No one so far has noted the large turds in the Greater China punchbowl.

Nobody is going to have a long term trouble free future; everyone is going to be contending with very large and practically intractable problems:

• Global heating of the atmosphere and especially the oceans
• Climate anomalies everywhere disrupting agriculture, fisheries, and forests
• The diminishing supply of inexpensive, accessible petroleum, when an expanding supply would be necessary to maintain industrial production. Oil isn't just fuel; it's chemicals, lubrication, and energy. Oil is an an essential ingredient in every step of industrial and agricultural production.
• The rapid loss of glaciers in Asia which provide essential supplies of fresh water
• The continued growth of overall population
• The failure so far of any economic region to actually achieve significant CO2 reductions (acknowledging that some small governmental units have achieved some significant progress)

What are the practically intractable problems China, the USA, Europe, Africa, South American, India, et al will be confronting?

-Significant sea-level rise displacing large numbers of people and inundating installed industrial bases
-Drought
-Shortages of drinking water
-Unpredictable and unseasonably heat waves, heavy torrential rainfall
-Insect infestations--some of which will be disease vectors spreading both old and novel diseases
-Food shortages
-Energy shortages
-Raw material shortages
-Manufacturing disruptions
-Political instability
-And More!

China is actually taking steps to mitigate these issues on a national level. Just track the progress they're making on renewables. They're also the main exporter of cheap solar panels combined with heavy subsidizes that are hard to beat economically.

On the other hand we have people like Elon Musk on the Western frontier in an attempt to move to Mars and reshape the energy sector single handedly. Hats off to him.

The Chinese, Indians, Middle Easterners, Europeans, and North Americans have not, and can not reduce their carbon foot prints either as much as, or as fast as, would be required IF we were to be on track to avoid eco-tanking.

What about all those windmills, solar panels, electric cars, etc. Look around: how many all-electric cars do you see? Check out whether coal or gas had anything to do with generating the electricity in your town. How many pounds of plastic are within 20 feet of where you are sitting right now? Are there ready replacements for that plastic that you can obtain and afford? How many trucks do you see on the freeway? How many of the trucks are running on battery power from renewable electricity? How busy is the airport near you? How brightly lit is your city at night? How much energy goes into cooling and heating your home?

A couple of billion more people in China, India, the Middle East, Africa, and South America want to join the Europeans and Americans in enjoying the good life of material pleasures--like heating, washing machines, air conditioning, gadgets galore, cars, vacations on other continents, and so on and so forth.

Let me tell you; you heard it here first. It isn't going to happen without severe changes in the ecological, economical, and social environments on top of the problems that have already been created. It isn't that I want Indians living in shit holes, or Africans starving, or anything like that. It's just that there isn't remotely enough green energy to achieve what people want. Why? Because we want materials, not just energy.

Hey, Minnesota and Texas are leading states at achieving significant power from renewable sources like wind. So are some other states. Does that mean that our cars are running on wind power? No. Does that mean there are no coal plants in Minnesota or Texas? No. Does that mean Texas and Minnesota know what to do with the nuclear waste from their nuclear power plants? No. Are Texans and Minnesotans living "green lives"? No.

All of those changes won't happen overnight. There will be time to adapt. It's not as doom and gloomy as you say it is. The changes will be slow and gradual. So, why get so emotional over it anyway, BitterCrank? Even I won't see the sum total of net negatives from this situation. I'm not trying to be cynical here; but, as much as it sucks saying this given the shitty situation us new guys and gals are inheriting from your generation, it's not your problem.

As Keynes said, "In the long run we're all dead."

Am I so 'emotional' over it? Not really. You are right -- I and those in my age group will be dead before the "grande merde frappe le ventilateur" to use a French expression. What I am is pessimistic about your and subsequent generations' futures.

I'm pessimistic (about climate change, global warming, rising ocean levels, petroleum depletion, CO2 reduction, etc.) because it is too late by about 40 years to make the critical changes needed, and too much time (50 years, roughly) are required to find, perfect, and implement large technological changes. In other words, the horses are out of the barn and gone.

Here's a symbolic example: President Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White House in 1976. in 1980 President Reagan had them removed -- not because they were ruining the roof, but because he rejected the whole ecological movement. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, accomplished nothing, and Obama didn't accomplish significant significant reductions, either -- though he at least signed the Paris climate change agreement, which Trump then rejected.

