a reality relatively soon and what knowledge you have on the matter.
(VJ: #2) This is a potentially political minefield so can we avoid that and stick to data and what you are planning to do about it on a personal, community and National level.

I think #1 has been adhered to ok by all. As for #2: I, for one, blew it: I provided no data except for a few pieces of known facts and I did not say anything about my personal demeanor and intentions on the subject.

[grokefish]

Your absolutely right Viktor, thank you.
I appologise to anyone I may have upset in this thread, I am sorry I can sometimes get a bit militant about this subject (Maybe due to guilt).
The subject of whether we are on the path to destruction is a bit much really I suppose, it is a massive thing to take on board that the life you have been living for years has:

A: Caused this problem
B: Cannot continue indefinitely without serious consequences.

It certainly was for me, especially considering the part I have played in the continuation of use of fossil fuels as the primary source of energy.

So shall we start again?

If we scrub the part about awareness of the problem lets just ask the questions:

Is anyone doing anything about it? (Anyone being what you personally are doing and also what knowledge you have of things that are being done by other people)

Any links to positive information or projects that occurring on local,national and global levels?

Everyone happy with that?

[MatsP]

I guess the reason that I'm a bit contrary on this subject is that I don't WANT it to be true. Everything I enjoy doing is bad for the environment:
- Keeping 9 tanks uses a lot of power, never mind going out to look t fish in various remove fish-shops.
- Motorcycle racing is clearly entirely pointless, and just the MotoGP races is 18 races x 17 riders x 21 liter tank = ~6500 liter of fuel - and multiply that by 3 to cover the practice and qualifying sessions, and another 2.5x for the other two race classes - that's a staggering 48000 liter of fuel wasted, just for the enjoyment of the spectators. That's not counting the fuel for race-teams and spectators to get to/from the races.
- Cooking - electric cooker uses a lot of electricity.
- Computers - currently I've only got a laptop, so I guess it's not that bad.
- Photography.
- Reading books - paper consumes energy.
- Coca-Cola - I drink far too much of the stuff.

I try to recycle as much as I can, but I don't think it really matches my consumption.

--
Mats

[JoePlec]

I guess the reason that I'm a bit contrary on this subject is that I don't WANT it to be true. Everything I enjoy doing is bad for the environment:
- Keeping 9 tanks uses a lot of power, never mind going out to look t fish in various remove fish-shops.
- Motorcycle racing is clearly entirely pointless, and just the MotoGP races is 18 races x 17 riders x 21 liter tank = ~6500 liter of fuel - and multiply that by 3 to cover the practice and qualifying sessions, and another 2.5x for the other two race classes - that's a staggering 48000 liter of fuel wasted, just for the enjoyment of the spectators. That's not counting the fuel for race-teams and spectators to get to/from the races.
- Cooking - electric cooker uses a lot of electricity.
- Computers - currently I've only got a laptop, so I guess it's not that bad.
- Photography.
- Reading books - paper consumes energy.
- Coca-Cola - I drink far too much of the stuff.

I try to recycle as much as I can, but I don't think it really matches my consumption.

--
Mats

Not to mention the money you spend on plecs, that could be donated to charity haha

[Viktor Jarikov]

Correct me if I am wrong, Grokefish, but let me be your advocate for a second.

@Mats: Let's suppose everyone, or 99.9% of people are like that. As soon as one of them starts trying to make up for the "harm" (slippery term here), then something positive begins. Let it be tiny vs. the "harm" but it is there. That's what Grokefish is asking about. (Plus, he wants to focus on energy, not just environment in general, I think.)

I am much like you Mats qualitatively. As for quantitatively, I don't know, most likely worse. Beyond trying to be as rational and effective and fiscally responsible and environmentally responsible as possible (by using less, using all, recycling as much as possible, signing up for any mailings as paperless, installing energy-star windows, minimizing heating bills/maximizing insulation, minimizing gasoline consumption, never throwing out food, eating food derived from sustainable sources, using compost for fertilizer, etc. etc. etc.), I don't do much of anything else. Ok, we support botanical gardens, aquariums and zoos. We don't buy paper books or newspapers. We recycle Ni-Cd batteries and mercury-loaded fluorescent bulbs etc.

It's all so little vs. what we spend on necessities and anything in excess of such - hobbies, entertainment, traveling... Moving closer to the topic of more direct energy consumption, I am ashamed that e.g., our energy supplier offers to supply part of our electric from wind mills. More expensive, sure. I never signed up.

