Chroma in Milwaukee Junction
MILWAUKEE JUNCTION RISING  »

FUN THINGS TO DO IN DETROIT »



Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    DetroitDad Guest

    Default Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller & The End of Globalization

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...rticle1141752/

    "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

  2. #2

    Default

    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.

  3. #3

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    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.

  5. #5

    Default

    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?

  6. #6
    DetroitDad Guest

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    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.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ccbatson View Post
    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.
    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 years

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ccbatson View Post
    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.
    First off, I want to know where you get 300 years supply minimum.

    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.

  10. #10
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    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

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ccbatson View Post
    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?

    I support nuclear, coal and natural gas energy, so your broard brush is flawed... by your own logic no less!

  12. #12
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    And you vote for a party that strongly opposes you?

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ccbatson View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    LOL....would you like eggs with your waffles?? Nice try...well, good for a laugh anyway

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ccbatson View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    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.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ccbatson View Post
    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...

    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.

  18. #18
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    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).

  19. #19

    Default

    Perhaps you two could exchange email addresses?

    Or are you putting on a show for the rest of us?

  20. #20
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    Is it entertaining you?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Instagram
BEST ONLINE FORUM FOR
DETROIT-BASED DISCUSSION
DetroitYES Awarded BEST OF DETROIT 2015 - Detroit MetroTimes - Best Online Forum for Detroit-based Discussion 2015

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »





Welcome to DetroitYES! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
DetroitYES! is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to DetroitYES! [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.