Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these NOT the answer to peak oil?

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
Amanda V's picture
Amanda V
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 262
Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these NOT the answer to peak oil?

I know it is naive not to know this so I was hoping someone would please enlighten me.

Why is alternative energy not the answer to peak oil ?

As Chris Martenson said in his CC oil chapter there is not the INFRASTRUCTURE in place, even if there was an instant magic replacement to oil.  I read in a book that there is nothing else like oil that is so easily transportable, highly energy packed,and "cheap" as oil.

What about electric transport ?  Are electric cars not being developed and working ?   We have the means to generate clean electricity with wind and photovoltaic means.  Surely we can all go buy electric cars and then plug them in to the socket to refill with electricity when we get home ?

Getting in to conspiracy theories here, but some believe there is a car that runs on water.  I would like to see that.

At any rate, if it really is true that the end of oil will see collapse and starvation - Why are the governments not doing more about it ?  Again, maybe naive - but come on and tell me why the world leaders are not frantically working on oil's replacement.  eg electric cars or other.  Or do they need to ?  Maybe when oil is so expensive a car company will start selling electric cars and they will be the new "must have" thing.  Can this happen in the time frame we have ?  I am assuming that lack of government concern and intervention means that they believe this will happen.

Also in terms of transporting food, there is still electric trains will can be increased in numbers.

I am really just talking about oil for transport here.  I know electricity cannot replace oil based pesticides, medicines and other synthetic materials.  That is another story.  Do we use electricity to "synthesise" the oil for these.  Or do we continue with bio - oil for this purpose ?

Does anybody have these answers, or know a good book to recommend, or a good U tube video (I love those - very passive information source !)

Thanks

cedar's picture
cedar
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 96
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

There are many many answers to your questions, and I'm sorry but I do not have enough free time to write them all right now, however I will provide one of the answers.

If our deficits are already so large that they threaten to collapse our currencies, how could we possibly afford the tens of trillions that will be required to rebuild a new energy infrastructure. We've left it too long and can no longer afford it.

The Oil Drum site is a wonderful resource for digging deeper.

Woodman's picture
Woodman
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Posts: 1028
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

 

 One of the websites CM lists on this website under Peak Oil resources includes a comparison of alternative energy sources to oil:

http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm

TheOilDrum.com has great articles like this too:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3084I

I just don't see how we can live like we do today and use alternative sources.  Hoping for an exciting new technology may be just wishful thinking.  The only long term solution seems to be to drastically reduce the amount of energy used, in conjunction with development of sustainable sources.  But it takes enormous time, money, energy, and political will to convert our energy systems; I'm not sure we have enough of any of those. 

Why isn't this headline news every single day until we solve this peak oil problem?  good question!

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

Let me try to put things into some perspective for you Amanda.  We have 20 x 64W solar panels on our roof.  64W is not the most powerful panel by any stretch of the imagination, but even if we used 130W panels, we'd have 10 of them, and they'd just be bigger.  It's still a substantail amount of solar energy.....

Now, one gallon of gas contains as much energy as what all our panels produce in 9.5 days.

To make a gallon of gas from the worst possible oil well requires one quart of gas.  From a better oil well, a pint, or even less.

To make my 20 solar panels required approximately 100 gallons of gas (energy equivalent - because not JUST gas is needed to make panels).  The amount of energy required UP FRONT to make these things is staggering.  I calculated that just in my state of Queensland in Australia (Pop ~ 4 million) we would need to build six new coal fired power stations just to build the necessary gear to reduce our emissions by 20% in 20 years!  Ironic hey.....!  We would have to belch out more greenhouse gases than ever, just so we can reduce them later.

I use solar panels because I am so familiar with how much energy they produce and how much is required to make them, but on the whole similar numbers are discovered with all alternative energy systems, wind being better than that.  Bio-fuels are actually worse.

Hope that helps.

Mike 

ckessel's picture
ckessel
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 12 2008
Posts: 486
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...
AmandaPops wrote:

I know it is naive not to know this so I was hoping someone would please enlighten me.

<snip>

At any rate, if it really is true that the end of oil will see collapse and starvation - Why are the governments not doing more about it ?  Again, maybe naive - but come on and tell me why the world leaders are not frantically working on oil's replacement.  eg electric cars or other.  Or do they need to ?  Maybe when oil is so expensive a car company will start selling electric cars and they will be the new "must have" thing.  Can this happen in the time frame we have ?  I am assuming that lack of government concern and intervention means that they believe this will happen.

 <snip>

Does anybody have these answers, or know a good book to recommend, or a good U tube video (I love those - very passive information source !)

Thanks

Amanda,

You are close to one of the key questions of humanity. I would recommend the book "Collapse"  by Jared Diamond. His analysis of this question based on a forensic anthropological evaluation of past societies is very revealing.

He looks at Easter Island, the Mayans, Greenland and others to find an answer and develop an insight as to how our current society will respond. 

Mike (Damnthematrix) explains the basic math involved in the alternative energy options and why that cannot solve our dilema in his post above. The real issue is that we have more people in the lifeboat than there is food and or water to last the journey. How the trip plays out has everything to do with the people and my opinion is that no one ever likes to have to make the hard choices until they are forced to do so.

The planet will force our hand when it cannot support us. There are many who would say that is just doom and gloom, not true, etc. etc. (all of the other awareness categories).  But personally I feel very liberated at accepting the reality of our situation after having gone through the mathand my own process of denial etc. etc.