The 1970 decade was the last time we could have begun earnestly responding to climate change, but we didn't. Four more decades (1980 - present) pushed CO2 levels, global heating, and all that close to the top. It is now running over the top. Can nothing be done now? Well sure, if there were a world-wide-war-time-like commitment to radically changing our economies to ecological sustainability -- and then letting the economic dominoes fall as they will, yes. We might be able to turn the situation around.

Do you see anything remotely like that happening? No even middle-sized country, governmental unit, or economic region has gotten past gradualism.

IF China, the US, Europe, India, et al ALL committed to radical CO2 reduction today, it would still take at least 50 years to bring about the process. That puts us close to the end of the 21st century -- and into the major consequences of climate change -- too late.

Carbon sequestration? Gigantic solar farms and windmills everywhere? Everybody on mass transit? Abandoning the private automobile, freeways, air travel and airports? Cease petroleum pumping, plastic production, and use? Abandon consumerism everywhere? Empty the suburbs? Gut the world economy?

One might as well plan on the second coming of Christ to happen this afternoon.

I think the slow collapse of democracies is a good thing. — Agustino

Please name any democracies that are collapsing.

The point is that probably any examples you find are not actually democracies. That does not mean that they are not declining or collapsing. It does mean that they're not collapsing because they're democracies.

People as old as I am are well advised not to buy green bananas. Respond soon, or I might not be here.

Yeah, though I'm starting to doubt whether Trump will actually be able to stop the decline of the West. — Agustino

IF the West is declining (and we would want to define the ways in which it may or may not be declining) it isn't something that one president, be he Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan, a Bush, W. J. Clinton, Obama, or Trump can stop. Declining or advancing civilizations are a global, macro, long range process.

It would be surprising if China was unable to mount a significant advance towards the dominant position in the world economy. A billion plus people, a well organized-even-if-dictatorial government, educational and industrial infrastructure, the desire to play a dominant role, etc. Whether it will succeed depends on many factors. It won't take a long time to get the answer.

I'm not at all sure whether any country can sustainably dominate the world economy at this point. We are past peak oil and even though the post peak period will be about as long as the pre-peak period (in other words, about a century) declining oil production is going to limit economic growth. Petroleum is just such a critical resource.

I've explained elsewhere in this thread (above this post) why there are limits on growth, regardless of policy.

But... Hundreds of millions of Westerners have not lost their basic beliefs in western values. Certainly some have, and they tend to be the chattering class, the vocal ditherati, nattering on about the bogus patriarchy, pronouns, and all that epiphenomenal stuff.

I'm pessimistic (about climate change, global warming, rising ocean levels, petroleum depletion, CO2 reduction, etc.) because it is too late by about 40 years to make the critical changes needed, and too much time (50 years, roughly) are required to find, perfect, and implement large technological changes. In other words, the horses are out of the barn and gone. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure about that. We have projections of climate change being manageable up to a certain degree, and we haven't reached that point yet.

It's never too late to take action on climate change. Besides the green economy is booming, and will continue to boom as long as there's some desire or need to address these issues. Most people like 'green' and I don't see how the economics of the 'green economy' can be denied.

I don't see how pessimism has any utility or function here. It's a bad concept to introduce to the discussion and only stifles improvement.

Here's a symbolic example: President Carter installed solar panels on the roof of the White House in 1976. in 1980 President Reagan had them removed -- not because they were ruining the roof, but because he rejected the whole ecological movement. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, accomplished nothing, and Obama didn't accomplish significant significant reductions, either -- though he at least signed the Paris climate change agreement, which Trump then rejected. — Bitter Crank

I'm well aware of peanut farmer, nuclear submarine officer Carter, who's attempts to address climate change, have been vilified and shitted on by the right to no end. He was a great president, in many regards. But, it's important to note that the left is also to blame for the current circumstances. Nuclear is not all evil. It's one of the few energy sources that is not classified as a renewable; but, has enormous potential to solve these problems had it not been vilified and regulated by the left out of existence.

The 1970 decade was the last time we could have begun earnestly responding to climate change, but we didn't. Four more decades (1980 - present) pushed CO2 levels, global heating, and all that close to the top. It is now running over the top. — Bitter Crank

That's not true. We haven't yet reached a tipping point as far as I'm aware.