JoePlec, your point is extremely point, cannot be overestimated, I am with you, but in the other hand, IMO, misplaced here being not directly related to energy consumption (and it is wasteful to quote a post, a big post, to which you are replying and which is situated right above yours... just poking fun at you mostly, but Jools has been trying to get everyone to become a better quoters...).

[MatsP]

So, I'm just bad. I know. Egoistic, and not very helpful for the environment. I shouldn't have accepted Grokefish's fish, I should get rid of my fish... That's a good plan then, isn't it. Anyone want some fish?

--
Mats

[Jools]

Sadly no one saw what i was getting at.

You might want to consider why no one got it. While it wasn't meant literally, it was aggressive and suggesting rounding up a bunch of Arabs and shooting them (ironically). Not what I want to see on my forum and thus the warning has been sent.

Can I ask EVERYONE please to consider what they post and the international and (relative to sites like facebook and so on) polite nature of this website.

The time I (and others) waste moderating this forum is time I do not spend developing the site. Since the "hybrid ray" topic, I reckon that's run into a decent book chapter and probably a few days work.

Jools

[Industrial]

I am 18 now, and I think that when I am an old rambling fish keeper, we will not be nearly as reliant on oil. I just hope we find a sustainable alternative.

[crkinney]

Wow what a slap in the head for us old farts ,I hope indust. is right .When I was a kid we were cooking on bufflo dung and then there was a bufflo shortage woops there went the trees.I goes on and on
Mats shipping fish is expensive and waste energy .Make sushy,

[Viktor Jarikov]

Mats, I am trying to decipher your post: is it supposed to be (1) dramatic, (2) sarcastic, (3) consolation-seeking, or (4) worry-arousing for your overall well-being or your state of mind?

Multiple choice. Pick one.

Please, keep your fish and keep helping us. We need you and appreciate you and your extraordinary dedication to PC is evident to anyone who cares to even take a casual look at PC pages...

[MatsP]

I'm not quite sure myself.

--
Mats

[Viktor Jarikov]

[grokefish]

So, I'm just bad. I know. Egoistic, and not very helpful for the environment. I shouldn't have accepted Grokefish's fish, I should get rid of my fish... That's a good plan then, isn't it. Anyone want some fish?

--
Mats

Lol,no it isn't a good plan.
I am not suggesting anyone stops doing things like fishkeeping or such like, in fact I have not in this whole thread suggested anyone should do anything at all.
The original question was regarding peoples awareness of the situation, to try and bring the awareness to the front of peoples mind, and also say what they are doing about it or what they know of that is going down about it.

The thread was originally designed to get ideas and suggestions for what I am going to do about it.

Interestingly Mats' comment on the market making a change has been cycleing in my head and I am coming to see it as a really very reasonable concept.
For instance if Mats was to stop fishkeeping as a result of this thread, apart from the loss to ourselves of his knowledge and excellent mod skills there would be a drop in the use of energy or a market reduction as it were.
It may be small but added to many other people stopping doing stuff that market reduction would be big.
This would maybe reduce oil consumption but would not provide the incentive in the market to produce more energy and invest in alternatives.
Ironically by this process the problem could not only be prolonged but made worse in the long term.

Often threads like this are seen as being started by an 'Eco Warrior' saying that we are all very nohty and should be punished for living our lives, and as far as we know our only chance at life, as we want to and hang the consequences.

Fishkeepings energy use pales into insignificance as compared to the energy 'Wasted' making new cars when there are plenty of old cars that could easily be 'recycled' into new cars by simply refitting them with modern engines etc.

The problem is very much about expectations. Peoples expectations of what it is to be a success is so distorted by the media, if you do not have then you are not a success.
People throwing out perfectly serviceable sofas and buying a new one just cos there is a 'Half price sale' on at a furniture shop, buying clothes they will never wear, books they will never read, food that will get wasted, painting a room just because you fancy a colour change etc.

Actually going 'shopping' for stuff they don't need actually as saturday/sunday entertainment?????????

All very wastefull.

Another surprise for me is the only person that has listed a very impressive awareness and doing something about it post is an American, supposedly the most wasteful society there is.

One of the madest things I ever saw was in the middle east, I was out in the hotness at a power station and went to the office which was a cabin and inside it was like a walk in chiller room!
I was like why is it so cold in here?
Their answer was 'were in the desert'
It was so cold in that room it was like Aberdeen in the winter, now I have been in Aberdeen in the winter with these very same guys and all they do is whine it is freezing, yet there they are in the desert with the air con on full chat sitting in near arctic conditions WTF??????
The human brain is a very complex and interesting puzzle.

[Viktor Jarikov]

Random points.