I think our society will continue and that it will be much improved and much more appreciative of the opportunity to have lived. But  we will have a go of it in getting there!

Coop

Amanda V's picture
Amanda V
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...
ckessel wrote:

The real issue is that we have more people in the lifeboat than there is food and or water to last the journey. How the trip plays out has everything to do with the people and my opinion is that no one ever likes to have to make the hard choices until they are forced to do so.

The planet will force our hand when it cannot support us. There are many who would say that is just doom and gloom, not true, etc. etc. (all of the other awareness categories).  But personally I feel very liberated at accepting the reality of our situation after having gone through the mathand my own process of denial etc. etc.

Coop.  Thanks.  My big problem is that I believe you but I just cannot get my head around why the authorities have not had advisors discussing this with them.  Or that they have not seen this coming themselves.  Thank you for your book recommendation, I will read it and hopefully it may shed light on why our leaders are not responding.

Mike thanks as well.  Fantastic maths - can't believe you do all these equations by yourself.  Needless to say that it appears we are doing no more to reduce greenhouse gasses by installing photovoltaics, than not !  OMG. 

Although I have to say, the electric car would not require trillions of infrastructure because you could plug it in at any power source.  WHich already exists. 

I will also check out the oil drum sites too.  Looks like I just have to do lots of reading there.  I just find it sooo hard to convince myself it is not possible, when the authorities are oblivious to the obvious impending problems !

If something actually would work - then economic problems aside, maybe we really can get through this.  ???

Amanda V's picture
Amanda V
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 262
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

...Hang on.

Mike I think I just got what you were saying (sorry it is late at night here so I'm a bit slow)

If it takes all your solar panels 10-20 days to produce a gallon of oil equivalent energy, then that does not make it a very convenient or efficient "electric car".  Let alone still needing power for your house left over.  And also how would a car battery store that much charge?

Maybe we could go to a service station and buy an already recharged battery?  They could keep them on the shelves - and we would effectively give in our empty battery and buy a full one.  Sort of theory.  That actually wouldn't take a huge infrastructure change either and is a way around what you were saying Mike.

True it doesn't solve the emmissions problem from producing more power for transpor but atleast for now we could transport the food to otherwise hungry people ?

 

DavidLachman's picture
DavidLachman
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 4 2008
Posts: 153
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

Hi Amanda,

Another great book that explains this is The Long Emergency by Kunstler.  Basically cheap oil is what makes all the alternatives possible, like Mike explained with solar panels, and the Crash Course adds to elegantly with a picture of a large open pit copper mine and large truck that hauls 250,000 tons of low grade ore in one trip (the equivalent of 3400 donkeys).  Without the work of cheap oil, metal for making any alternative energy system would soon be nearly impossible to find.  This now seems to be true for all kinds of inputs required for any industrial system.

Politicians don't talk about a problem unless they have a solution to propose--there isn't one for this, except drastically changing our lifestyle and purposfully declining our population.  As the Crash Course points out, in a system based on growth this is not going to be seen as a solution.  Unfortunately, the longer we wait to make the sustainable future happen, the fewer resources will be available to make a smoother transition and the more suffering will occur.  I think this is why it is important to get the CC out to as many people as possible, in the end it will potentially reduce the amount suffering.

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 549
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...
AmandaPops wrote:

Coop.  Thanks.  My big problem is that I believe you but I just cannot get my head around why the authorities have not had advisors discussing this with them.  Or that they have not seen this coming themselves.  

 

Although I have to say, the electric car would not require trillions of infrastructure because you could plug it in at any power source.  WHich already exists. 

I will also check out the oil drum sites too.  Looks like I just have to do lots of reading there.  I just find it sooo hard to convince myself it is not possible, when the authorities are oblivious to the obvious impending problems !

If something actually would work - then economic problems aside, maybe we really can get through this.  ???

On a flight from Auck to ChCh I happened to sit beside one of my university professors ( engineering )

It turned out he was returning from an energy conference with 60 others of his ilk, and confirmed what I and others here believe  about the energy issue.

However my main question for him was about if he knew of any politicians that were aware ( as of October last year )

His response was that they, all but one,  their heads in the sand. And the one that doesn't has to tread very carefully around the subject.

Along side trying to "convert" any one forced to sit by me on my all to frequent flights ;-)  I have been feeling around trying to find  people who "have the ear" of people in power to attack from that direction.

 

On to electric cars.  Scale is the problem. Saw a site about people converting std light cars to electric, Some even posted their achieved direct electricity cost per KM  Best about say 3 c/km. Ok  average mileage per car about 10,000 Km = $300 per year. at say 1 car per household, that is roughly a 15% increase in their power consumption. Think back to May, big push to save 5% or may get blackouts, sound familiar ? Then there is the larger amount of fuel used by trucks to consider.....

As for getting through this, I have been hard at it for 2 years,  The only way to get through this is to get used to a MASSIVELY reduced " standard of living" ( by the old metric of the more stuff you have the better your standard of living  )

Health care as we know it.... goodbye ( average lifespan will fall a long way )

Government superannuation at 65...... forget it

More time spent with family and friends..... the way of the future  ( sitting in front of the idiot box with them does not count.)

 

Cheers Hamish

 

 

scepticus's picture
scepticus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 129
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

David: "Without the work of cheap oil, metal for making any alternative energy
system would soon be nearly impossible to find.  This now seems to be
true for all kinds of inputs required for any industrial system."