IF China, the US, Europe, India, et al ALL committed to radical CO2 reduction today, it would still take at least 50 years to bring about the process. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure if that's the right way to view the issue. Economic forces are making solar, wind, geothermal, and other renewable sources as more viable and cost effective than the current fossil fuel lineup. So, yeah, it's the economy "stupid".

Carbon sequestration? Gigantic solar farms and windmills everywhere? Everybody on mass transit? Abandoning the private automobile, freeways, air travel and airports? Cease petroleum pumping, plastic production, and use? Abandon consumerism everywhere? Empty the suburbs? Gut the world economy? — Bitter Crank

False dilemma.

One might as well plan on the second coming of Christ to happen this afternoon. — Bitter Crank

Non sequitur.

People as old as I am are well advised not to buy green bananas. Respond soon, or I might not be here. — Bitter Crank

Just put them in the sunshine. The sun works miracles on green bananas.

That's not true. We haven't yet reached a tipping point as far as I'm aware. — Posty McPostface

The "tipping point" won't be like hitting a wall. It will pass pass like the very tip of peak oil -- it will be a non-event. Only in retrospect can we know when the tipping point happened.

So as not to immerse you in hopeless dread (didn't somebody start a thread about that), it is possible that climate change, global warming, our demise, may occur at a slower rate than we anticipated. In which case, if we were, are, and will be working diligently on CO2, methane, and other gas reductions (absolutely, not just relatively) we might make it. On the other hand, not to give you too much of a warm fuzzy, it's possible that climate change will proceed at a much faster rate than we anticipated. In which case, we are screwed.

False dilemma. — Posty McPostface

Nein, mein Herr. It's not a false dilemma. The real dilemma is how to bring those things about quickly -- like yesterday.

The sun works miracles on green bananas. — Posty McPostface

True, but so does ethylene gas or calcium carbide. Let's all use more unnatural methods of doing things.

The point is that probably any examples you find are not actually democracies. That does not mean that they are not declining or collapsing. It does mean that they're not collapsing because they're democracies. — tim wood

Yes, they are not "actually" democracies because it belongs to the essence of democracy to be unstable and to, over time, decline into tyranny. Although this is the same trope the communists played, saying that the USSR wasn't "actually" communism.

One perspective that others haven't taken into consideration is the fact that China has integrated a robust economy into its central management system. They seemed to have been able to solve the management problem (effective allocation of resources) that the Soviets faced under a central command economy. Some people call this a hybrid economy, but I digress. — Posty McPostface

This is becoming more debatable as China's GDP rate has been slowly decreasing year over year, ever since 2010. There has been talk of how viable China's growth will be in the long term. Xi Jingping has placed himself in a precarious position by abolishing term limits, centralizing power around him, thereby placing the promise of continued growth squarely on his shoulders, so it will be interesting to see how he further steers the economic ship, and how strong an effect the Road and Belt initiative will have on China's economic growth.

Please name any democracies that are collapsing. — tim wood

The "robustness" of democracies exist on a spectrum. The United States today, while an imperfect democracy in myriad ways, is nevertheless stronger than the United States in the 1880s. Political scientists have shown, through a wide-set of criteria, there is a "disturbing retreat" of the "robustness" of democracies around the world. While not necessarily a "collapse", it is worrisome all the same.

The US is constitutional federal republic. That is, it is not democracy at all. Some aspects of our government are democratic. It remains to find out just what folks exactly mean when they refer to "democracies." The risk is that the imprecision can make a difference. The chart is interesting, but unelucidating. There's a difference between democratic in its noun form and its adjectival form.

No doubt the overall point is accurate. I suspect it is because the overall cupidity of people sometimes coincides with the ascendance people vicious enough to tell them any lie.

The US is constitutional federal republic. That is, it is not democracy at all. Some aspects of our government are democratic. It remains to find out just what folks exactly mean when they refer to "democracies." The risk is that the imprecision can make a difference. The chart is interesting, but unelucidating. There's a difference between democratic in its noun form and its adjectival form. — tim wood

A Republic is when public officials are democratically elected to represent their constituents. It is a representative democracy; a type of democracy.