> Steve.
>
Thanks for the e-mail and the concern, but I think I’ll be ok. I won’t argue the point—oil is a finite resource and so, if one keeps using a finite resource, it must come to an end. A 1st grader can grasp the principle.
So, then, there’s the other side of the discussion. How much reserves are left? Who knows? OPEC nations lie so they can get a bigger quota. Environmentalists lie so they can scare people and force countries to adopt their view of the world (hey, that sounds like fascism doesn’t it?). Oh, and let’s not forget that back in the 1970’s one side argued that the Alaskan Oil Field would only have reserves for 10 years while the other argued at least 20—and then there was the terrible impact to the caribou (poor things we supposed to die off in droves if the pipeline was built). Some 30 years later the oil is still flowing and, what do you know, the caribou herd is bigger than ever. Both sides were wrong.
So who really knows? Certainly you and I don’t. All we can do is choose a side to stand on and, for the sake of our friendship, I’ll stand on your side—with one caveat, Steve. We’ll not act like a bunch of Luddites along the way. The idea that we will blindly continue along and wake up one morning and, well, no more fuel so everything stops, is nothing short of ludicrous.
We’ve already seen a change in automobile design and hybrid cars are quickly becoming popular. If we consider just that and more people by them, then the demand for gasoline goes down. There could be tax incentives to encourage the purchase (which there are—hey, a tax break that helps everyone—well how about that?).
We could also increase the number of nuclear reactors. France gets 95% of its electricity from nuclear energy. It’s proven safe and cheap. And let’s not point to the accidents; fewer people have died from those over the past 3 decades than from all murder and automobile accidents in a single week. (Hey, if a person is not for cheap electricity from nuclear energy, is that person then “anti-poor?” Seems to me the poor would certainly benefit from cheaper electricity, wouldn’t they? Oh, and let’s not forget the elderly on fixed incomes—certainly they come out ahead.)
And then who knows what discoveries await that might also impact the situation? All of which could decrease the demand for petroleum which, in effect, would increase the supply, which in turn drives down prices. This, interestingly enough, moves the “peak” further out in time.
So, we agree oil is a finite source. Your position, Steve, seems to be that the world is static so we will march blindly toward the end. I disagree. So, in five years, you may in fact be right that the oil stopped flowing as it used to. But, I believe I’ll be standing right next to you saying “I told you so” just as well—the world will still function, man will move on, and things will change—it’s been that way for millions of years.
I know it’s been a while since we’ve debated. I hope you will take my points in the spirit of friendship and debate for which they are intended.
Oh, and one last thing—the above is the conservative opinion on this issue. It is not “head-in-the-sand”. Unfortunately it takes too much time to explain in a 5 second news snip it—much easier to just tell people that the world is ending and blame conservatives!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jim,
Thanks for the interesting/thoughtful reply.
I too value our friendship above "politics" and personal opinions. I know you are not an "ideologue" or a "ditto-head" and are perfectly capable of rational thought and reasoned analysis and can reach independent conclusions. I also realize that we often have divergent points of view and that your assessment of the "situation" doesn't often match with mine. This is what makes life interesting and keeps both of us intellectually nimble.
I challenge you to find an energy source as flexible and as cheap as oil however. Remember our transportation needs. Everything is dependent on transportation, which requires cheap oil. There is nothing on the horizon. Imagine the retrofitting of the millions of cars/trucks/et al.... to what? what is there to take the place of oil?
OK. We're not going to the edge of plentiful oil to NO OIL. There will be an orderly and gradual decline in supply. Problem is demand will continue to rise. This is the crux. For this reason price will go sky high. There will be alternatives. Solar, wind, nuclear will come to the fore as they become ever more price efficient. Did you know Denmark now gets 20% of their energy from the wind? Iceland is almost all geo-thermal. There are alternatives, but nothing as ubiquitous and as CHEAP as oil. Once oil goes into decline there will be massive convulsions and adjustments in our world.
The incentives you mention to move to alternative fuels or hybrids are not coming from the Repuglican party. Take a look at the energy bill just passed. It calls for $25 B in subsidies to drilling companies. Is that forward looking? There have been no major oil fields discovered in recent times. Look at our west. They are frantically trying to cover every bare spot of public and private land with wells, ruining the water tables, ruining ranchers ways of life, destroying the land for generations for the last drops of oil. It's a crime against nature and against all I hold dear. For what? So we can drive our gas guzzling SUV's for a few years longer before we ultimately run out of oil anyway?
Head-in-the-sand is indeed the Republican stance. What about the rail beds that exist already? Progressive thinkers would be moving to capitalize on the next phase of life after the decline of oil by transitioning from a car/truck based society back to efficient rail transport. Agree? With locomotive technology as it is nowadays you can move miles of railcars with one engine. We need forward thinkers. Not corrupt Tom DeLay types trying to feather their nests with federal largesse.
If you are a "conservative" you must be truly disgusted with the current crop of Republican leadership. They are not "conservative" by any long stretch. They are as corrupt as the Democrats when they ruled the hill.
Best,
Steve
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment