There's something surreal about this discussion.  There's allegedly a 
crisis so severe that humanity is in dire trouble.  But the solution is
... homeworking!

Owen said:
>IMHO - home-working/telecommuting on a much greater scale would greatly >reduce oil consumption. 

No doubt, but it would cut people off from the social contact of the 
work place and confine us to out homes.  Also, home working is not the 
same as outsourcing.  It's actually very difficult to manage people so 
remotely.  In my job I have responsibility for a number of remote 
offices in several continents, and I have to spend a large part of my 
time travelling between them. It's the only way to know what's going on 
and to share effective working practices.  This will reduce oil use, 
but it is also a miserable idea.

John Thornton wrote:
"How much consensus do you want on climate change James? It will, of 
course, never be 100% but it's high enough now that only a fool would 
believe the naysayers, most of whom are in the service of industries 
who get the results they pay them for."

I agree with much of the Spiked approach, but I do part company over 
their 'certainty' about no climate change.  I claim no expertise, or 
confidence in answering this.  But it is unworthy to criticise not on 
the basis of science, but of motivation.  People with 'bad' motives and 
unpleasant ideas are not thereby wrong (it was Nazi scientists who made 
the link between smoking and cancer - their findings were rejected!).  
If that makes me a fool, so be it. But I still don't know what we're 
supposed to do in reaction to the contested claims about climate change.

John continues:
"How do you distribute the misery and impoverishment caused by 
capitalism? "

Good question, and this is my point.  When people demand action on 
climate change which means producing less, it will inevitably mean 
less for those judged unworthy by existing standards. Like the 
hysterical fears about the consequences of Chinese growth - keep 
development away from Asians.

There is no reliable way to tell how people will react to 
a problem they have not faced. 
Indeed.  But why are we pontificating about a problem that we have not 
faced?

John:
"The issue of climate change may make that prediction wrong however. If 
near to the worst case scenarios for climate change come true the massive dislocation of peoples and necessary farming changes could be catastrophic."
'If', 'may', 'worst case scenario' 'could be' - where's the certainty 
gone? 

John:
"The shift to capitalism was very painful for a large part of the
population. Why should this shift be fundamentally different?" 
Because moving from feudalism to capitalism meant growth and progress. 
Moving from capitalism to environmentalism is the opposite.

John:
"It seems to me the solutions necessary are going to be unprofitable, 
unpopular and implemented by the Govt. something 'mericans don't take to very well."
Dosn't have to be unprofitable. In fact, increasing environmental 
legislation and bureaucracy reduces competition because only the 
largest incumbents can afford to negotiate the regulations, meaning 
that they have opportunity to make more profits.

Regardless of environmental planning, energy efficiency has tended to 
improve, while absolute energy use has grown because more people own 
energy intensive goods.  Key drivers of growth in US electricity use 
have been PCs and air conditioning. Air conditioning has improved 
efficiency dramatically, but far more people have it today.  Are you 
saying that they should just be hot? How do you decide who has it and 
who dosn't?  I'm all for investigating new energy sources, but they're 
not available right now.  So your choice is stark: keep developing and 
burning fossil fuel, or tell people that they can't have PCs or air 
conditioning.

--James