Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
I'm not sure what the big deal here is. Fossil fuels are still quite affordable, and getting more so with expanded use of nearly unlimited natural gas. Put simply, if we are doomed, as you guys claim, unless we move away from fossil fuels, then well, we are doomed, so live with it. There is zero chance we get an enforceable global climate pact - ever (unless aliens come). You may as well plan on adapting/building our way out of the changes come. The Earth may be different...but there are 7 billion of us, I think we'll be fine. Having to build a few more dams or impose permanent water restrictions - which I figure is probably what the result will be here in Colorado - are a far cry from the end of humanity. The end of Bangladesh, maybe, but not the end of the world as we know it even. More storms, more fires (God forbid we maybe have to go with some land-use restrictions to counteract that), bigger disaster budgets... But we'll do all those things, no problem.
I'll also add that the world we live in today subject fewer of or species to the ravages of war than at any time in recorded history. Sure, there are still wars, and with today's media you know more about them than you ever would have in earlier times. But the vast majority of humanity can sleep comfortably at night knowing that the threat of war isn't looming over them. This is the most peaceful works himanity as a whole has ever known. We fret over a few thousand deaths on the other side of the world now - I'd call that progress. Seems to me that whatever we're doing with all of our war mongering is doing a pretty good job.
Back on my first point, I really hate that we spend so much time debating whether climate change is happening that we never actually discuss what the consequences will be if we assume that it is. So as a result, among the believers, there's just a widespread assumption that it means the end of the world, or some other dramatic and must-be-avoided-at-all-costs super consequences. I'd like to have a little more science on what the result will be, and not just 2° 3° or 4°, but what it means re: costs and real life impacts, rather than focusing on proving the point all the time over and over to people who will never change their mind. I think scientists are finally starting to catch on that good science is irrelevant. What matters is good politics and good marketing.
|
I do not believe that climate change is an issue, with respect oil and gas
(edit lol) And, yes, we will never run OUT of oil, but simple laws of supply (cost of extraction- political and physical) and (world) demand do apply.
True oil costs reflect far more than extraction costs, shipping costs, refining costs, and distribution costs. Costs also include (a significant part) fighting wars, maintaining deterrent to future wars, and, taxes on oil and gas (edit-lol) These hidden costs are seldom accurately reflected by world market price. For example: while the price per barrel crude, in dollars, is virtually the same in most countries, more indirect costs are paid by the taxpayers of country X than Y. And it is the subsidy of part of the true cost of oil by the US, borne by the US taxpayer (and printed money), that is not shared by most of the world's oil consumers.
Add on to this, increased oil demand in China, India, Brazil, and OPEC itself (those Saudiis are using more and more of their own oil).
***************
China is steadily working towards trading for oil in other currencies. For example, Russia and China trade bilaterally in rubles and Renminbi. China is doing this, in part, due to it's not wanting to add too many dollars to it's dollar hoard.
India is now dealing with a burgeoning middle class, that wants cars (the Mumbai public rail system makes "Blade Runner" look like "The Brady Bunch). India has abundant coal, and, has a healthy nuclear industry, but oil stock provides the quickest return on fertilizers, the domestic plastic industry, and, personal transportation. (They are sick of riding bikes.)
********************
All this compounds the "Energy produced by the oil extracted' <minus> 'Energy required to extract oil' function. (The "Energy required to extract oil" includes indirect military and political costs.) As the net result of the function lowers, the available oil decreases.
This is the demon that the Austrian School correctly warns will likely cause global collapse.
EPILOGUE: History is filled with examples of one part of the world collapsing, while another flourishes. During the 'Dark Ages' for Western Europe, Constantinople was the center of a vibrant, vigorous culture. Another example, that in the 9th Century, Bagdad had 1,000,000 or so people, while London and Paris, 30,000. So, perhaps the US, the UK, and, Western Europe will take the hit (unless they move 'smartly), while East Asia will send astronauts to mine the Asteroid belt. The problem, centers with 'us.'
This same set of equations work for natural gas, but the curves are different.* I think the Natural Gas economic model is an ideal, as, going over to natural gas in the petrochemical industry would reduce the long term operating cost. My guess that if the US started full time conversion yesterday, the economy might only go into a depression (2007- continued) Major changes would have to be made in natural gas distribution (the scale), auto engine design (what do I do with all that I remove from the engine, as a factor of engine performance, car weight etc. Perhaps natural gas might take 20% of the transportation load, but, China will just consume the oil we saved, and, the identical dynamics apply with only the variable value differing)
*Different in the sense of not being identically congruent.
Prev
Linear Mode