There is something in all this I don't understand. Oil is not required for power generation. Coal, gas, nuclear, hydro are all widely used and together represent far more power generation than oil fired generation.

It seems to me that the achilles heel of our society is twofold:

- the transport system is dependant on oil, and it is this fact that makes production dependant on oil.

- more use of coal instead of oil will increase emissions relative to oil and worsen global warming. 

So is it the case that in order to 'survive the journey', the most pressing need is for transport systems completely independant of oil? 

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5967
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

About the "cars that run on water" idea....

Having spent a lot of time studying nature, I can tell you that organisms have figured out every conceivable way of exploiting energy that one could possibly imagine and then some.

At every step along the utilization pathway(s), however, the energy of chemical bonds is reduced, reduced, reduced, and never the opposite direction unless done with an identifiable energy input.

That is, there is a completely predictable, quantifiable, and known amount of energy in a chemical bond.  It is known to many decimal points of precision for every bond between every set of atoms in the periodic table and in every possible molecular configuration.  

In short, chemical bonds are extremely well characterized and I honestly do not know about any surprises that have cropped up here at any point over the past few hundred years.

Breaking the bonds of water for a net energy gain would be a big surprise.

The reason I am quite confident it cannot be done is because there is no organism that does it.  

Think of the trillions of organisms with quadrillions of DNA strategies running, essentially, a continuous chemical exploration process over the past few billions of years and you can get an inkling of why I trust that nature would have figured out how to extract energy from water well before some punter in a garage.

scepticus's picture
scepticus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 129
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

I'm inclined to agree with chris. The only two power sources which would be able to sustain our curent energy based economy are nuclear fusion and organic solar. The former has the advantage of requiring less real estate but more vulnerable, centralised and expensive infrastructure. The latter promises the advantage of being decentralised, cheap and robust, if we assume that the cells are basically self assembling (under controlled conditions) in a reasonable amount of time. However both are new technology which may never come to fruition.

barrt's picture
barrt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2008
Posts: 171
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...
cmartenson wrote:

About the "cars that run on water" idea....

The reason I am quite confident it cannot be done is because there is no organism that does it.  

Think of the trillions of organisms with quadrillions of DNA strategies running, essentially, a continuous chemical exploration process over the past few billions of years and you can get an inkling of why I trust that nature would have figured out how to extract energy from water well before some punter in a garage.

 

I think its better to say that as far as we know no organisms have done it, Craig Venter is an amazing man, he first sequenced the human genome and is now busy trawling the oceans trying to map the genome of all the micro organisms out there with a view to solving the worlds energy problems, this to me is mind blowing, just the opportunity for a massive extension of our knowledge is massive!!

Craig Venter wrote:

 First off, we’re just trying to get a clear idea of what’s out there.
We know less than 1 percent of the biological world. We just published
1.2 million genes from a small sample of ocean water from the Sargasso
Sea. The next study that we’re doing right now, we’re probably going to
have between 10 million and 20 million genes. These are massive
increases over what’s been known. It may be an opportunity to do the
first-ever classification system for the genes of planet Earth.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/dec/discover-dialogue

and http://huffduffer.com/Clampants/1211 which has an audio interview with him

He believes that somewhere out there will be an organism that has cracked this and other huge problems we face, I for one wouldn't bet against him finding something. Medical breakthroughs, energy breakthroughs,  Go Craig!

 

Amanda you might be interested in http://www.betterplace.com/ - already making large inroads in electric cars and you might like the film Who Killed The Electric Car if you haven't seen that

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871495968130273402

But that of course doesn't explain how we can get enough juice into the grid to power them all

and of course we are not touching on your original question Amanda on why the powers that be are not talking or dealing with this, that is completely beyond me.

Good luck

barrt (punter in a garage) Smile

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5967
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...
barrt wrote:

I think its better to say that as far as we know no organisms have done it, Craig Venter is an amazing man, he first sequenced the human genome and is now busy trawling the oceans trying to map the genome of all the micro organisms out there with a view to solving the worlds energy problems, this to me is mind blowing, just the opportunity for a massive extension of our knowledge is massive!!

OK, that's fair.  

But my reasoning was that if an organism had figured out how to do that it would have taken over the entire world and we wouldn't have oceans.  We'd have big vats of bacteria or something.  Because once an energy source is identified, it is colonized in frighteningly short amounts of time.Nature is pretty aggressive that way.

Hence, I am pretty comfortable stating that no organism has figured out how to break the bonds of water for a net gain. 

 

DavidLachman's picture
DavidLachman
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 4 2008
Posts: 153
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

Yes, I looked into the car running on water and there just is not enough energy there to do what they see even giving the benefit of the doubt in every reaction.  Atleast if it is using chemical reactions--I don't know about zero point or free energy.....  But that, like fusion, has not been economically demonstrated (don't stock up on palladium just yet).

scepticus,

To answer your question about the necessity of oil.  In a way you may be technically right.  It might be possible we could create the technology to use electricity to do the things oil does and find a way to generate that much electricity.  currently that technology has not been invented.  what kind of technology is that?  For instance, we would need to invent an electric replacement for the diesel truck that can carry 250000 tons of ore in a trip.  current technology is just about to give us a mass produced electric car that can go 150 miles between charges.  what size/weight of battery would the ore truck need.  Doesn't seem like that is on the drawing board yet.  This is true of all heavy equipment.  There may be solutions for this.  Will they be cheap enough, or will they take so much energy to construct and run that it wouldn't be worth it (or possible on the scale we are discussing). 

