wyly Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 So which do you prefer: amputating your leg today or risk the chance of dying from leg cancer in the future? man up and answer the question tim, two worst case scenarios which is it...A-go green/economic collapse...which throughout history always has and always will be a temporary situation.... B-do nothing... and risk total environmental collapse, end of civilization as we know it accompanied by a mass extinction event... or is it safe to say your evasion tells us your answer... every person on this forum has had parents or grandparents live through the worst depression imaginable, followed by the mother of all wars that's the worst scenario possible economically and you want to suggest green technology, and expensive fuel would be worse? and that it would be irreversible? Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) No, his argument is called "risk management". I fully support it. Let me explain. If a risk is sever and immediate we take action to protect against it, even if it's expensive. If the risk is more diffuse we may take more action but not expend significant funds. An example is the risk of getting into a car and driving to work. We buckle our seatbelts and try to observe traffic laws. We don't refrain from driving. We may feel differently about skydiving on a regular basis. Those with loved ones who depend on them tend to avoid it. This "risk management" occurs every day and is not broken logic. or you just quit the smoke and mirrors double talk BS and let tim answer a straight forward question, it's not difficult, two worst case options...A-the alarmists are wrong and we have some tough economic times which we will recover from...or B-the denier world is wrong and by doing nothing we suffer environmental collapse, end of civilization as we know it and a mass extinction event, there is no recovery from this for a very, very, very, long time... Edited October 7, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) man up and answer the question tim, two worst case scenarios which is it.Man up and answer the question: which do you prefer: 1) amputate your legs today. 2) be killed in an invasion of leg eating aliens. The fact is option 2) like your option 2) is not likely to happen so it is a false choice. More importantly: even if it was going to happen NOTHING we could do now could do anything about it. This point is the real issue because it makes no sense to engage in actions which we know are futile. Now if you proposed some anti-CO2 plans which had a chance of working (global birth control, mass euthanasia for old and disabled) then it might make sense to discuss them. But I suspect even you would rather face extinction that engage in mass euthanasia which further illustrates the false choice you are presenting. Given that I demand that you pick one of these two choices: A-implement global programs to reduce the human population to 1 billion by 2050... B-do nothing... and risk total environmental collapse, end of civilization as we know it accompanied by a mass extinction event... I am sure your evasive response will tell us your answer.... Edited October 7, 2012 by TimG Quote
eyeball Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 A-implement global programs to reduce the human population to 1 billion by 2050... B-do nothing... and risk total environmental collapse, end of civilization as we know it accompanied by a mass extinction event... I am sure your evasive response will tell us your answer.... B will bring about A soon enough....so we might as well party like its 1999. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
jbg Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 or you just quit the smoke and mirrors double talk BS and let tim answer a straight forward question, it's not difficult, two worst case options...If you want an answer only from Tim address him in a PM.A-the alarmists are wrong and we have some tough economic times which we will recover from...orI would think you believe that a recovery would worsen climate change. B-the denier world is wrong and by doing nothing we suffer environmental collapse, end of civilization as we know it and a mass extinction event, there is no recovery from this for a very, very, very, long time... A collapse? Wow, scary. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Bonam Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) I hope you realize that trying to quantify happiness is difficult in itself. Of course. And that only makes the original claim all the more suspect. Certainly if rates of mental illness and stress disorders are rising, that would be a sign of unhappiness. Or perhaps we are just getting a lot better at identifying, diagnosing, and treating those disorders. And of course we are classifying increasingly mild cases of various conditions, that may have been entirely unnoticed in the pass except to say that someone is a "bit odd", as "disorders" and counting them too. I'd say this is not indicative of anything related to general happiness. And in modern times, the 1950's are generally recognized by social researchers as America's peak decade for life satisfaction and personal wellbeing as numbers which would indicate personal satisfaction have actually declined in the midst of all of this material prosperity and new invention. America is far from the only country in the world, only about 5% of humans live in America. Furthermore, of course one would expect the post-WWII euphoria to recede with time. When it comes to the pre-industrial world, it should be pointed out that the notion that backward hunter/gatherers and subsistence farmers needed to be civilized and were better off under colonial occupation, Completely unrelated to my point. They aren't happier under "occupation". No one is happy under occupation, that's pretty much a given. They are happier when they naturally advance themselves and then benefit from the fruits of that advancement. Like Europeans did as they began to benefit from the industrial revolution. I am still astonished when intelligent people describe life in pre-industrial times as dirty, miserable, poor, and subject to the awful expressions of nature. An apt description of the living conditions of the majority of the populations in pre-industrial (feudal) Europe. Even if I accepted your opinion at face value, I am also aware that the industrial revolution and the economic system it has powered, have a shelf life, and we are getting close to the expiry date! Too many natural resources to mention are running in short supply, and unless some great motherlodes are found in the melting Arctic, will be virtually exhausted within 50 years at present rates of economic growth and increased resource and energy use. We have barely begun to tap the resources available right here on Earth. We use less than 0.1% of the solar energy constantly hitting the Earth. We have enough deuterium on our planet to power our civilization through fusion energy for as far into the future as we would care to. And so long as you have plentiful energy, anything else can readily be synthesized. If some recognition isn't made by the human race as a whole, the future (barring complete catastrophe like nuclear war) will mirror the past - as industrial production declines from lack of available inputs, cars are permanently parked by lack of fuel and resources to keep millions of cars running on the roads, and surviving populations are back to an agrarian, pre-industrial lifestyle. If, 100 years from now, human civilization is still entirely stuck on Earth, I'll agree with you. Finding and being able to utilize resources from the Moon, asteroids etc. was taken as a given back when I was young and the Space Race was still ongoing. But, we were also expecting moon colonies, manned Mars landings, and permanent space stations in Earth and Lunar orbit! The reality of the last 40 years has seen a gradual unwinding of space flight and even in public interest in going into space. The gradual unwinding has been a result of the lack of public interest and funding, not the other way around. The resources exist to do all the things that people predicted in the 60s and 70s, if we cared to do so. If even 10% of US military funding was repurposed for space exploration, for example, we'd have moon colonies, Mars landings, and space stations all over the place. As for asteroid resources, they are only a matter of cost. If certain resources really do run sufficiently scarce on Earth, then it will be economically worthwhile to extract them elsewhere. But they have to get scarce enough first. Lately, we are getting news that the Russian Space Program is heading into a precipitous decline, and will have to be abandoned entirely as they have not built new booster rockets and put the money into the program in recent decades to keep it viable. Meanwhile the Chinese, Indian, and European space programs are just getting rolling. So? And I don't put a lot of stock in SpaceX and Elon Musk's proposed future plans that libertarians are so enamored with these days as the "private enterprize" solution to our earth-bound status again. SpaceX has already succeeded beyond anyone's expectations in a short span of time. These private ventures are still depending on government funding to get off the ground, While SpaceX did use NASA grants to help its development, it is now commercially viable on its own and has dozens of launches booked with private companies. and if they decide that costs outweigh financial returns from their ventures, that's the end of the private space industry, even for the billionaire tech bubble enthusiasts who are trying to make their childhood dreams a reality. Except that the economic model for private space ventures has already been demonstrated and proven, in both its unmanned and manned variants. And private industries have already brought down the cost, thereby broadening the market. 40 years ago, I would have said that our environment and resource problems associated with our modern way of life could all be solved by going beyond Earth I would not have. The Earth's environment must still be carefully tended, the more-so if it becomes the epicenter of a vast interplanetary and eventually interstellar civilization. ....today, when I look at the energy required and the costs of space launches, I don't see any of this being any more likely than the flying cars (which were also theoretically possible) becoming a reality either. The costs of space launches are coming down, and the energy required to do so, while roughly fixed, represents an ever shrinking part of the energy that we produce and utilize all the time. Edited October 7, 2012 by Bonam Quote
wyly Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Man up and answer the question: which do you prefer: 1) amputate your legs today. 2) be killed in an invasion of leg eating aliens. The fact is option 2) like your option 2) is not likely to happen so it is a false choice. you're a coward tim you worry more about losing a debate point to protect your ego but your evasion tells us exactly how you would vote...you would vote A, that you deflect and avoid answering reveal you know full well B is not an option ,your argument is politically motivated not the result of logical critical thinking driven by science... and your desperate analogies "leg eating aliens" seriously tim? a temporary economic depression is the equivalent of a mass extinction event,really? let's be serious and just answer the question... More importantly: even if it was going to happen NOTHING we could do now could do anything about it. This point is the real issue because it makes no sense to engage in actions which we know are futile.Now if you proposed some anti-CO2 plans which had a chance of working (global birth control, mass euthanasia for old and disabled) then it might make sense to discuss them. But I suspect even you would rather face extinction that engage in mass euthanasia which further illustrates the false choice you are presenting. quit the BS tim it was *** YOU*** that introduced "worst case scenario" if we followed "alarmists" demands and now you're trying to squirm away when the opposite "worst case scenario" is offered...I want to see some honesty and integrity are you really a "sceintific" skeptic as you claim or just another closet denier....timg-. Worst case scenario: collapse of developed world economies which are unable to function with artificially expensive energy. Complete failure of emission control programs requiring adaptation anyways except the cost of adaptation has sky rocketed because of artificial restrictions on fossil fuels. Given that I demand that you pick one of these two choices:A-implement global programs to reduce the human population to 1 billion by 2050... B-do nothing... and risk total environmental collapse, end of civilization as we know it accompanied by a mass extinction event... I am sure your evasive response will tell us your answer.... I'm embarrassed for you tim, refusing to answer a question to a worst case scenario you introduced refusing to answer now deflecting with another question..what's up with that tim and your question is without merit because global growth rate is dropping and hardly relevant to this thread... unlike you tim my approach to the issue isn't politically motivated and i picked A to your question in a nanosecond, no hesitation... so are you going to answer the original question like an adult or forever lose any credibility you cling to on the issue... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 then there was this claim timg There is plenty of scientific evidence supporting the view that rise will not be as much as claimed by alarmists or the effects will be relatively manageable. to which I asked well let's see this "plenty of evidence" tim....and how will these effects be managed... I'm still waiting for some answers there as well... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 If you want an answer only from Tim address him in a PM. hey you can answer if you like you're under no obligation to do so...it was tim that introduced "worst case scenario" so it's he who is obligated to answer...I would think you believe that a recovery would worsen climate change.that makes no sense...A collapse? Wow, scary.flippant...you claim to be lawyer and that's the best argument you can put forward? Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) and your question is without merit because global growth rate is dropping and hardly relevant to this thread.Bingo! Your answer to my question is exactly the same as my answer to yours. You are a deluded hypocrite if you think that anything it accomplished by asking irrelevant questions.The real issue in this discussion of climate policy: 1) what is the chance that anti-CO2 policies will accomplishing anything resembling their stated goal? Answer: next to zero. 2) what are the chances that the harmful side effects of anti-CO2 policies will exceed their benefit: Answer: close to 100%. These statements are true even if your implausible worst case scenario plays out. Which means that if your worst case scenario plays out we need a different strategy that the one you are proposing. Edited October 7, 2012 by TimG Quote
Keepitsimple Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 man up and answer the question tim, two worst case scenarios which is it... A-go green/economic collapse...which throughout history always has and always will be a temporary situation.... B-do nothing... and risk total environmental collapse, end of civilization as we know it accompanied by a mass extinction event... I'll take B - because the risk is very, very, very small and in the longer term, the Human Race has always been able to adapt. That's why we have winter clothes for cold places and air conditioners for hot ones. Quote Back to Basics
