"They."

There has been a massive networked energy source for a century in the developed world, and people have grown accustomed to it. For the duration of the development of most of our existing systems and infrastructure, we have had oil to use as a cheap source of energy. Civilisations so adapted seem to be looking for some way of replacing that reservoir of energy. The hope and assumption is that "They" will find a solution, and cheap power will continue to flow as ever. That way, people can continue to consume as we have. There will be no need for change.

I don't have faith that such an energy source will present itself. I'm not sure that the people who could concieveably be thought of as "They" do, either.

The government is waiting for free enterprise to do it, and free enterprise is waiting for the government to do it.

Given that it may not happen, I feel that it is wise for people to look at ways of producing energy on a very local scale. We have the technology to fulfil the energy needs of any isolated house to a functional level. Working on power supply from the household level on out into a network that serves as a battery and a back up or top up is one approach that I think is worth examining. At least as a failsafe in case the replacement energy source is not discovered by the ubiquitous "They".

Supplying power to industry is a more difficult problem. The cost of energy will make up a larger part of the cost of goods and services to consumers. Consumption will be reduced, as the increased cost of filling needs will reduce the amount that can be spent on wants. (As I look around at the amount of pre-ordained rubbish that is produced and consumed to no end, I can't help but think that that might, ironically, be a good thing for the environment under particular circumstances.)

__________

I'm one of those people who believes that human impact is having unforseen impacts on global ecosystems. I believe that if humans keep on as they have, the global environment will break down to a stage where human existence will be severely hampered. There are climatic events like droughts in some parts of the world that I think are the beginnings of the effect of human caused climate change. I don't have the resources or authourity to argue against people who put such changes down to the naturally occurring fluctuations in global climate, but I'm working on it.

There have been summits and conferences, meetings and conventions regarding climate change. But whatever conclusions are drawn from them are simply another statement in a veritable sea of statements, because there is no ultimate authoutity. The lack of centralised authourity is good for debate, but less good for actually coming to conclusions and taking action.

Yes, I'm talking about a world government. Or at least an advisor. Maybe an umpire is a better term.

Unfortunately, the examples of world wide governing bodies that I have seen are disturbingly inefficient and ineffective, so a different kind of organisation would have to be figured out. There are so many questions over how to institute such a thing that it makes my head hurt. But if there were.... if I could pretend for a minute that I had the power to say how things should be done, I'd have to start by knocking the heads of the leaders of many diverse religious organisations together and saying 'We are all in this together so we have to get along. Get over it.'

And then I'd do the same to various cultural leaders across the globe. (I'd probably accidentally knock Mugabe's head against a rock, and a little harder than was compatible with human life, but that's just me.) That would be a good start.

By way of getting wiser heads than mine involved, I'd like to give some actual authourity to scientific types. At the moment, authourity rests with political people and religious people. The closest scientific people come to leadership on that scale is as minions of those two authourity groups. I've often wondered what the world woudl be like if the scientific community had that kind of authourity.

So I'd institute a body known as "They".

As in; "They really should do something." "They should come up with a better way." "They ought to know better."

They are a centralised authourity. They have the final say. They make the rules and They are the referees. They take in all available data, draw conclusions, make decisions and take action. They are subject to instantaneous feedback from the public (the feasibility of which has been field tested through popularity voting shows on television.)

They allow for the fact that knowledge will always be imperfect, but balance that with the knowledge that timely action is essential. They are moderated by compassion checks from within. They always vote their conscience.

Ooh - and They are in charge of the Amish Inquisition. (See previous post)

(Scary and unfeasible as hell I know, but hey, it's just an fantasy in a blog.)