And if we went through all the different things that cheap oil has made possible I think we start to see that the same hurdles apply.  That is the thing about "cheap oil" and I made sure to say "cheap" and although money is shorthand way to look at cost, when it comes down to it, it is energy and embedded energy costs that make doing the things we do with cheap oil on the scale we do them with cheap oil impossible to replace. 

If we weren't also running out of coal, and uranium and sites for hydro plants, then it might make sense to figure out how to do things with electricity that we currently do with oil, and we might not worry about how much energy it would take to do them.  How much embedded energy would there be in an electric ore truck?  How big would the battery be, or the metals that would go into a grid to power it without batteries.  Without an engine running on a highly energy dense energy cheap liquid fuel it starts to be incredibly energy intensive.  I expect that these things will be invented as oil becomes very expensive and the military takes it all for its own use.  There will not be battery powered fighter planes or tanks I suspect.  But  what does get invented and made will take a lot more energy than cheap oil (cheap in the sense of 1 barrel to get 10) would take and that will make it impossible to do it on a scale comparible to todays activity, which means less of what we take for granted because of cheap oil.  I suspect a lot less as cheap oil is part and parcel of everything in western societies.  If we thought it took a lot of energy with cheap oil, imagine how much energy it would take with expensive oil (again energy expensive oil means 1 barrel to produce 2 or 3 barrels) or with even more energy expensive systems that will have to be created and installed to do it all without oil.  Cheap oil is amazing, especailly when it just comes up out of the ground on its own.  And we have figured out how to do everythng with it, including making and maintaining our electric grid that we use to power our electric toothbrushes.

Set's picture
Set
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Posts: 112
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

I believe that most people here don’t like to discuss “conspiracy theories,” but I think that it is just possible that the people attempting to usher in a “new world order” know enough about the problem to understand that the root of it is caused by overpopulation.  They understand that there are not enough resources to sustain the world at its current or projected future populations.  An epic “die off” around the globe is necessary to allow them to buy the time they need to develop alternative energy sources without them having to suffer any loss in creature comforts or drastic lifestyle changes.  What would you expect from people with enough money to buy enough power to accomplish this objective?  While most of us are concerned about survival at a lower living standard, the elite aren’t going to be content with mere survival.  They want the world and they want it under their terms.  For those who don’t believe there is a “conspiracy” surrounding a “new world order, I offer the following article written by Chuck Baldwin. 

A VERY REAL NEW WORLD ORDER


By Chuck Baldwin
January 27, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

It is hard to believe, but a majority of Americans (including Christians and conservatives) seem oblivious to the fact that there is a very real, very legitimate New World Order (NWO) unfolding. In the face of overwhelming evidence, most Americans not only seem totally unaware of this reality, they seem unwilling to even remotely entertain the notion.

On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even "conservative" commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective programs, these "conservative" hosts usually resort to insulting the caller as being some kind of "conspiracy kook." One host even railed that if anyone questions the government line on 9/11, we should "lock them up and throw away the key." So much for freedom of speech!

This is an area--perhaps the central area--where liberals and conservatives agree: they both show no patience or tolerance for anyone who believes that global government (in any form) is evolving. One has to wonder how otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people can be so brain dead when it comes to this issue. It makes one wonder who is really pulling their strings, doesn't it?

The list of notable personalities who have openly referenced or called for some kind of global government or New World Order is extremely lengthy. Are all these people "kooks" or "conspiracy nuts"? Why would world leaders--including presidents, secretaries of state, and high government officials; including the media, financial, and political elite--constantly refer to something that doesn't exist? Why would they write about, talk about, or openly promote a New World Order, if there is no such thing?

Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much about an emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the students of Texas A&M University, "Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."

Later, Bush, Sr. said, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."

Bush, Sr. also said, "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea--a new world order."

Bush, Sr. further said, "The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . ."

What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind? Was he hallucinating?

England's Prime Minister, Tony Blair, said, "We are all internationalists now, whether we like it or not." He continued saying, "On the eve of a new Millennium we are now in a new world. We need new rules for international co-operation and new ways of organizing our international institutions." He also said, "Today the impulse towards interdependence is immeasurably greater. We are witnessing the beginnings of a new doctrine of international community."

In 1999, Tony Blair said, "Globalization has transformed our economies and our working practices. But globalism is not just economic. It is also a political and security phenomenon."

What is Tony Blair talking about, if there is no emerging New World Order? What does he mean by "a new doctrine of international community"? What does he mean by "new world"? How can one have globalism, which includes "a political and security phenomenon," without creating a New World Order? Is Tony Blair hallucinating?

Likewise, former President George W. Bush penned his signature to the Declaration of Quebec back on April 22, 2001, in which he gave a "commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people."

By "our people," Bush meant the people of the Western Hemisphere, not the people of the United States. Phyllis Schlafly rightly reminded us that G.W. Bush "pledged that the United States will 'build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order.'"

Remember, too, that it was G.W. Bush who, back in 2005, committed the United States to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), which is nothing more than a precursor to the North American Community or Union, as outlined in CFR member Robert Pastor's manual, "Toward a North American Community."

If there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order, what was G.W. Bush talking about when he referred to "a hemispheric family" and an "international order"?

The public statements of notable world leaders regarding an emerging New World Order are copious. Consider the statements of former CBS newsman, Walter Cronkite.

In his book, "A Reporter's Life," Walter Cronkite said, "A system of world order--preferably a system of world government--is mandatory. The proud nations someday will see the light and, for the common good and their own survival, yield up their precious sovereignty . . ." Cronkite told BBC newsman Tim Sebastian, "I think we are realizing that we are going to have to have an international rule of law." He added, "We need not only an executive to make international law, but we need the military forces to enforce that law." Cronkite also said, "American people are going to begin to realize that perhaps they are going to have to yield some sovereignty to an international body to enforce world law."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is Walter Cronkite talking about? Can there be any doubt that Cronkite is talking about global government? Absolutely not!

Now, when Bush, Sr. talks about fulfilling "the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders," he was talking about the same thing former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was talking about when he said, "The time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty . . . has passed."

The United Nations has been on the forefront of promoting the New World Order agenda since its very inception. In 1995, the UN released a manual entitled, "Our Global Neighborhood." It states, "Population, consumption, technology, development, and the environment are linked in complex relationships that bear closely on human welfare in the global neighborhood. Their effective and equitable management calls for a systematic, long-term, global approach guided by the principle of sustainable development, which has been the central lesson from the mounting ecological dangers of recent times. Its universal application is a priority among the tasks of global governance."

If there is no emerging New World Order, what is "global governance" all about?

"Who are the movers and shakers promoting global government?" you ask. Obviously, it is the international bankers who are the heavyweights behind the push for global government. Remember, one cannot create a "global economy" without a global government to manage, oversee, and control it.

In a letter written to Colonel E. Mandell House, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."

"Old Hickory" did his best to rid the United States from the death grip that the international bankers were beginning to exert on this country. He may have been the last President to actually oppose the bankers. In discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, Jackson said, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."

Unfortunately, the international bankers proved themselves to be too formidable for President Jackson. And in 1913, with the collaboration of President Woodrow Wilson, the bankers were given charge over America's financial system by the creation of the Federal Reserve.


Ever since the CFR and Trilateral Commission were created, they have filled the key leadership positions of government, big media, and of course, the Federal Reserve.

In his book, "With No Apologies," former Republican Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater wrote, "The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power-- political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future." Was Goldwater a prophet or what?

And again, the goals of the global elite have been publicly stated. Back in 1991, the founder of the CFR, David Rockefeller praised the major media for their complicity in helping to facilitate the globalist agenda by saying, "We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

How could Rockefeller be any plainer? He acknowledged the willful assistance of the major media in helping to keep the elitists' agenda of global government from the American people. To this day, the major media has not deviated from that collaboration. And this includes the aforementioned "conservative" talking heads. They know if they want to keep their jobs, they dare not reveal the New World Order. The NWO, more than anything else, is the "Third Rail" to the national media.

Is it any wonder that President Barack Obama has stacked his government with numerous members of the CFR? Among these are Robert Gates, Janet Napolitano, Eric Shinseki, Timothy Geithner, and Tom Daschle. Other CFR members include CFR President Richard Haass, CFR Director Richard Holbrooke, and founding member of the Trilateral Commission and CFR member Paul Volcker. Obama even asked a CFR member, Rick Warren, to deliver the inaugural prayer.

Still not convinced? Just a few days ago, when asked by a reporter what he thought the most important thing was that Barack Obama could accomplish, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, "I think his task will be develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It's a great opportunity; it isn't just a crisis."

This is the same Henry Kissinger, you will recall, who said back in 1991, "Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were [sic] an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."

Even Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs commentator for the Financial Times, wrote an editorial expressing his support for world government. In his column he said, "I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. . . . But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

"A 'world government' would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

"So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might."

Rachman then goes on to explain the reasons why he believes world government is plausible.

Do you now see why it does not matter to a tinker's dam whether it is a Republican or Democrat who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? For the most part, both major parties in Washington, D.C., have been under the dominating influence of the international bankers who control the Federal Reserve, the CFR, and the Trilateral Commission. And this is also why it does not matter whether one calls himself conservative or liberal. For the most part, both conservatives and liberals in Washington, D.C., are facilitating the emerging New World Order. It is time we wake up to this reality.

Presidents Bush, Sr., Bill Clinton, and Bush, Jr. have thoroughly set the table for the implementation of the NWO, as surely as the sun rises in the east. All Obama has to do is put the food on the table--and you can count on this: Barack Obama will serve up a New World Order feast like you cannot believe!

That a New World Order is emerging is not in question. The only question is, What will freedom-loving Americans do about it? Of course, the first thing they have to do is admit that an emerging New World Order exists! Until conservatives, Christians, pastors, constitutionalists, and others who care about a sovereign, independent United States acknowledge the reality of an emerging New World Order, they will be incapable of opposing it. And right now, that is exactly what they are not doing.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

britinbe's picture
britinbe
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 381
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

I think even if a viable alternative could be found, we would have to make do with a lot less energy.  I'm in the US at the moment and as a European watching Fox is always entertaining and a real insight!!!Wink I saw an advert for Exxon about gas and how one source could provide enough gas to heat 50 million homes for 10 years.  To most folks, this is a large number of house for a long time, but in reality, it's a drop in a bucket.  I was having some food in a bar with a friend when this advert came up, I showed him the power point slides from the IEA which shocked him when he saw the gap filled by fields to be developed or to be discovered

The politicians have no real will for telling anyone about peak oil and any future crisis because the of the following:

  1. The are unknowlegable or ignorant to the issue
  2. In the hands of the lobbyists
  3. Don't want to tell people their life is unsustainable
  4. Have no credible alternatives
  5. Don't want to raise taxes and hence be booted out at the next election

I guess, its a case of lets party and worry about the hang-over when we wake up!! 