dre Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Bingo! Your answer to my question is exactly the same as my answer to yours. You are a deluded hypocrite if you think that anything it accomplished by asking irrelevant questions. The real issue in this discussion of climate policy: 1) what is the chance that anti-CO2 policies will accomplishing anything resembling their stated goal? Answer: next to zero. 2) what are the chances that the harmful side effects of anti-CO2 policies will exceed their benefit: Answer: close to 100%. These statements are true even if your implausible worst case scenario plays out. Which means that if your worst case scenario plays out we need a different strategy that the one you are proposing. 1) what is the chance that anti-CO2 policies will accomplishing anything resembling their stated goal?Answer: next to zero. You dont understand the real point of "anti-CO2 policies", so your predictions on how successfull they might be are rather meaningless. Emissions targets are meant to push the market in a certain direction... Nobody on earth believes that we can can reduce CO2 emissions with this type of strategy. Energy use will continue to increase. THe difference they can make is to place a value on technologies that produce less CO2, and already this has caused thousands of companys (from green energy startups, to established fossil fuel companys) to start looking at ways to reduce emissions, and thousands of new products have been brought to market... everything from designs for cleaner coal plants, to more fuel efficient vehicles. Emissions legislation is a means not an end, and once we can produce energy without CO2 emissions for about the same price, there will be no need for them. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) Nobody on earth believes that we can can reduce CO2 emissions with this type of strategy.Which is EXACTLY my point. Glad to see we agree.THe difference they can make is to place a value on technologies that produce less CO2, and already this has caused thousands of companysThis can be done without phony targets. The trouble with targets that cannot be met is they encourage fraud. i.e. instead of developing useful technologies people come up with ways to game the system. Edited October 7, 2012 by TimG Quote
dre Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Which is EXACTLY my point. Glad to see we agree. Yes and all the people you condemn agree as well. NOBODY believes that such mechanisms are an end game. This can be done without phony targets. The trouble with targets that cannot be met is they encourage fraud. i.e. instead of developing useful technologies people come up with ways to game the system. Like I said... the targets just incentivize a certain direction, and theres no real alternative. Sure... government can put public money into research, but progress will be way slower than it would be if the private sector is harnessed to be a primary mover. In order for that to happen there has to be economic incentives, which is why the approach you spend thousands of hours per year ranting about has been so successful. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Yes and all the people you condemn agree as well. NOBODY believes that such mechanisms are an end game.So what? They are advocating a fraud if they do and it is unsupportable for that reason.In order for that to happen there has to be economic incentives, which is why the approach you spend thousands of hours per year ranting about has been so successful.Successful? Hardly. It has been an expensive scam that has not produced any technology that is viable without government subsidies.The only significant change in energy production over the last 10 years has been shale gas and that occurred in spite of the anti-CO2 regime - not because of it. Edited October 8, 2012 by TimG Quote
dre Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 Successful? Hardly. It has been an expensive scam that has not produced any technology that is viable without government subsidies. No energy source in history has proven itself viable without government subsidies, and technologies that are in their infancy in terms of capital investment are exactly the ones that SHOULD be subsidized. And its been a huge success. But more important is your blanket condemnation of philosophical opponents when you dont even understand what they are trying to do. You do EXACTLY what you accuse your opponents of doing. You declare that you will without exception oppose any and all efforts to reduce CO2 emissions, while whining that your opponents do the opposite. You are equally as useless in terms of being a part of any pragmatic solutions to any problems as the hard-core greens you rant about all day. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 No energy source in history has proven itself viable without government subsidies, and technologies that are in their infancy in terms of capital investment are exactly the ones that SHOULD be subsidized. And its been a huge success.Shale gas is an example of how this should work. The government provided the funding to develop the fracking technology in 1980s. But it was not economically viable at the time so the technology was left on the shelf until the 2000s when the private sector starting investing its own money to find and exploit the shale gas. The net result is we have massive amounts of gas available to us now and it cost the taxpayers nothing.If the government had tried to follow the renewable model it would have provided massive subsidies to private operators in a vain attempt to make shale gas viable in the 90s. They would have pissed away a lot of money and accomplished nothing useful. The bottom line is your "governments always subsidize energy R&D" is not a trump card that can the used to justify any government spending. Quote
