hi there, I use water to fuel a car as a supplement to gasoline. In fact, very little water is needed,only one
quart of water provides over 1800 gallons of HHO gas which can literally last for months and significantly increase your car fuel efficiently, improve emissions quality, and save money. I found the way through this site http://www.runcarsonwater.us i really recommend it to everybody, it's a nice ebook where you can find the instructions on how to do it! take a look.

Can we run our car with water and gas?
Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?

dustinchicago
Of course we are adapting, Imfedup. That's not my point. The point was that what I do to survive in this business world is not what my body most desires, namely eat sleep fight and f*** (all outside too).

Excellent! I love that comment! Now go out there young man and do what your body desires most! (it can be indoors to if you wish) ;)

The earth is a giant laboratory, and life is a great experiment… Nature has been product tested, and it works. So humankind- time for a paradigm shift… model yourself after a plant. Just cause we're civilized don't mean we gotta be industrial. We'll either figure this out or all the poor people will die tryin.

God I love CD

Imfedup: ???

I said 'design or evolve' either way you wanna take it (sorry for offering a choice). You seem to be misinterrpreting my comment and carrying it on to "we will evolve with desk chairs out our ass". So, I'll start over- the human animal's needs do not revolve around today's business culture's demands. The human body was designed to walk long portions of the day, sleep around the hottest and coldest time of day (3pm & 3am), and fight, eat and have sex.

Of course we are adapting, Imfedup. That's not my point. The point was that what I do to survive in this business world is not what my body most desires, namely eat sleep fight and f*** (all outside too). This of course is all an unimportant rambling against american car culture. So there!

tech2: if we were all vegitarians and used only solar and solar-derived (wind, thermal, wave etc) energy, maybe we could get to 10 billion- but a comfortable and diverse world would be less than the 6 billion now. It's hard to see it in north america, easier to see it in africa.

Of course, the US birthrate (not population, people) is in the (small) decline. Just not the "third world". But if a UN pollution report is presient, with pollution male fertility rates will fall dramatically anyway.

Truthteller: With birth control, we could severly reduce global population within a few breeding-cycles (I mean generation). I also blame the pope and the american religious for restricting birth control both here and abroad. Didn't America used to be anti-papist? (I'm catholic by the way. Well I guess not anymore)

JohnDoraemi, what do you think of my solar post above? Good call on the alt energy mention. My parents (not wealthy) live in a passive-solar home and collect all their rainwater. They save hundreds every month.

And I wouldn't call it a "Mad Max World", I'd call it feudalism. But that's another story.

So what was this article about?

The Community Solutions' doc on Cuba is very good and well thought out. I've seen it. Shows how resourceful we can be under duress - in this case the duress of our illogical embargo of Cuba. This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about in terms of solutions and transitions to a sustainable state. Cuba still has a potential population problem with the Catholic Church trying to re-emerge with the decline of the Castro era. There's a really good reason some governments try to keep them out. Their anti-woman, pro-overpopulation doctrines will help be the ruin of us all!

"New Urbanism" is code for gentrification. Under its guise, yuppies are kicking poor people out of the inner city and building an urban nightmare. It is more environmentally conscious to use old buildings than to build new, "green" ones, and old buildings can easily be made more energy efficient (cheaply, and without kicking out the people who already live in them).

twistoflex,
Natural gas still produces C02 and h20 when burned, just not a lot of the other undesireable products gasoline does.
Also there is a very limited supply of Natural gas, just like oil - only Natural gas is very expensive and dangerous to transport.

Also, have you ever heard of coalbed methane? My concern is that if we become to dependent on natural gas, we will be creating a market for coalbed methane - which uses and destroys a lot of water.

The solution is not to find an acceptable replacement for oil (even wind or solar). The solution is to use less energy. IMFEDUP is on the right track - lets use our own bodies more, we (and other animals) are the perfect machines for upgrading energy. Replace aerobics, Pilates, jazzercise, with physical labour.

IF you study this problem in depth, I maintain this becomes the only logical conclusion.

Conference to check out:

www.communitysolution.org

To the comment that Peak Oil is a myth...well.. it isn't. Energy WILL get more expensive...that is for certain.

There is always an inevitable downturn in civilization and either you adapt or die out.

THere is No way (even just through visual observation... not even number crunching) that our current way of life is sustainable.

We will have to change the paradigm in which we live. Yet so many folks hold on to CAPITALISM in its current form as the ONLY way to have an economic system. But it has so many damaging elements built into it. Communism is of course, not a solution either...

Both are reliant on certain things being highly centralized and that isn't really functional. I think that certain things are better done locally and individually... If you can carry your energy with you and not be reliant on a centralized energy source... so much the better...

We need to diversify our transportation and our food production networks.

Ironically our capitalistic systems run the same as the Centralized State run things... (that Conservatives complain about).

Anyway,... check out COmmunity SOlution... and check out the Documentary HOW CUBA SURVIVED PEAK OIL. A must see documentary.

Namaste
Caelidh

There are 2 problems: global warming and peak oil. Peak oil is a problem for tranportation which is 95% oil driven. Coal fired electricity generation is a major cause of CO2 emmisions. Peak oil will not be the end of the world as some predict because we can swith to natural gas powered cars. We already have this as a mature technology. However, natural gas will also peak in several hundred years and then coal after that. So we need to move to renewable energy at some point or we go down. We can use biofuels, but they eat up food. We can do renewables, but it will require a major long term effort. I doubt we will be able to pull it off. Global warming will continue all the while as this happens. It will complicate the situation.

Dara
I don't believe this is happening (evolution) anymore. One could even argue that the reverse is happening, people who do better in current society tend to have fewer kids than those who are struggling (though I agree this is distorted a lot by societal inequities).

You say so. But If the population is increasing at exponential rates we must be doing something right. (Medicine, Housing, Technology, Agriculture) Now does everybody equally partake in these evolutionary triumphs? No. I wish I had an answer for that. But that is also a part of evolution. (We have some pretty good minds out there and I'm a bit of an optimist. We'll figure most of it out.)

Get Cool with Collective Growth

For a well thought out and well presented position on a compassionate means to reduce human population, check out:

www.vhemt.org

May we live long and die out...

Just because it might be possible to get "X" number of human beings to exist in a given area per square mile doesn't mean that they will be able to survive, or that they will even desire to exist in that way. Do you really want us all to live like the people of Hong Kong or Mexico City? Also, it takes about 1.2 acres of farmland to support a single person at a minimal caloric level for a year. This does not take bad crop years into account. If you want to cram as many people as possible into the World, where are they going to grow the food they will need? We've already chewed up a great deal of our best farmland in the U. S. for suburban development. We're already learning that there are consequences for food prices in trying to shift some crop products to sources of "alternative" energy - the Mexican tortilla crisis specifically. Our food chain is incredibly fragile. There are estimates that our World-wide reserves don't exceed 30 days at any given time. Our farmland has become a sterile sponge onto which we pour petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides to grow a severely limited range of Genetically Modified crops, mostly cereal grains. Without the massive hydrocarbon inputs "modern" agriculture requires, yields will collapse.

Alternative "sources" of energy will certainly be part of the transition to a more sustainable World, but not the answer. Every alternative that is talked about requires inputs of hydrocarbon energy and feed stocks to make - solar panels, wind turbines, etc.

When I say draw down population in a generation, I'm not talking necessarily about reducing the total number of people to under 2 billion by then, not million as someone above erroneously stated. Within a generation we will need to only have the number of children that will get us to that level by the time they are adults. If you're looking for a model of the types of societies we will need to have to survive, I'd take a hard look at the Amish, without the 17th Century theology or massive families. We will, in fact, need to redefine family and community to survive. People will have to come together in collective agricultural communities creating their own local resources. The globalization made possible by the oil age is going to be a brief footnote in human history.

I draw heavily on the works of James Howard Kunstler, Thom Hartmann, Richard Heinburg, Jan Lundberg, and Matt Savinar in developing my ideas and philosophy. I highly recommend them to all of you.

imfedup:

"We are not "designed" we evolve. If it works it works.
If it doesn't we adjust. We are not static creatures."

In what way do you propose we are evolving? Evolution as I understand it requires that more adapted individuals are more likely to make it to reproductive age and thus reproduce more than less adapted individuals. I don't believe this is happening anymore. One could even argue that the reverse is happening, people who do better in current society tend to have fewer kids than those who are struggling (though I agree this is distorted a lot by societal inequities).

truthteller:

Do you mean reduce 2 billion in a generation or reduce to 2 billion? I don't even think the former is possible if our total fertility rate (TFR) drops to 1.75 tomorrow (it is now 2.6 according to the CIA). And I doubt that 20-30 years will see the death rate rise enough to make this happen. Maybe in 50 years though.