Having alternative energy sources would reduce the amount of oil used, but also keep in mind that a lot of stuff is made of oil.  The lubricants in motors, the insulation around cables etc etc 

 

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

I know I will get flamed for this as I have in the past, but I feel biofuels are an option for small scale, orderly power down. Biodiesel, to be exact, can be a net gain of energy quite easily obtained on the small scale.

I do not profess that they will replace oil globally, which is what I believe the question really is, so I do not have a solution. I do, however have a personal solution to bridge the gap between our current energy slaves and living in a tee-pee.

If used in conjunction with conservation, wind and solar, biodiesel (which can be made on your own farm or permaculture group) can allow for preparations to continue  post-crash. Imagine what can be learned and what types of solutions you can put in place if you have 3 years or more to give yourself a soft landing where you do not need to rely on the electrical grid or gas pump to maintain some semblance of your former life.

For me, dismissing things like PV arrays and biofuels is both right and wrong. It is right in that they do not solve the problem of cheap energy to allow 7 billion or more people to continue living as they do now. If, however, you are trying to assist a permaculture group of 50 and get started now while you can cheap energy as an input, it does provide some hope.

To me, this is a issue of effecting that which you have control over. I can't control where the economy, energy, and environment have been or are going, nor can I have an impact on the powers that be actions or the media's reporting of the situation. I do believe that the situation is real, so I act at a personal level.

Flame on!

Rog

Downrange's picture
Downrange
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 13 2008
Posts: 62
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

Great thread!  That shows what can be kicked off when someone asks a "right question."

Just another data point:  if you've never explored the written works of Bucky Fuller, they may add value.  Bucky invented the geodesic dome, among many other things, but perhaps was best known to a generation of ex-hippie "seekers" as a techno-utopian who put an enormous amount of disparate pieces into a meaningful picture of the reality we face.  I don't worship the man as perfect, and have problems with some of the conclusions he reached, but wholeheartedly recommend you read him and absorb what you can of his message.  A good place to start is "The Critical Path," for an analysis of where we are (were - written in eighties, iirc) and where we may be heading, and "Grunch of Giants," for a perspective on the "political" (read: power) angle on all this.

No spoilers, and I don't have time this morning to try to summarize, but he essentially said the problem is solvable with a design revolution that is THOROUGH-GOING and includes a shift in the entire culture away from the historic model of competition over scarce resources to one of cooperation over management of those remaining to us, enhanced and augmented through the application of "mind," for lack of a better word.  Best read it yourselves.

gyrogearloose's picture
gyrogearloose
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 8 2008
Posts: 549
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

Rog, no flames here

Biofules to try and keep going as we are. No way.

But when looking at local scale processing in conjunction with changed farming practices and machinery, I am putting researching and doing early stage design thinking on building a local scale integrated stand alone mobile plant to contract process through to fuel. Designed to LAST and to be able to maintained by 100 year old tech. Luckily this is up my street.

Cheers Hamish

scepticus's picture
scepticus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 129
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

David, thanks for the reply. Lets follow this line of thought for a moment.

It seems we can divide oil energy usage into several cataories, with regard to the following variables

1) oil usage which can be replaced with electricity with no major problems

2) oil usage which can be replaced with electricity with significant but tractable problems

3) oil usage that will never easily be replaced by electricity

In 1 we have oil power generation and ground transport (assuming electric cars can be made feasible, which I think they can).

In 2 we have things like bulk shipping and passenger aerospace

In 3 we have heavy construction, military aerospace and plastics.

Taking them one by one. 

For catagory 1 we need to make more electrical power output available for charging cars. This can be acheived in part by reducing electricity usage in the home. The main energy sinks here are white goods and tv/computers. The latter will become almost zero power, as soon as the economic drivers are in place - we already have the technology for pretty much zero power VDUs and processing. Reduction in white good usage simply requires a change in lifestyle. We shall also need infrastructure for electric cars and trucks, most important of which is efficient, and most importantly, cheap PV.

Catagory 2  can resolved by moving less goods and people about, and when required to do so, do so more slowly. Again, cheap PV will help here. A true information economy will help here. Standardised consumer goods can be manufactured anywhere the blueprints and raw materials are available, therefore we can expect to see goods manufactured locally from locally available materials, however development of designs and research can remain a global activity. 

Catagory 3 items simply become much more expensive, which givewn the items in this catagory, is probably a good thing.

Some of the stuff above might appear to represent a reduction in the standards of living, but actually in my view just represents a different way of living. We'll consume less physical goods and travel less, or slower, but at the same time we'll consume more information, entertainment and produce more useful science and engineering. Of these latter items, the limit on production is only human imagination. This means we canhave econimic growth without depleting the environment.

I do however think we'll need lots of cheap (not necessarily very efficient) solar PV to make this transition.  

 

 

 

 

Ready's picture
Ready
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 30 2008
Posts: 917
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

Good luck Hamish. I'd be interested in hearing your results!