CPCFTW Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) you're a coward tim you worry more about losing a debate point to protect your ego but your evasion tells us exactly how you would vote... you would vote A, that you deflect and avoid answering reveal you know full well B is not an option ,your argument is politically motivated not the result of logical critical thinking driven by science... and your desperate analogies "leg eating aliens" seriously tim? a temporary economic depression is the equivalent of a mass extinction event,really? let's be serious and just answer the question... I'm embarrassed for you tim, refusing to answer a question to a worst case scenario you introduced refusing to answer now deflecting with another question..what's up with that tim and your question is without merit because global growth rate is dropping and hardly relevant to this thread... unlike you tim my approach to the issue isn't politically motivated and i picked A to your question in a nanosecond, no hesitation... so are you going to answer the original question like an adult or forever lose any credibility you cling to on the issue... I've got a better analogy for you... Two worst case scenarios: 1. An asteroid hits the earth and destroys all life. 2. Temporary economic collapse Which would you take? Answer the question coward!! See how ridiculous you sound? The question is irrelevant. We don't make government spending decisions based on worst case scenarios. Why don't you take out a bank loan to build a bomb shelter in your backyard in case the worst case scenario of nuclear war occurs? Because we take into account probabilities when making decisions. And if you want to talk about credibility then you should note that even the most extreme climatologists wouldn't classify the worst case scenario of global warming as the end of civilization. There goes your credibility. The thing climatologists and the green movement has failed to quantify or consider, is the costs of their agenda. We can say with 100% probability that people WILL die due to poverty in a slower growing economy. If we spend 100B on reducing emissions instead of on growth, then we are choosing to kill people now in the hopes that it saves people in the future. I don't think that is a moral decision to make given the uncertainty of the future (this also reminds me of the argument against torturing terrorists.. Except the green movement wants to kill innocents, but would never torture enemies). Edited October 8, 2012 by CPCFTW Quote
wyly Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Bingo! Your answer to my question is exactly the same as my answer to yours. You are a deluded hypocrite if you think that anything it accomplished by asking irrelevant questions. The real issue in this discussion of climate policy: 1) what is the chance that anti-CO2 policies will accomplishing anything resembling their stated goal? Answer: next to zero. 2) what are the chances that the harmful side effects of anti-CO2 policies will exceed their benefit: Answer: close to 100%. These statements are true even if your implausible worst case scenario plays out. Which means that if your worst case scenario plays out we need a different strategy that the one you are proposing. three strikes tim...not even your forum denier minions coming to your aid throwing you lifelines could save you from drowning... by dodging, deflecting, answering questions with questions, hiding from worst case scenario you presented as plausible you reveal what you really are, not the objective "skeptic" but a political "denier" troll... if one worst case scenario is valid so must be the other...but no, tim has to scramble about searching for an analogy to justify not answering, amputating a leg or having it eaten by aliens...really tim, a short term economic depression is the equivalent of a mass extinction event ... that's the best you could come up with, who did you hope to convince with that? I'm not sure even simple or shady would buy that... a simple A or B and tim couldn't find the courage to answer...you can take your place among your peers , shady, simple, wwwtt, cpc, jgb and now timg, deniers.... Edited October 8, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) I've got a better analogy for you... Two worst case scenarios: 1. An asteroid hits the earth and destroys all life. 2. Temporary economic collapse Which would you take? Answer the question coward!! See how ridiculous you sound? The question is irrelevant. We don't make government spending decisions based on worst case scenarios. wow that was stupid analogy... are you claiming asteroids and AGW/CC are the same? ...you're science comprehension is at best 4th or 5th grade and you miss the entire point of the question in the first place And if you want to talk about credibility then you should note that even the most extreme climatologists wouldn't classify the worst case scenario of global warming as the end of civilization. There goes your credibility.this coming from someone who thinks a few degrees more won't hurt us...maybe you should try listening/investigating instead of relying on your own non-existent science knowledge.... http://digitaljournal.com/article/282344 ... The thing climatologists and the green movement has failed to quantify or consider, is the costs of their agenda. We can say with 100% probability that people