People will always do stuff they can afford as long as there is no immediate danger from their activity, including any kind of hobby and entertainment. Life for an average person is way too boring and even pointless without these rewards and distractions (I think/hope I am not one of these people). This is also, importantly, how people unwind - it takes the world's energy to wind up AND, by Newton's 3rd law or second law of thermodynamics, make your pick, it takes the world's energy to unwind - there is simply no other way.

The degree of wastefulness is directly proportional to the nation wealth. Personal wastefulness that is. The wastefulness on a national level is different: e.g., N. Korea is pretty poor but they are building a nuclear arsenal at the expense of feeding their own people (I am not criticizing, just stating a general impression).

When eco-crisis makes more people uncomfortable, the Greens will start winning the political stage it would seem. So far, they have little to no political power.

IMHO, your example with your colleagues simply shows that all is relative - they know they can go out into the natural sauna, so they are chilling inside; following the same logic, people go into a real sauna to heat up and work up a sweat so long they know they can cool down outside of it; if they could not, hardly they would go in. Russians and Fins go outside naked and play in the snow and bathe in iced-over rivers because they know they can return into the hell-hot sauna anytime they want. They would not do it if there was no sauna.

Furthermore, you are likely starting to dig way too deep and soon, we won't be able to continue, IMO, without invoking one's views on faith, the purpose of life, etc.

[grokefish]

Good points especially the one about the greens. As it has beens shown many times before the smallest political party will always end up the largest eventually and the cycle begins again.

[macvsog23]

Sadly no one saw what i was getting at.

You might want to consider why no one got it. While it wasn't meant literally, it was aggressive and suggesting rounding up a bunch of Arabs and shooting them (ironically). Not what I want to see on my forum and thus the warning has been sent.

Can I ask EVERYONE please to consider what they post and the international and (relative to sites like facebook and so on) polite nature of this website.

The time I (and others) waste moderating this forum is time I do not spend developing the site. Since the "hybrid ray" topic, I reckon that's run into a decent book chapter and probably a few days work.

Jools

Round them up and shoot the lot words from a sex pistols song referring to shooting Jews not Arabs.

But then rounding up any one is aggressive and shooting them is far more aggressive.
But to me posting a comment that environmental damage is fine and we must just carry on burning oil and other fossil fuels is aggressive in fact it is down right biological suicide.
the majority of our fuel comes from countries were civil rights are not even considered so to advocate continuing with a policy of taking with the cooperation of the corrupt rules of these countries any oil is aggressive. For every gallon of fuel we burn some despot in some far off land is counting his dollars and allowing his thugs to beat the crap out of the people living on the land were the oil is being pumped but then I am only looking at the wider picture.
So please excuse me as I drive my car and burn my fire and cook my food what would I know about poverty?

[wrasse]

They say fishkeeping is a relaxing hobby. They say watching fish in a tank is de-stressing. I hear you often see fish tanks in dentist waiting rooms.
Have you all been having your teeth extracted?

[macvsog23]

Reading this post I see 3 camps
Camp one
It will never happen its all ok just keep using it don’t care were it comes from or what it costs along as it don’t hurt me.

Camp2
It’s not a problem we have other problems it will not cause the end of the world.

Camp 3
It’s a problem it’s going to cause great hardship and its going to impact on me.

How about camp 4?
It is not right to take oil at a cheap price from a poor country and let several despots skim off the top and pass sod all down to the people whose land it is under? Should I not be more concerned about how I use oil and were it comes from?

[Jools]

May I also suggest Camp 5 (known as the Jools' likes to avoid politics on this forum camp) which would also be the silent majority.

I may, or my not, have strong feelings about this, but I recognise this is a catfish site and I'm not going to ramble on about it and waste PlanetCatfish.com resources with politically charged opinion.

Jools

[Jools]

Round them up and shoot the lot words from a sex pistols song referring to shooting Jews not Arabs.

So why did you write about Arabs? Verbatim, you wrote:

We just go and take it wot do the Arabs need Oil for any way? They just ride on Donkeys When you taken what they have got line them up and shot the lot.

No quotes, no reference, no chance for anyone not into Punk Music to get it. Classic trolling, hence the warning.

Please, everyone, one more dodgy remark and this topic is locked.

Jools

[macvsog23]

Energy criss avoied polertics?
materr ends as far as I am concerned

[JoePlec]

May I also suggest Camp 5 (known as the Jools' likes to avoid politics on this forum camp) which would also be the silent majority.

I may, or my not, have strong feelings about this, but I recognise this is a catfish site and I'm not going to ramble on about it and waste PlanetCatfish.com resources with politically charged opinion.

Jools

Best post i had read in a while... if it hasnt got fins i dont care!