Next Great Depression?

[Charlotte408]

Next Great Depression? MIT researchers predict ‘global economic collapse’ by 2030

Most of the computer scenarios found population and economic growth continuing at a steady rate until about 2030. But without “drastic measures for environmental protection,” the scenarios predict the likelihood of a population and economic crash.

However, the study said “unlimited economic growth” is still possible if world governments enact policies and invest in green technologies that help limit the expansion of our ecological footprint.

news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/next-great-depression-mit-researchers-predict-global-economic-190352944.html

They are still trying to sell this? So if we don’t accept drastic ‘green’ measures the population will continue to grow and eventually crash. Is abortion or/population control/contraception now considered ‘green’ technology then? Maybe they mean ‘if we don’t accept drastic measures of liberal ideology’.

 

[Garyjohn2]

No, its really important to adopt sustainable (green )technology. The key word is should not be green, but sustainable. Anything that is not sustainable is…well…unsustainable. Meaning, it won’t last. So yes, for unlimited economic growth we need sustainable resource use and business practices.

I don’t think abortion and population control are part of that scene…and I hope it doesn’t become so!

 

[SamH]

Most of the computer scenarios found population and economic growth continuing at a steady rate until about 2030. But without “drastic measures for environmental protection,” the scenarios predict the likelihood of a population and economic crash.

For years I’ve been hearing a lower population was the path to environmental nirvana. Now they are saying it will cause economic collapse?

As for the rest of their “predictions” matching their computer models:

U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP - entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect - Associated Press June 30, 1989

‘New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now,’ - St. Louis Post-Dispatch Sept. 17, 1989

Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the '80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates. - Dallas Morning News December 5th 1989

"(By) 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots… "(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers… “The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands”. - Michael Oppenheimer, The Environmental Defense Fund - “Dead Heat” 1990

Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert - Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected “greenhouse effect,” scientists believe. -Denver Post April 18, 1990

By 2000, British and American oil will have dimished to a trickle…Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years. - 5000 Days to Save the Planet - Edward Goldsmith 1991

The planet could face an “ecological and agricultural catastrophe” by the next decade if global warming trends continue - Carl Sagan - Buffalo News Oct. 15, 1990

Today (in 1996) 25 million environmental refugees roam the globe, more than those pushed out for political, economic, or religious reasons. By 2010, this number will grow tenfold to 200 million. - The Heat is On -The High Stakes Battle Over Earth’s Threatened Climate - Ross Gelbspan - 1996

One of the world’s leading climate experts warned of an underestimated threat posed by the buildup of greenhouse gases ’ an abrupt collapse of the ocean’s prevailing circulation system that could send temperatures across Europe plummeting in a span of 10 years. If that system shut down today, winter temperatures in the North Atlantic region would fall by 20 or more degrees Fahrenheit within 10 years. Dublin would acquire the climate of Spitsbergen, 600 miles north of the Arctic Circle. “The consequences could be devastating,” said Wallace S. Broecker, Newberry Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s - Science Magazine Dec 1, 1997

Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting even. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is," Dr David Viner, Senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia - Mar 20, 2000

Officials with the Panama Canal Authority, managers of the locks and reservoirs since the United States relinquished control of the canal in 1999, warn that global warming, increased shipping traffic and bigger seagoing vessels could cripple the canal’s capacity to operate within a decade. CNN November 1, 2000

Accroding to “scientist” we all died 10 years ago.

 

[bellasbane]

“Human ecology is an imperative. Adopting a lifestyle that respects our environment and supports the research and use of clean energies that preserve the patrimony of creation and that are safe for human beings should be given political and economic priority”. - Pope Benedict XVI

catholic.org/green/story.php?id=41726

 

[Garyjohn2]

“Human ecology is an imperative. Adopting a lifestyle that respects our environment and supports the research and use of clean energies that preserve the patrimony of creation and that are safe for human beings should be given political and economic priority”. - Pope Benedict XVI

catholic.org/green/story.php?id=41726

This is reasonable, logical, and good.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Next Great Depression? MIT researchers predict ‘global economic collapse’ by 2030

news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/next-great-depression-mit-researchers-predict-global-economic-190352944.html

They are still trying to sell this? So if we don’t accept drastic ‘green’ measures the population will continue to grow and eventually crash. Is abortion or/population control/contraception now considered ‘green’ technology then? Maybe they mean ‘if we don’t accept drastic measures of liberal ideology’.

2030? Peter Schiff is predicting that it will happen next year.

forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/03/27/peter-schiff-market-crushing-treasury-collapse-to-hit-around-2013/

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

“Human ecology is an imperative. Adopting a lifestyle that respects our environment and supports the research and use of clean energies that preserve the patrimony of creation and that are safe for human beings should be given political and economic priority”. - Pope Benedict XVI

catholic.org/green/story.php?id=41726

The Pope isn’t going to give a hoot about the global ecology when the global economy comes crashing down around everyone’s head.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

No, its really important to adopt sustainable (green )technology. The key word is should not be green, but sustainable. Anything that is not sustainable is…well…unsustainable. Meaning, it won’t last. So yes, for unlimited economic growth we need sustainable resource use and business practices.

I don’t think abortion and population control are part of that scene…and I hope it doesn’t become so!

Well, if people switch to sustainable living, Walmart, and China, are in big trouble. The world economy has been kept afloat on the backs of hard working Chinese slavery pumping out cheap junk that breaks and has to replaced often. If people drop the disposable model of commerce and begin investing in high quality, practical, sustainable products the bubble that has been inflated around this “junk commerce” model will come crashing down and cause a global conflagration.

In essence, sustainability is unsustainable.

 

[Charlotte408]

---

Most of the computer scenarios found population

** and economic growth continuing at a steady rate until about 2030. But without "drastic measures for environmental protection," the scenarios predict the likelihood of a population and economic crash.**

I’m still trying to figure out how solar panels and windmills can prevent population growth…

 

[JimG]

2030? Peter Schiff is predicting that it will happen next year.

forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/03/27/peter-schiff-market-crushing-treasury-collapse-to-hit-around-2013/

I’m afraid that Peter Schiff may be the more accurate one here. The massive debt bubble is due to burst, and even Ben Bernanke will be unable to stop the crash. In fact, he has been responsible for delaying it with artificially low–i.e., zero–interest rates, and thus will make it worse when it arrives. Nobody will be talking about green energy in the midst of a depression. It will take another population boom to bring us out of it. People are the ultimate renewable resource.

I expect that whichever party is in power when it happens will get the blame, although neither has done anything to stop the debt bubble. The OWS contingent will use it as an excuse to push for socialism or communism, or just plan anarchy. It will be a situation ripe with opportunities for government tyrrany.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

They are still trying to sell this? So if we don’t accept drastic ‘green’ measures the population will continue to grow and eventually crash. Is abortion or/population control/contraception now considered ‘green’ technology then? Maybe they mean ‘if we don’t accept drastic measures of liberal ideology’.

I think you missed the point. The study merely points out what everyone should already know; that we are consuming resources, especially oil, at an unsustainable rate. Our reliance on oil as a primary fuel source is not only unsustainable but a threat to the long term stability of our nation.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I think you missed the point. The study merely points out what everyone should already know; that we are consuming resources, especially oil, at an unsustainable rate. Our reliance on oil as a primary fuel source is not only unsustainable but a threat to the long term stability of our nation.

It is perfectly sustainable under the abiogenic theory of oil creation.

 

[oldcelt]

It is perfectly sustainable under the abiogenic theory of oil creation.

Except that that theory fails to produce any major finds. Even the supposed fields near Vietnam have been found to have originated from porous sandstone.

I’ll admit, I find it fascinating, but, even if true, extraction remains phenomenally expensive due to the extreme depths of the supposed abiogenic fields.

John

 

[JimG]

There’s lots of oil. And when the depression hits, it will get cheaper.

The World Has Plenty of Oil

There’s Plenty of Oil in America

Scarce Oil? U.S. Has 60 Times More Than Obama Claims.

 

[Charlotte408]

I think you missed the point. The study merely points out what everyone should already know; that we are consuming resources, especially oil, at an unsustainable rate. Our reliance on oil as a primary fuel source is not only unsustainable but a threat to the long term stability of our nation.

No I get the point. I was just pointing out that they were not only speaking about oil. They packaged it all together, including population, to make it sound like some big scary thing that was only solvable by adopting ‘green evironmental policies’.

I don’t see how those policies do anything in regard to population, unless, back to my opening statement, abortion/population control/contraception is what you mean by ‘green’ now.

My problem is that I assume people who read my posts understand my sarcasm and where exactly it is directed…I need to learn to lay these things out better.