WILL die due to poverty in a slower growing economy. the poorest of third world always survived on subsistence farming/fishing that requires "zero" economic growth, those people will(are) the first to suffer the effects, poverty doesn't kill people, starvation does...want to kill the poor ignore CC and watch their crops dry up...If we spend 100B on reducing emissions instead of on growth, then we are choosing to kill people now in the hopes that it saves people in the future. I don't think that is a moral decision to make given the uncertainty of the future (this also reminds me of the argument against torturing terrorists.. Except the green movement wants to kill innocents, but would never torture enemies). wow an enormous 100 billion climate change is already costing an estimated 1.2 trillion per year...maybe you can dazzle the boys down at timmies with your scientific illiteracy and misinformation but it doesn't work here.... Edited October 8, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Moonbox Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 I'm embarrassed for you tim, refusing to answer a question to a worst case scenario you introduced refusing to answer now deflecting with another question..what's up with that tim Deflection? Really?!? YOU are criticizing someone for deflection!?!? :lol: Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
WIP Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 Nobody is questioning the oil industry's interest in continuing the status quo, so everything you just wrote there is just a big red herring. All people are saying is that the insurance industry has the exact same sort of bias, but in the opposite direction. Given that the IPCC has concluded that climate related disasters have not been on the rise over the last few decades, the fact that Munich Re has concluded they have is interesting, albeit unsurprising. Like I said before, there is more money and more evil on the side of the deniers, but I don't trust the intentions of business interests trying to paint themselves green; whether we're talking about Munich RE or investment banks like Goldman-Sachs, who are supporting Cap and Trade as the next big market opportunity for them to enrich themselves. In some ways, the green capitalists are even worse than the dead-enders like big oil; because they shift public attention towards solutions that are weak at best, and keep the fiction going that capitalism and endless growth economies are possible in a finite world. What it all boils down to is that 97% number of expert consensus. If the numbers were closer to 50-50, I would agree that there isn't enough evidence for the public to accept on the climate issue. But, when we consider that the title of this thread is "Climate scientists keep getting it wrong" and we discover that most of what the scientists are actually getting wrong is that they are dangerously underestimating rising temperatures and CO2 increases, then the built-in biases of the monied interests are less relevant in finding the truth. The problem is that the denier side, representing only 3% of climatologists, is the one that is carpet-bombing the airwaves and all forms of media with false and misleading propaganda designed to encourage the average, low-information consumer to go back to sleep and agree with suicidal policies like increasing the exploitation of tar sands for oil. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 Worst case scenario: collapse of developed world economies which are unable to function with artificially expensive energy...... Have you even considered that petroleum is becoming more scarce and more expensive as the years go by, and therefore the prices have to rise. Even if we ignore environmental impacts of exploiting tar sands, shale oils and deep sea drilling, the costs of going after the harder-to-get oil keeps increasing. Even tar sands extraction costs are rising, because the startup operations in the late 70's, took the top layers first, and as they pump hot water deeper and deeper, to drive out that bitumen, the energy and financial costs of these operations will inevitably increase. Even right now, energy has become too expensive to maintain the smooth operation of the modern capitalist economies that depend on oil. Notice that every time the world price of petroleum takes a big jump, the world's economies...and that includes us, even though we are net producers, the Americans, the Europeans, and those supposedly rising world economic powers - China and India, are going into recession. And, in the coming years (until supply starts making big declines), world recessions ease demand for oil and bring the price back down under $100 per barrel. So, we have already reached a period in our history where oil supply cannot be substantially increased and has become an inelastic market - price dependent on demand alone. And yet, there are people like you, who think we can just keep on going business-as-usual! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
TimG Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 Have you even considered that petroleum is becoming more scarce and more expensive as the years go by, and therefore the prices have to rise.Cars can run on natural gas too. Quote
dre Posted October 8, 2012 Report Posted October 8, 2012 Cars can run on natural gas too. Can, should, do, and will. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.