When you mention 100 year old tech, my latest research is into steam power. While it is not flashy, automated, or even really fun, you can definitely power up a steam engine capable of running your well pump for an hour to fill your tanks on about 40 lbs of hardwood. Again, this does not solve a global problem but if you put it on a trailer you can pull it to all your neighbor's houses once a week to make sure everyone has clean water, and they can supply the wood, so it helps everyone to feel like they are pulling their own weight. What a great way to build stong local bonds!

best,

Rog

Set's picture
Set
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Posts: 112
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

A book on Chris's recommended reading list that David also mentioned is also a real eye opener.  "The Long Emergency" by James Howard Kunstler is packed with information that is almost too sobering to recommend, but in my opinion the ability to perceive evil where it really exists is actually a form of optimism.  

DavidLachman's picture
DavidLachman
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 4 2008
Posts: 153
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

Hi scepticus,

You wrote: "Some of the stuff above might appear to represent a reduction in the
standards of living, but actually in my view just represents a
different way of living. We'll consume less physical goods and travel
less, or slower, but at the same time we'll consume more information,
entertainment and produce more useful science and engineering. Of these
latter items, the limit on production is only human imagination. This
means we canhave econimic growth without depleting the environment."

I agree with the first part of your conclusion, but starting from the phrase "we'll consume more..." I have to disagree. I hope we get our act together for useful science and engineering, but I think human imagination cannot solve variable 3 that you identified:


3) oil usage that will never easily be replaced by electricity


In 3 we have heavy construction, military aerospace and plastics.

Catagory 3 items simply become much more expensive, which givewn the items in this catagory, is probably a good thing.

Unfortunately catagories 1 and 2 rely on catagory 3. If we don't have 3 we don't have roads that will be cheap enough to maintain or build at the scale of current society. We don't have enough heavy construction equipment to create and maintain the windfarms people talk about as a solution. We don't have the battery building and replacement capacity for distributed solar. Without the same network of roads and equipment it starts to be impossible to maintain the electricity grid. Industrial society is heavily dependent on what cheap oil is, at the moment the technology is not invented to do the things we do with oil in another way. The massive energy and material investment to build and maintain the alternative energy infrastructure that is suggested is not available for the current scale and expectations of society as it is today.

But in general, when we spend more of our surplus on energy the less there is for a complex society.

Responding to the section where you wrote:


For catagory 1 we need to make more electrical power output available
for charging cars. This can be acheived in part by reducing electricity
usage in the home. The main energy sinks here are white goods and
tv/computers. The latter will become almost zero power, as soon as the
economic drivers are in place - we already have the technology for
pretty much zero power VDUs and processing. Reduction in white good
usage simply requires a change in lifestyle. We shall also need
infrastructure for electric cars and trucks, most important of which is
efficient, and most importantly, cheap PV.

Don't forget the embedded energy in the products you are talking about. Even when they run on low energy the material that is in that takes energy to make and to move. Remember plastics are in catagory 3. I am also not aware of efficient or cheap PV. Please point me in the direction of those products, I want to put solar on my house, but the cost made the payback longer than the warrenty. That made me suspicious.


Catagory 2 can be resolved by moving less goods and people about, and
when required to do so, do so more slowly. Again, cheap PV will help
here. A true information economy will help here. Standardised consumer
goods can be manufactured anywhere the blueprints and raw materials are
available, therefore we can expect to see goods manufactured locally
from locally available materials, however development of designs and
research can remain a global activity.

I don't see the raw materials for todays consumer items being uniformly distributed. Currently, it takes plastics and a world wide sourcing system to make any electronics, which are involved in almost all efficient consumer products made today. Even basic metals are not sourced locally as local sources were the first used up at the beginning of industrialization. Again, I'm not aware of efficient or cheap PV and the amount that would be required is massive to power 7 billion people. Metals production from digging and moving ore to smelting etc etc require catagory 3 activities.


Catagory 3 items simply become much more expensive, which givewn the items in this catagory, is probably a good thing.

The expense in catagory 3 is distributed to all the other things a society makes because of the role these things play in our lives behind the scenes. But more important than money expense is energy expense and energy availablity.

You do say that "I do however think we'll need lots of cheap (not necessarily very efficient) solar PV to make this transition." Because this is not yet available I don't see what you are suggesting as possible at this point in time.

When cheap and energy cheap PV or other systems are invented that will change my prognosis for industrial society. Till that day comes I expect the changes we are facing to be at a scale that will make us look back with wonder at how we lived. Right now oil is what makes that possible, and the next energy source is not in site yet.

 

scepticus's picture
scepticus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 129
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

David, with regard to catagory 3 the main issue you seem to have is with the heavy construction machinery. I agree that catagory 1 and 2 items do depend on this to some degree, however the vast majprity of heavy construction today is (or was) for structures such as mega malls, burj-al-arab style excesses, mcMansions etc etc. We now have vast overcapacity in all these areas, so I would expect that the need for heavy construction will decline sharply in the future, which means that the oil we have left to power it can be more usefully employed in creating the required infrastructure for post-peak-oil. If supersized buildings and urban infrastructure is too expensive due to peak oil, then we simply won't build it. Thats economics.

