Economic collapse is inevitable - not least because it's good business. No amount of economic stability is capable of replicating the kind of colossal profits which can be had out of turmoil. Consider the number of Russian billionaires which were created when the old Soviet economy tanked under Yeltsin. A few million spent here and there acquiring state assets for way below the market rate never yielded so much juicy fruit. Of course, the Russian people didn't do too well - but that's just bad luck on their part.





There were some very safe forms of nuclear energy developed during the 70s and 80s which didn't involve the use of water or (worse still) graphite as a nuclear moderating agent and/or coolant. All of such were squashed by the oil and coal industries. Many of the skills involved in constructing those powerplants have now been lost and it would take perhaps thirty or forty years for us to get back to that point of development.

But this still leaves the problem of rolling out such on a sufficiently wide scale to make up for the shortfall in hydrocarbons. Bear in mind that it took the best part of FORTY YEARS to construct the network of filling stations and support infrastructure upon which our automotive society is entirely dependent.

The problem is we need functioning alternatives rolled out on global scale RIGHT NOW.

Don't know if this has ever been tried by anyone but I reckon that living in the UK you could conjure up all the fresh(ish) rainwater you need every year just by leaving buckets laid out across your back garden, my water butt collects enough off my garage roof for me to open the tap and throw it away throughout the year.

Of course, you need a back garden first, mine is ideal as it slopes towards the house, simply line it with corrugated plastic and sit in the kitchen waiting for the torrents.

I'm sorry, old bean, but I'm afraid you're missing the point. The days when nation states (nevermind individuals!) reserved the right to declare ownership and exercise control over their own natural resources are long gone.

We're living in a global marketplace. Once they finally manage to dot the Is and cross the Ts on TTIP (in secret by unelected, unaccountable Wall Street lawyers) and railroad it through Congress and the European Union it will become increasingly difficult for any nation state to claim privileges over natural resources such as water. Leaving aside the fact that decades of under investment in the water system since privatization mean even here, in Britain, we are often far closer to shortfall than abundance and any surplus we might enjoy will be little more than the recognition of such. So whilst it might land in your garden that water really belongs to Mr. Chow in Bangkok who just outbid you for the luxury.

The world's biggest water traders such as Danone have already stated that they believe fresh water should no longer be considered a "human right". They and other major providers were behind the disastrous pilot study carried out in Bolivia which made the act of collecting rainwater for personal use illegal resulting in the infamous [url=https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F2000_Cochabamba_protests&ei=temBVfnLHbSN7AaaooLICw&usg=AFQjCNFO58PcKV4zbUZc6M8hc551u6YKYA&sig2=5rlFt43DjRKnD41ZhWtDaACochabamba Protests[/url

The water companies suffered an enormous amount of bad publicity over Bolivia. But this meme that we should have no rights over water isn't going away. They'll regroup and launch another assault in ten or twenty years. Most likely it will coincide seamlessly with a period of extreme drought and water stress thus making reduced rights sound just that bit more "rational" to the average Joe. Big corporations succeed because they are willing to play the "long game". That and relying on the endless stupidity, gullibility and goldfish memories of 98% of the public.

Oh I don't doubt for one minute that that indeed is the truth and here in Yorkshire we all know exactly what its like for a monopoly business to mis-manage water resources so that they have to drive tankers all over the county to share it around, but the point is that if you collect and use rainwater for yourself, Mr Chow of Bangkok has to come around and catch you doing it and then do something about it, 60 million times over.

Anyway, cheer up, its a nice day and the sunshine is still free.

NASA confirm freshwater supplies dwindling. rt.com/news/267898-nasa-study-world-water/ Also, Washington state is currently experiencing the worst drought in recorded history apparently.

NASA confirm freshwater supplies dwindling. rt.com/news/267898-nasa-study-world-water/ Also, Washington state is currently experiencing the worst drought in recorded history apparently.

Oh, my cheeriness is boundless.



