"It does not matter, people are carbon neutral."

uh, nonsense. Humans don't fix carbon. Through respiration we consume oxygen (from plant life) and exhale CO2 (at least a higher percentage).

In fact as I think of it, no organism that isn't photosynthetic, (with the possible exception of exotic deep sea thermal vent bacteria and the like) fixes carbon. Anaerobic bacteria may bypass CO2 production but I'm pretty darn sure they don't fix carbon either (would need to review anaerobic energy production pathway).

The problem a-la PO, and possibly AGW, is that dead photosynthetic organisms with their fixed carbon are being dug up and artificially respired in machines such as cars. You might consider the analogy a weak one, however, you can run a diesel engine and run a human (briefly at least) on the oxidation of say olive oil - the human part being far more complex, incompletely understood and with a teleology directed at times towards things like posting on the oil drum rather than racing down a highway.

Just to really rile people such as Alan up, I tend very slightly towards AGW, but I seriously question it. I can't get around the incessant media hype over the issue (what might that contrast with) and the political involvement. The science seems far more complex and open to interpretation than simply running out of a finite supply of oil. To me it's like Bob Barker wants to lecture me on why the sky is falling. That said my layman's view is it certainly has scientific plausibility, though the system is so complex and incompletely understood, eh the solutions are similar for both anyways

To take a really, really big picture view, the problem with and commonality between both PO and AGW is an imbalance between carbon fixation and oxidation to CO2. For PO this shows up as reduced carbon (no pun intended) supplies while for AGW it shows up as increased atmospheric CO2. To fix this (dammit ;) one needs to 1) increase photosynthetic carbon fixation, i.e attempts at biofuels - whoops both cars and humans like to eat. I do wonder whether seeding iron depleted ocean areas is a bad idea or not, while algae may eventually prove themselves great nextgen mitochondria (yes mitochondria are not photosynthetic but the analogy of a developing symbiotic relationship is perhaps apt. 2) increased use of useful energy from sources outside this carbon cycle, i.e solar, wind, nuclear, tidal, geothermal, hydro, -sounds good to me, though hydrocarbons have long evolved as an efficient energy storage media, so this only indirectly addresses transport fuels. 3) reducing oxidation of carbon, i.e conservation, the best long term solution, live within your carbon cycle means and be sure any "useful energy" growth doesn't overly imbalance the carbon cycle.

Sorry to have to correct you Speedy, here's what wikipedia says on carbon fixation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fixation

"Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person." Mother Theresa

Paul "Duffy" Maher

My thoughts exactly! As a descendant of runaway, rebel slaves, Maroons as they are called here, peak oil has got me thinking about slavery. It occurred to be that the abolition of slavery was driven more by cheaper alternatives (FF) for getting work done, than any enlightened thinking or ethics. With the decline of FF, might we see a return to slavery? The working poor are not far removed from slavery. Maybe that is the form future slavery will take.

According the the controversial book 'Time on the Cross' by Fogle and Engerman, American slavery was both economic and profitable. These guys pioneered the statistical study of history. Whether or not you agree with their thesis, it is a very interesting read. Published in early 70s.

which is why i keep saying that without the pr push to end slavery during the civil war slavery would of ended anyway, just maybe a few years later.