I would like to see more discussion in the media of what a sane population of the world and a population of my country is though. The lack of such discussions is my single biggest disappointment with most left wing politicians and left wing media. I'm so sick of the term smart growth with no mention of who we are going to get to the smart reduction later.

Dara (another child-free leftist atheist who drives his Prius 40 miles per week to work and 100-200 miles per week for fun and has no plans to change anytime soon)

We call it building up to code and have building inspectors to ensure that it is done. Changing building codes to require new development to include solar roofing will need to be done eventually anyway. Similarly new office buildings and other tall buildings should have roof top windmills and solar 'skins' (including energy efficient glass). To do anything useful will take time and will need to keep on accumulating ...permanently. We need accumulating green steps that will amass change to undo or slow the already accumulated negative changes producing global warming.
Over population? Trying to survive doing things the way we do now (non green development codes etc) makes population a serious problem... not the people but yes we don't need big families.
"Stand On Zanzibar" a novel by John Brunner on over population. The title coming from a study which calculated that the whole population of the Earth could fit on the tiny island of Zanzibar. It is an eerie read predicting much that we can see occuing now ftom everything from gated communities (His are virtual fortifcations) to seething populations, fundamentalist/Taliban like fanatics and pervasive random violence. Our problem is all that plus global warming. The longer we wait to change ...the more savage our way of life may become. It may get very bad very soon and stay that way.
All we have to do is for us to do too little now for us to have too much to handle later. Look how bad it is for hundreds of millions already and imagine it getting far worse for them. Then imagine we become them too. Doing nothing now is doing too much... to us later.

dustinchicago
Human beings were not designed/evolved to sit in a car or at a computer screen. It just goes against everything in our bones. I have always lived within walking distance of work and shopping- so screw you Mr. SUV!

How did you post this? Osmosis?
We are not "designed" we evolve. If it works it works.
If it doesn't we adjust. We are not static creatures.

tech2 will be correct only if the current US political paradigm changes 180 degrees fast.

Unfortunately, the paradigm, which includes all forms of taxation, corporate regulation, energy policy and transportation policy, continues to accelerate in the wrong direction fast.

The earth can support a much larger population than there is now, as long as we are not so wasteful in our economic practices.

The entire human population standing together with 1/2 sq meter for each would allow the entire world population to fit into city limits of a medium sized city.

correctivelens is right,putting the suburban concept to rest is the first step.

IF we live cleaner, and with a more even distribution of food and better education in the third world, there is no overpopulation problem.

"Seal" the borders of the cities and stop sprawl! We should be living in densely-populated, walkable burroughs. Sprawl increases commute time, increases traffic, destroys open space, costs tons of money on infrastructure (roads, sewage, power grid), wastes water, etc. Sorry, picket-fenced suburban "American Dream," we've figured out that you're fundamentally flawed - except for maybe the auto and petroleum industries.

truthteller:

Under 2 million in a generation? What do you propose happen to the other 4 billion people? "In a generation" is not a timeframe that allows for a natural lifespan, unless you mean "generation" in a different sense than I understand it.

Hysterical "Peak Oil" warnings:

"We can either rationally draw down the World's population over a generation, or everyone reading this can look forward to watching three-quarters of everyone they know, love and care for (and probably yourself) die horrible deaths in the next 20 to 30 years."

First of all this is not an accurate portrayal of the way resources are distributed. The USA has a very powerful footprint that ensures a higher standard of living, and more access to any and all resources than most places on earth (which isn't exactly fair, but it is a verifiable fact). Simply saying it's all going to turn into Mad Max world in your "20 to 30" year time frame is borderline infantile.

Next, I tend to agree with you on your major points. Population IS too high, and people do breed like insects. This is not good. It's usually promoted by religion, and religious communities tend to be the worst offenders, trying to populate their way to domination of the public mind.

Nowhere in this thread (that I've noticed) is a talk of WIND POWER, TIDE GENERATION, or other cutting edge technologies. The Peak Oilers are notorious for downplaying the potential of alternative energy on the assumption that it can't do anything to impact the situation (of course it can). This suspiciously plays into the goals of the oil industry which wants to squeeze every penny out of the crude, by fostering a perception of scarcity.

While birth control and a paradigm shift to zero population growth are laudable goals, they aren't going to provide the next generation of power. It is irresponsible to resort to fear mongering, and not even mention the solutions and answers we need to put our energies toward.

I'll also suggest PASSIVE SOLAR architecture which heats and cools the structure naturally, thus eliminating much of the energy needs.

Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

I have not had a car since 1993 and figure I saved $158,000 after I deduct public transportation costs. That alone is a good reason to look for alternatives.

I think its a myth that the world is overpopulated.

But Driving less is a great idea.
How about:
Go grocery shopping once a month or less. (meal plan)

Agreed, I am skeptical about so-called "new urbanism" It's just an expensive repackaging of traditional pre-car, old-style urban neighborhoods. Why don't we simply restore - and I DON'T mean gentrify - all the old city neighborhoods first? The cities need to make it clear that the developers will work for the public good or go out of business. If necessary the cities can do the redevelopment themselves.

If you want to call it "socialism" and therefore "un-american" than that's just fine. I think the mayors of most US cities need to take a tour of Toronto to get some ideas.

Sorry, just calling for reductions in driving, more efficient cars and more transit is too little, too late. As the peak oil community keeps trying to make the point, while seemingly crying in the wilderness, only wholesale changes in the way we live, as well as a drastic reduction in World population, will have the desired effect of making for a more sustainable World (if not truly sustainable). We must draw down consumption drastically, to bare necessities, and get population down to under 2 billion in a generation, or the usual ways of nature (war, famine, plague and pestilence) will do it for us - and not in a pleasant way.

This is one of the hardest and most verboten topics in the environmental community. I was at the DC Greenfest over the weekend, and was talking to a woman from NARAL about this, who agreed with me, but said she was not allowed to openly advocate population reduction as a representative of NARAL at the festival. The group formerly known as Zero Population Growth was also there, and are also unwilling to openly talk about the severity of the problem, mostly because they don't want to alienate the "green" breeders who think that having children raised to be environmentally aware will make up for their very resource draining existence. News flash, there is no guarantee your crotch fruit will grow up to be "green" anymore than I grew up to be the conservative Republican Christian my parents had hoped for (hello, child-free leftist atheist here!). Just wrapping your resource gulping offspring in environmentally friendly "green" cloth diapers and using organic baby food does not make up for bringing your three or more kids to the show in your hybrid SUV. The disconnect from reality is astounding.

We at least need to have a real and open discussion in this country and world about the dire problems we face if we do not take drastic action to reduce population and consumption. The family with 10 kids in most areas of the third world does not begin to consume the resources of ONE overly entitled American child. I look at the trash piles of my working class neighbors with kids, and can't help but be disgusted with the discarded foreign-made and wasteful mega-strollers, car seats, cribs, lightly played with and tossed toys, etc., etc.

Look, the choice is this stark. We can either rationally draw down the World's population over a generation, or everyone reading this can look forward to watching three-quarters of everyone they know, love and care for (and probably yourself) die horrible deaths in the next 20 to 30 years. This will be from resource wars, starvation, thirst, exposure from lack of heating fuel, currently preventable diseases, etc.

I know that what I advocate as necessary flies in the face of the entire sweep of human history and the entrenched corporate consumer culture. Hopefully, at the very least, we can have the beginnings of this discussion on forums like this without being shouted down.

Human beings were not designed/evolved to sit in a car or at a computer screen. It just goes against everything in our bones. I have always lived within walking distance of work and shopping- so screw you Mr. SUV!

After installing solarpanels on every roofspace in the U.S., homeowners will take their profits from selling surplus electricity to their utility company to buy an electric car that they fuel at home, which they drive onto an autonomus mag-lev electric rail car that feeds into a multilevel mag-lev tube system built into the median of the interstate highways.

this is not a denial that there is a problem, but living in one of the 'greenest' cities in the united states...... what looks good on paper is not working in reality! there are no mass transit improvements except in price increase for fares making it harder for the people that service the city to get into the city, because they are being pushed out by sky-rocketing rental prices. there is one!! rail line planed, but it will be out of date by the time it is even started. traffic went from sort of ok to border line grid lock and downtown parking has vanished, which is hurting businesses, though they will not talk about this. the neighborhoods are being destroyed by mcmasions along with the urban forest which this city is/was famous for. water mains are breaking all over the city due to heavy use. new power towers are being run through quiet neighborhoods to fuel the increase in demand from all these multi use vertical development projects. i have not heard that all the new condos going up are being built 'green'. they look like the standard concrete and glass construction. these words, "smart growth" recipe of walkable, transit-served and "New Urbanist"-style developments' are euphemisms for truly uncontroled rape/development, the soul of the city is being ripped out.