As for the sun. Rest assured - if someone can find an ostensibly plausible argument in favour of metering the number of photons which hit the surface of the skin it won't be long before a bill is hitting the hallway floor.

So what happened in Korea, Vietnam/Indo China, Iraq and Afghanistan was a figment of our collective imagination.

...and all of it Dick Cheney's fault, according to some.

Those were proxy wars largely fought against the indigenous people. Not wars between the armies of super-power states.

Hence the sentence, [i"War - as we once knew it - ended with the atomic detonation over Hiroshima"[/i

This is a terrible straw man argument. Even for you.

There are examples from the USA to the Republic of Ireland where private water companies have tried to claim the rights to ground water collected on householders land.

You may be able to collect enough water to supply your drinking needs but would it cover your washing and cooking requirements? If you have a car would you be able to keep the radiator topped up?

If you have a garden you might have the surface area to collect rainwater but what about those living in flats?

We may live in a country where we have plentiful fresh water but the population is increasing all the time and I think that we waste a terrible amount of potable water.

A couple of years ago the chairman of Nestle said “access to water is not a public right.”. He may be just a representative of a private company but that company has huge influence in global politics.

Nestle being producers of bottled water, I would hope (although I know my hope could well be misplaced) that enough politicians will not be corrupted by offers of investments and directorships at Nestle in order to say, "Erm, hang on, don't you sell bottled water..." when lobbied.

These are interesting times with private businesses having the ear of a willing cabinet office and billions in revenue to divert to private profits and dividends yet the recent refusal of fracking rights in the Fylde area reminding business that sometimes we can just stick two fingers up and send them packing - now Cameron has one big headache to deal with, on the one hand he has a major business banging on his door shouting that he said it would all be ok, and on the other hand a public image to maintain where a PM who overturns local planning committees will appears to be of a dictator status and quickly turn to be the most hated man in politics - he's hidden behind his own "nasty men" for six years now and done a good job of deflecting a lot of harsh decisions onto Ministers - this one should be his baby.

Cameron's JOB is to play the villain this parliament. Just as happened under Thatcher, the news media gave the Tories an easy ride during their first term. From hereon in they'll go after them like Van Helsing chasing Dracula. Meanwhile New New Labour will be rubbed down to the base metal, primed and taken to the spray booth. Ideologically-speaking there'll be no difference (Labour's ideology being - anything trans-national capital desires is good for Britain) - but there'll be a fresh new image which the media will market like they do with washing powder or refrigerators. Throw in a few gormless celebrities, actors and musicians who've never seen a paid political rally they didn't like, one or two juicy sex-scandals in government and a corruption investigation where some insignificant Tory who doesn't have enough political clout to defend himself, is thrown to the wolves and the British public will embrace New New Labour like Christ resurrected.

I mean, it's crazy to think there exists a division between media and government. Half the special adviser positions in government are filled by ex-journalists, whilst Portillo and company walk through the revolving door in the opposite direction. The BBC [uIS[/u government - period. Anyone who thinks otherwise only needs to consider the near total absence of serious investigations into parliamentary wrongdoings. If the BBC were as independent from government as it claims why is it that almost all of the major recent political bombshells have been broken by the likes of the Guardian (a paper I have serious issues with at the best of times!) which has only a fraction of the resources, journalists, researchers etc. present at the BBC? Why is it that investigations into the paedophile scandal are being driven mostly by tiny, shoestring budget media outlets like Exaronews whilst the BBC is doing everything in its power to minimize, marginalize and dilute what is an outrageous political scandal of titanic significance?

Why is it that whenever the PM is gearing up for one of his bloody foreign wars the Beeb falls lockstep in behind him? One only need consider some of the Beeb's utterly RIDICULOUS claims leading up to the war in Afghanistan.

Anybody a bit suspicious of the governments reaction to the massacre in Tunisia? The defence secretary says we may have to bomb Syria now, hundreds of miles away. Was this not the plan all along? Remember Cameron wanted to bomb Assad but was defeated in parliament, now he wants to bomb ISIS, the same forces they initially backed.