http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle1141752/
Quote:
"People have to realize that this is not a shock, it's a permanent set of conditions that we have to adapt to. ”— Jeff Rubin
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle1141752/
Quote:
"People have to realize that this is not a shock, it's a permanent set of conditions that we have to adapt to. ”— Jeff Rubin
Interesting article. The book will be on my must-read list. Having lived through several of the oil recessions, each one more severe than the last, I firmly believe we must plan for a world without fossil oil. We have plenty of fuel lying around, and we will have to learn to use it some day. I would far rather we learn while we still have the oil to support our efforts. Imagine how much harder it will be in a massive fuel shortage.
History will show you that, since the 50s, the turn of every decade has brought us problems with our fuel supplies, based upon various factors. Right now, we are still having problems which will potentially get worse based on our own ability to pay the price. Declining employment + rising prices are a bad scene.
From the article: Mr. Rubin has taken his long-standing forecast that inevitably declining production and rising demand will send oil prices inexorably higher - over $200 [[U.S.) a barrel by 2012 or earlier, just for a start - and imagines how the world will have to change to adjust to such a reality.
This over $200/barrel prediction does not even consider the ongoing collapse of the dollar which has plummeted almost 9% in value since March 4. Multiplying the March cost of fuel by 1.09% explains a significant part of recent gasoline price increases.
As we already know, $200/barrel oil had us paying about $4/gallon. If a 40% middle class Cap and Trade carbon tax is added to the cost of oil, gasoline prices will be still higher. If the dollar continues its collapse, its back to donkey carts.
President Obama's auto industry fuel standards will help both national security and our import balance of payments problem. However, to accomplish those same goals I think a better idea would have been to gradually impose a European style high gas tax offset by a revenue neutral decrease in income taxes and/or national debt. That would have accomplished those same goals without creating a large additional federal bureaucracy while allowing more choice for people with special situations like having to haul things, large families, and wheelchairs. The higher taxes would still almost force most people to buy better gas mileage cars and the auto companies to produce them.
No mention of the more than 3 Trillion barrel eqivalents available domestically [[Shale, Offshore, Sand Tar, Alaska) that liberals will not let us touch...easily 300 years supply.
300 years will come to an end soon enough. Why waste the time between now and then, might as well work on the future, and live it now, thus preserving our theoretical supply much much farther into the future.
Or, maybe it is the end of times after all, so why worry about the future generations? Is that where you are coming from, CC?
So much expense and precious minds being wasted on "solving" a problem that wouldn't be so bad if we could just control ourselves. Often times, only crisis precipitates change. We'll wait for it to get painful before we adapt.
300 years minimum. A lot WILL [[not could) happen in that much time. For one, that estimate is based on current techniques for discovery and extraction.
300 years ago [[1709) is a time frame in which life is barely recognizable between the 2. the pace of development is now accelerated, so...we will be as primitive [[or more so) in comparison to our descendants 300 years hence as the individual of 1709 appears to us today. That is, of course, presuming that liberals do not have their way and send us into a steep regression.
USGS says 113 billion barrels of "technically recoverable" oil [[that is, oil that can be recoverred without putting higher energy input to get it out than the energy we get out), which, at 7.5 billion/year usage rate [[which is what we have) is roughly 15 yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
First off, I want to know where you get 300 years supply minimum.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Second, what people fail to relies is that any oil produced from ANWR or anywhere else will not automatically come back to the U.S. It must first go on the open market, bought by any country that pays for it. There is a good chance the oil we would produce could go to help China feed its growing demand, and wouldn't that be ironic?
All those people chanting drill baby drill could be making life easier for Communist China, but you'll never hear that from the ditto head show, or any other neo-con commentator.
Selective reporting.....shale oil alone holds 2 trillion plus conservatively. Haven't even mentioned other sources like nuclear, coal, and natural gas. You liberals have been duped
How have I been duped?Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
I support nuclear, coal and natural gas energy, so your broard brush is flawed... by your own logic no less!
And you vote for a party that strongly opposes you?
I vote for the party that covers most of my concerns. That is why I never vote straight ticket, you must check where the candidate stands, and choose accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
LOL....would you like eggs with your waffles?? Nice try...well, good for a laugh anyway
So, you find it funny that someone splits there votes and doesn't vote straight ticket? You would have felt comfortable under the Third Reich or the old Soviet System, since you seem to favor a one party rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Hahahahah....stop it, you are killing me DJ....OK, OK, as I wipe tears of laughter from my eyes, which conservatives have you voted for again?? I can't take much more of this, my guts are busting from laughing so hard.
Not that its any of your business, but...Quote:
Originally Posted by ccbatson
Big John Engler twice, Candice Miller, Secretary of State, twice, John McCain, in the primary against Bush in 2000, just off the top of my head.
Also, I would have strongly considered Rudy G. for president had he won, since McCain had already sold his soul to the fringe right to secure the party's nomination.
John Engler qualifies...So WOULD Rudy Guliani. The others are either inconsequential low level players [[Miller), or RINOs [[McCain...who you recant on later). None of whom sides with you on energy independence. For that, you need to have considered GWB, Palin, and Romney [[amongst a few others that you should look for in upcoming elections).
Perhaps you two could exchange email addresses?
Or are you putting on a show for the rest of us?
Is it entertaining you?