Plastics are needed for consumer electronics but the volumes are not great, and I think we can expect the demand for these items to fall considerably as a result of the depression but also as a result of demand destruction due to population ageing. The worldwide nature of electronics manufacture has much more to do with global wage arbitrage and skill sets than it does with raw materials. Currently it has been cheaper to move the raw materials to where labour is cheap, but in future it will be cheaper to make the goods where they are needed - especially since wage arbitrage will continue to reduce benfits of offshoring manufacture. Most raw materials for electronics can be produced at the point of manufacture and require chemical processe. Very high value items like silicon wafers, platinum etc we can expect will still be imported where required but this is a far smaller volume than the finished goods.

 "Because this is not yet available I don't see what you are suggesting as possible at this point in time."

I am speculating that organic solar (i.e. polymer rather than silicon based PV cells) are going to be available commercially within the next 10 years. These should be very cheap, the only problem is that they are polymers - so I assume the substrate comes from oil. A quick google for 'organic solar'  or 'polymer solar' should reveal the state of the art.

I might be wrong of course - however if I am then I agree we're pretty done for. 

 

DavidLachman's picture
DavidLachman
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jul 4 2008
Posts: 153
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

Hi Scepticus,

I think the Heavy Equipment is the kind of equipment we use to maintain and build roads. I think this can't be underestimated in how pervasive the use is. My other point is the scale at which we currently use these things in our society. Even the "best" case scenerio will require a big change in how we use resources and how much we and our food and other products travel. I think our lives can still be good lives, but as this system slows down it is uncertain what level of complexity will remain. I hope the breakthroughs in technology we need do happen, but there is no replacement for oil, so at the very least society needs to change to meet that fact. Even if energy substitutes can be found, there will still be a lot of social change, the sooner we accept that the better we will be at planning for it. The polymer solar you mention will certainly help. The next 20 years will be interesting. In any case, I don't think we are done for, but our way of life certainly is to some extent, to what extent remains to be seen. Thanks for the dialogue.

cedar's picture
cedar
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 96
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

In another thread on this site I predicted that slavery would return with vigor when cheap fossil fuels are no longer available.

If you are interested in learning more about the history of slavery I recommend this week's episode of the Hardcore History podcast by Dan Carlin. http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hh

It is an interesting accounf of how slavery has been pervasive throughout all of human history, including the 20th century. Unfortunatley, like most historians, he frames slavery in terms of good and evil which completely misses the point.

The point is that humans have a genetic disposition to increasing their material wealth. And the acquisition of wealth requires energy. And in the absense of fossil energy, the next best energy is human energy a.k.a. slavery.

It is amazing how few people are able to connect the dots between energy and our history. Or the history of all life for that matter.

scepticus's picture
scepticus
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 129
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

"I think our lives can still be good lives, but as this system slows down it is uncertain what level of complexity will remain."

I do agree. The system is going to slow hugely, at least in the physical world, although perhaps a better way to view it is the physical world we live in is going to change. Is change complexity, or can it substitute for it? What has really changed in our lives the last 15 years besides the internet?

I hope some of the physical complexity we lose can be made up for by increased virtual complexity via information technology, and also by increased face to face social complexity that has been lost.

It may seem that these two futures are diamterically opposed, but my own experience leads me to believe they are not. Over the last few years I have experienced a huge growth in direct social relationships both in the real face to face and virtual worlds, while at the same time my consumption of physical goods and passive entertainment has declined to almost nil.From what I can see this is not such a terrible future.

 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

Amanda,

Electric cars recharged on the grid would be recharged with COAL (and in your country, some nukes), but as someone else pointed out another 15% of generation (ie coal consumption) would  be required, another nail in the coffin of civilisation as we know it.

You mention batteries.....  last year, the price of lead went through the roof as Chinese demand went also through the roof for all their cars and another craze there, electric scooter.  There simply is not enough lead to put hefty battery banks in all cars.  Lithium is also in short demand, and that technology is not yet totally proven either.

Then there's the final question.....  where will the MONEY come from as we explore the full gamut of the debt crisis.

Sorry, the party's over.

Mike 

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...

As I see the future unfolding, we don't need fuel.  Fuel is what you need to run totalitarian agriculture.  I know not one Permie that runs a tractor.

The long post about the NWO being a globalised government is completely off the planet.  Just which energy source would a global government use to run the world?

The NWO will actually be the opposite, a totally decentralised economy where the furthest anyone goes is the distance they can ride a horse or a bicycle..... 

Maybe Paul is right, Straight and I should start a new thread explaining Permaculture and why it doesn't need fossil fuels...  next week though, I'm running a stall at the local markets to morrow to fund the new local paper, and a crash course in the afternoon.....  and I'm not ready for any of it yet!

This morning, BTW, we had our first 'men's breakfast'.  Ten of us blokes got together, and we didn't even mention sex and cars...!

Mike 

Aaron M's picture
Aaron M
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 22 2008
Posts: 2373
Re: Alternative Energy sources or technology: why are these ...
Quote:

Maybe Paul is right, Straight and I should start a new thread explaining Permaculture and why it doesn't need fossil fuels...  next week though, I'm running a stall at the local markets to morrow to fund the new local paper, and a crash course in the afternoon.....  and I'm not ready for any of it yet!

Mike,

This would be extremely valuable - especially if you could provide some pictures, some lessons learned and some general theory behind the practice. Make a Permaculture "primer" if you can and have the motivation. If it doesn't need fuels, incorperate that, but I'm interested in the entire "culture".

Quote:

This morning, BTW, we had our first 'men's breakfast'.  Ten of us blokes got together, and we didn't even mention sex and cars...!

Must be older blokes ;)

Cheers!

Aaron

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments