To JAG, Mike, and others:
One can point a finger at any individual cause and claim that it is “the problem”, but the situation at hand has many facets and is highly complex.
First, technology is the solution. And it is possible. A mobilization of resources would enable a sutainable model of civilization to emerge in time. Additionally, oil just isn’t going to disappear. There will still be accessible oil, but it will not be as easy as it always has been to mine and refine.
Second, capitalism will not fail. Capitalism cannot fail. The idea of capitalism is not something that simply dies, despite what any practictioner of economcis or finance would have you think. Capitalism is an ideal of free market economics. Free market economics also cannot fail. Capitalism / free market economics is a theory like socialism. Socialism cannot just die. If you disagree with this statement, I challenge you to read the literature and redefine your terminology. See von Mises, Hayek, Rothbard et al. What can fail is a fractional reserve banking and our debt-based fiat money system. In the past decade, what we have seen happen in the international financial system has not been a failure of capitalism. It has been a failure of government and of interventionism.
When considering a technology-based solution to the climate issue, what prevents a solution is population and, accordingly, scale. Although there is not a definitive field for planetology, the Earth as a planet can only support a certain level of human life given current levels of technolgoy. The fact that poverty exists today is evidence to the fact that we have surpassed the population capacity of Earth. This claim is debatable, as one could argue that government interventionalism has prevented the equal distribution of capital and chained the economic forces of free markets, or that technology could feed everyone on the planet. As Dr. Martenson and numerous other scientists have pointed out, scaling up technology to account for the entire human civilization of the planet will take decades and vast resources that lack the infrastructure, capital and energy to utilize.
Considering Washington’s love of interventionism, I wouldn’t be surprised if military technologies exist that allow the utilization of resources more sustainable than oil. Keep in mind that Western oil companies, or Western-supporting governments, control most of the world’s oil reserves, and a continued societal dependence on oil as a national resource is currently profitable. As long as those companies make money, the tax proceeds from them are funnelled into US treasuries. If the US transitioned to alternative energy with all possible speed, then it surely would have lost its superpower status years ago, along with the financial funding to maintain its empire.
Regardless, the solution is not to continue down this path. What is needed is a paradigm shift from consumer based growth economies to sustainability. And yes, the sustainable growth is an oxymoron, but sustainable development is achievable. Granted, you may use some fossil-fuel based equipment or technology, but the outcome will be a sustainable community.