Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:14 pm Post subject: Re: Watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight
The_Toecutter wrote:
Quote:
They hit at both sides of the equation, peak oil and uncontrolled corporatism.
And that's what needs to be done.
Peak oil, real it is, is also manufactured as a means to maximize profits for the oil industry.
Switch to a significant alternatives before peak hits, the crisis will be less severe and prices won't be as high. The oil industry has fought many tooth and nail, so much so that some of those viable and cost competitive today have been supressed and have remained on the fringe of adoption, despite being cheaper than using the oil equivalent.
Also account for the fact that just because the oil is less abundant doesn't necessarily make the price to extract and refine more expensive in proportion, and you could argue that the 'free market' system as we know it today is by definition a form of price gouging. Some might call it 'supply and demand', but when the demand is kept intentional by efforts to stall and discourage the adoption of compettive alternatives to a commodity that is required for society to function at the level it does today, the normal rules of supply and demand cannot hope to adequately explain the situation.
Ah, the errors in this post...
Look, you talk about technologies being "supressed" but if they were truly useful wouldn't our enemies have adopted them without our consent? Germany and Japan in WWII? The USSR and China during the Cold War? These groups had no reason to respect our patents and legal system so why didn't they take these magnificent yet supressed inventions and run with them? The answer, of course, is that these inventions were not better than petroleum as an energy source or else others would be using them on a wider scale to gain an advantage. You can make the argument maybe once that some specific technology has been hidden away but there's no way to make that argument over and over for multiple technologies. That bird won't fly.
And that fact gets to the heart of your erroneous thinking in the claim that switching before the peak can even occur. Why would anyone voluntarily handicap themselves by using more expensive energy when their competitors (at the coporate or even the national levels) choose to use the cheap stuff? The answer? They won't, of course. So suggesting that any alternative be adopted before peak on a wide scale is unrealistic because that's not how people behave no matter how much anyone might wish it were so. And further, the fringe segment that does impose cost penalties on themselves pre-peak just ensures that there is slightly more (and even lower prices!) for the remaining oil consumers.
Finally your "less abundant" argument has been shot down by professionals numerous times. The early oil was cheap precisely because it was easy to get. The farther along the Hubbert curve we go, the more expensive it becomes to extract. And further, because we know this (and so do the oil companies internally), the more expensive the next barrel will be to extract, and the one after that, on down the line.
Now, to be fair, price at the pump does not reflect necessarily actual production costs but any system has to allow the producer to not only reap a profit from his production but also to be able to produce the next barrel of oil. Right now it is possible and even probable that the price at the pump is excessive when considering cost of production of that barrel of oil plus the expected costs of the next barrel but probably not by a great deal.
Thus, people will not change til the real crisis hits and the actual price of oil rises to reflect the crisis. Then and only then will people change behaviors. Instead of worrying about high oil prices, if you really want to see a transition to alternatives, particularly renewables, you should be celebrating high prices. Price, for all its faults, is the surest lever to move the modern world in the direction necessary. Heck, let the oil companies gouge! It raises prices which is the surest way to drive forward alternatives. If they wish to commit economic suicide, why should we stop them?
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: Watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight 10/27/05
Quote:
Ah, the errors in this post...
Look, you talk about technologies being "supressed" but if they were truly useful wouldn't our enemies have adopted them without our consent?
Depends upon the intent of said enemies, the time period you are referring to, and overall level of development of the 'enemy' in question.
Take a look at Denmark. They are currently rapidly scaling up aeolic and tidal sources of electricity, as is Germany, as is much of Europe in general. Cost per kWh for wind is competitive with conventional sources like coal or natural gas to the consumer(even without government subsidy), but profits cannot be made from mining, extracting, transporting, storing, ect. because those processes don't exist with that source of power generation, unlike coal(whos cost per kWh has those profits already accounted for). Therefore wind energy is not taking off nearly as rapidly in America since it's less profitable. The corporations operating on principals of the so called 'free market' aren't usually adopting these technologies on their own since they are less profitable than what is currently used(regardless whether or not they can be cheaper to the consumer), and thus usually it is government mandate that spurs their adoption. A very sizable exception exists though: the small business which offers the alternative, wants to scale it up, but doesn't have the money to expand at any significant rate. Often a large industry will buy the small business to grenwash itself, but won't expand it further.
Another example: the battery electric car. Fuel for automobiles in America is 40%+ of its oil consumption. In the late 1990s, EVs became capable of fast acceleration AND long range(in excess of 200 miles per charge). In mass production they could be cheaper than gas cars as numerous studies will note. The oil industry and auto industry waged a smear campaign against this technology. The oil industry funded faux grassroots organizations with the intent of stalling California's EV mandate, lobbied politicians to vote against measures favorable to alternative energy, bought up patents for viable cheap long range batteries to prevent their use in EV applications, and funded false advertisements giving misleading and even false information on the technology. The auto industry not only refused to sell the cars to prospective consumers, but discouraged their adoption by outright refusing leases to potential customers. The auto industry also funded falsified studies on lifecycle assessments of electric vehicle pollution using figures that were off by factors of 1,000 or more, waged negative ad campaigns citing electric cars as inherently unsafe, lobbied politicians to stall adoption of pro elecric vehicle measures, claimed there was no market for the cars despite studies citing the initial market was sizable(One study cited in the Wall Street Journal concluded there was a 12% market share for first year of sales) and even tried to sue California's taxpayers for pushing for the EV mandate.
Why? For the oil industry it was obvious. 40-45% of oil consumption in America is just to fuel its fleet of cars.
For the auto industry, the electric car meant no tune ups, no oil changes, no pistons, no cranks, no pulleys, no valves, no engine maintenance, and electric motors last in excess of 500,000 miles. EVs, much cheaper to the consumer because of this, also takes much less of the consumers money and puts less of it in auto industry pockets.
A powerdown scenario using renewable energy and using technology that can incorporate use of renewable energy(ie. electric cars instead of gas cars) by its low consumption nature limits revenue generated, and thus profits, despite that we could keep our living standard on much less. This lowering of profits and the possibility of independence from oil has the entrenched industries scared as this will mean less profits.
Quote:
Germany and Japan in WWII? The USSR and China during the Cold War? These groups had no reason to respect our patents and legal system so why didn't they take these magnificent yet supressed inventions and run with them? The answer, of course, is that these inventions were not better than petroleum as an energy source or else others would be using them on a wider scale to gain an advantage.
WWII was well before most of the viable oil alternatives were cost competitive. You have to keep historical context in mind, as alternatives to oil did not become economically competitive until the mid to late 1990s, long after WWII.
But, if you must know, one alternative to oil to make biofuels, plastics, petrochemical replacements, and textiles WAS in use in copious quantities in WWII. Industrial hemp. America AND its enemies used it. After the war was over, America again went back to refusing to allow farmers to grow it, much to the joy of the wood paper and oil industries.
Quote:
You can make the argument maybe once that some specific technology has been hidden away but there's no way to make that argument over and over for multiple technologies. That bird won't fly.
Sure it will. For example, it is historical fact that Chevron Texaco bought out the Ovonic NiMH battery patent. ECD chairman Robert Stemple quoted the cost at $150/kWh in mass production and repeated studies have pegged the battery pack life in an EV application in excess of 300,000 miles. A 30 kWh pack to give an electric car a 200 mile range would cost $4,500, and last over 300,000 miles before it needed replacement. To this day, Chevron Texaco refuses to offer EV sized modules for use in an electric car application, and guess what they charge for the battery in the application of today's hybrids such as the Prius and Insight? Over $1,000/kWh. Nearly half the price premiums on today's hybrids are lining Chevron's pockets by them overcharging for the battery.
Quote:
And that fact gets to the heart of your erroneous thinking in the claim that switching before the peak can even occur. Why would anyone voluntarily handicap themselves by using more expensive energy when their competitors (at the coporate or even the national levels) choose to use the cheap stuff? The answer? They won't, of course.
You'd be surprised to learn just how much less expensive alternative energy is, especially when you factor in the cost to keep our military protecting oil supplies, the personal and property damage that pollution from using fossil fuels causes, and corpoate welfare subsidies to the auto, oil, coal, and nuclear industries. Then there's the issue that in many regions, wind electricity is cheaper to produce than coal or natural gas electricity, and the outright fact that electric cars are now cheaper to run per mile than gas cars even with the cost of the batteries factored in.
The reason people aren't widely using this technology is because those industries large enough to have economies of scale aren't offering it in any significant amount, and the small businesses willing to offer it don't have economies of scale thus they can't be competitive. It goes against the interests of the auto industry to offer electric cars and the coal industry to switch to wind power; because they are less profitable, despite being cheaper to the user.
Quote:
So suggesting that any alternative be adopted before peak on a wide scale is unrealistic because that's not how people behave no matter how much anyone might wish it were so.
Unrealistic? Maybe. At least an individual can change their own lifestyle if wealthy enough(And then begin saving a shitload of money as their investment pays itself off in savings).
To get bureaucracies(corporate and government) to enact this change when they are so interested in maximizing economic growth, spending, consumption, taxes, and profit, on the otherhabnd is nigh impossible. The people at the bottom don't want to make sacrifices, but the problem is, the technology that could allow them to sustainably live their lifestyle is being denied to them because of political reasons. Those in charge want to keep raking in their money, even if it means an unsustainable society.
Quote:
And further, the fringe segment that does impose cost penalties on themselves pre-peak just ensures that there is slightly more (and even lower prices!) for the remaining oil consumers.
Believe me, they are imposing on themselves no cost penalty at $2.50+/gallon gas driving electric cars that cost $.07/mile to operate(including near zero maintenance and battery use), and generating electricity at their homes with small wind turbines at < $.08/kWh(large turbines can generate it at < $.045/kWh) when the power companies typically charge the consumer about $.11/kWh from $.05 coal electricity. The penalty they do impose on themselves is paying money up front, but after a few years the savings will pay off the invenstment.
Quote:
Finally your "less abundant" argument has been shot down by professionals numerous times. The early oil was cheap precisely because it was easy to get. The farther along the Hubbert curve we go, the more expensive it becomes to extract. And further, because we know this (and so do the oil companies internally), the more expensive the next barrel will be to extract, and the one after that, on down the line.
I'm not denying early oil being cheaper to get at. However, the cost to extract and refine that oil has risen much less by percentage than price has over the last five years. By having a shortage induced(real or otherwise), larger profits can thus be made. Post Katrina, we are already seeing companies like Exxon Mobil and BP raking in record profits. They rather like doing so. The more severe the supply and demand gap, the farther prices will rise, no matter how much it costs to actually get that oil. The hurricanes hit and disrupted supply, but that had squat to do with the actual costs to extract that oil when compared with the effect DEMAND had on the cost.
Switch to alternatives before the gap in supply and demand is achieved post peak, and the prices won't get their opportunity to rise as rapidly because people will be using other sources.
Quote:
Thus, people will not change til the real crisis hits and the actual price of oil rises to reflect the crisis. Then and only then will people change behaviors.
Actually, people will change when:
a) It's convenient and they have to make little/no sacrifices
b) They have the opportunity
Again, take the electric car. None are being offered for sale, thus by default no one is buying them. The only ones using them are those willing to either build their own or pay someone over $50,000 to hand build them one. For most people, there is no opportunity to use this technology, despite that it has evolved to the point where it can be convenient and even present more benefits to the user than the antiquated technology.
Another example, mass transit. In the early 20th century, light rail systems were all over the place in America and no one needed cars to get around. Car ownership levelled off before the depression in the roaring 20s, and so did miles travelled per car per year, at .3 cars per person of driving age and about 3,000 miles driven per year respectively. This stayed constant until AFTER the mass transit systems were torn down in the 1940s, bought up and dismantled by the auto and oil industries to encourage consumption of cars and oil. Today, there are 1.2 cars in america registered for every person of driving age, and each car is driven about 12,000 miles per year. When mass transit was convenient and offered the same benefit of personal mobility without any significant sacrifices, and even was cheaper to use than a car, people used it. Now our mass transit system in America is nigh unusable, often more expensive to use than a car, and necessitates waiting hours a day for use, if it's even available. Hardly convenient.
The buying up and dismantling of mass transit was basically FORCING people to consume, regardless of whether or not they wanted to. This is essentially what the oil industry is doing today, despite peak approaching or having been passed. They don't want to lose their market, even if it means a massive dieoff will occur should oil become scarce while civilization is so heavily dependent upon it.
Quote:
Instead of worrying about high oil prices, if you really want to see a transition to alternatives, particularly renewables, you should be celebrating high prices.
Even when oil was $15/barrel, many renewables were cheaper under the scenario they would be scaled up. At $20/barrel, individual people with money(thousands of dollars) to spend upfront could save money in the longterm by making use of them on a small scale.
Quote:
Price, for all its faults, is the surest lever to move the modern world in the direction necessary.
Not when asset inertia is part of the equation. When technological advancements are fought and kept away from potential consumers to keep reliance upon a particular product, despite the need for change, price is hardly the determining factor. _________________ The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
Joined: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 1203 Location: Left the cult
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 12:29 pm Post subject: Re: Watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight 10/27/05
The_Toecutter wrote:
Switch to alternatives before the gap in supply and demand is achieved post peak, and the prices won't get their opportunity to rise as rapidly because people will be using other sources.
It is true that in the real world economies of scale distort the operation of the theory of supply and demand. Also its a given that with entrenched interests in businesses and politicians the system is not only distorted, but bent (i.e. illegal). But that's the system we have, and we are stuck with it.
"Switch to alternatives" is a great soundbite, but how are you even going to begin to do that? I don't see that we have any choice but to let the oil companies and their incestuous political friends burn themselves out. Sure that will lead to higher prices but those higher prices also provide an umbrella to alternatives.
Anyway, I think your fundamental assertion is dead wrong. The dangerous manipulation is if the oil companies held prices artificially low, which is precisely the reverse. This policy was deliberately adopted by OPEC to stifle development of alternatives. This policy has now collapsed, and we have come back to a situation where supply/demand can take effect.
High prices are much more a disadvantage to oil companies than low prices. _________________ It's all downhill from here
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:16 pm Post subject: Re: Watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight
GreyZone wrote:
Look, you talk about technologies being "supressed" but if they were truly useful wouldn't our enemies have adopted them without our consent? Germany and Japan in WWII? The USSR and China during the Cold War? These groups had no reason to respect our patents and legal system so why didn't they take these magnificent yet supressed inventions and run with them? The answer, of course, is that these inventions were not better than petroleum as an energy source or else others would be using them on a wider scale to gain an advantage. You can make the argument maybe once that some specific technology has been hidden away but there's no way to make that argument over and over for multiple technologies. That bird won't fly.
And that fact gets to the heart of your erroneous thinking in the claim that switching before the peak can even occur. Why would anyone voluntarily handicap themselves by using more expensive energy when their competitors (at the coporate or even the national levels) choose to use the cheap stuff? The answer? They won't, of course. So suggesting that any alternative be adopted before peak on a wide scale is unrealistic because that's not how people behave no matter how much anyone might wish it were so. And further, the fringe segment that does impose cost penalties on themselves pre-peak just ensures that there is slightly more (and even lower prices!) for the remaining oil consumers.
Finally your "less abundant" argument has been shot down by professionals numerous times. The early oil was cheap precisely because it was easy to get. The farther along the Hubbert curve we go, the more expensive it becomes to extract. And further, because we know this (and so do the oil companies internally), the more expensive the next barrel will be to extract, and the one after that, on down the line.
Now, to be fair, price at the pump does not reflect necessarily actual production costs but any system has to allow the producer to not only reap a profit from his production but also to be able to produce the next barrel of oil. Right now it is possible and even probable that the price at the pump is excessive when considering cost of production of that barrel of oil plus the expected costs of the next barrel but probably not by a great deal.
Thus, people will not change til the real crisis hits and the actual price of oil rises to reflect the crisis. Then and only then will people change behaviors. Instead of worrying about high oil prices, if you really want to see a transition to alternatives, particularly renewables, you should be celebrating high prices. Price, for all its faults, is the surest lever to move the modern world in the direction necessary. Heck, let the oil companies gouge! It raises prices which is the surest way to drive forward alternatives. If they wish to commit economic suicide, why should we stop them?
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:30 pm Post subject: Re: Watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight 10/27/05
You're all missing the main point here. O'reilly taking the oil companies to task is important. Lou Dobbs, on CNN-same thing. The media matrix has been shredded by recent events (New Oreans response, Iraq war denial of reality) which indicate the administration has no plan and appears to be winging it.
This scares the crap out of Wall Street, so media lapdogs like O'reilly have simply recieved new sheet music from their choirmasters and are singing an anti-oil tune. Sounds like a funeral dirge to me and I'm loving it. Rupert Murdoch predicts that he will be dealing with a more centrist FCC in the future and is beginning the toadying process right now. He wants to be on the winning side, after all.
And who said oil is based on free trade? What an absurdity. The supply can be constrained artificially by Opec producing countries, for one, refiners can shut down refineries arbitrarily with the specific purpose of creating a bottleneck to ramp up price. Of course if that's what you call "free", uh...I guess. Sounds more like speculation driven by complicit acknowledgement that oil is in the hands of a very few cartels.
Joined: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 1203 Location: Left the cult
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 1:41 pm Post subject: Re: Watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight 10/27/05
threadbear wrote:
You're all missing the main point here. O'reilly taking the oil companies to task is important. Lou Dobbs, on CNN-same thing. The media matrix has been shredded by recent events (New Oreans response, Iraq war denial of reality) which indicate the administration has no plan and appears to be winging it.
No, I think you are missing the point. Whining about oil companies making a profit is futile. If they are a cartel with the PTB - even more futile! At best it's tiliting at windmills and at worst a distraction from the important issue.
I don't really care whether you like wallowing in your political sitcom and paranoid theories but it is quite irrelevant. _________________ It's all downhill from here
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 2:15 pm Post subject: Re: Watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight 10/27/05
bobcousins wrote:
threadbear wrote:
You're all missing the main point here. O'reilly taking the oil companies to task is important. Lou Dobbs, on CNN-same thing. The media matrix has been shredded by recent events (New Oreans response, Iraq war denial of reality) which indicate the administration has no plan and appears to be winging it.
No, I think you are missing the point. Whining about oil companies making a profit is futile. If they are a cartel with the PTB - even more futile! At best it's tiliting at windmills and at worst a distraction from the important issue.
I don't really care whether you like wallowing in your political sitcom and paranoid theories but it is quite irrelevant.
Whining about oil companies making a profit is the key issue here. Your complacent acceptance of criminal collusion speaks volumes. If I can be criticized for "tilting at windmills" will you accept criticism for bending over for big oil?
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 11:11 pm Post subject: Re: Watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight 10/27/05
all you people need to just shut the f#ck up and bow down in front of Toecutter and his budda-like wisdom and patience. The guy (are you really only 25 years old?) should be president for goddamn sake
that was the most measured and reasonable defense of the electric counterculture I believe that I have ever heard. I have been a fan of alternative energy systems for years. I have solar electric and hot water on my roof. My friends have homebuilt electric cars. But I have never heard someone present the case so well as here.
Among all the phony cornucopean biofuels, tar-sands, oil-shale hype, nuclear power, conservation, and other public relations crap, here is a simple technological solution that we can all get our driving gloves around! And it comes replete with a conspiracy to boot. Yeah! f%*K the capitalist pig oil-company whores. f&*k the brown-shirt dying automobile company d#cks! yeah! Toecutter for president! _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: Watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight 10/27/05
Quote:
It is true that in the real world economies of scale distort the operation of the theory of supply and demand. Also its a given that with entrenched interests in businesses and politicians the system is not only distorted, but bent (i.e. illegal). But that's the system we have, and we are stuck with it.
Since we're "stuck" with the system we have, there are two possibilities to get it unstuck:
1) Change the system. This would require the cooperation of the power elite and for them to relinquish power. While possible in theory, not bloody likely.
2) Destroy the system. Looks like peak oil is about to do it for us, but it could also lead us into a very long period of fascism amd war as the entrenched bureacracies vie for resources and attempt to maintain control(corps and governments).
There are what I'd like to call three main possible societies for our future, the society of collapse, the society of fascism, and the society of sustainability.
The first possibility is obvious. Instead of nations powering down their economies voluntarily, peak oil does it for them. Its the doomer scenario, all out Mad Max, huge dieoff. I do recognize it is possible, but I don't think it's likely in the short term. Makes for good science fiction, I must admit.
The second will inevitably lead to either the first or the third possibility in the long term, but in the short to medium term, those currently making money off the system don't wish for that to change. Thus we see resource wars over a period of years and not sudden collapse, dwindling civil liberties, perhaps restrictions on personal mobility, and that surveillance society most civil libertarians fear is formed. Humanity, now facing dwindling resources, completely ruins its environment before either going extinct, or going to some variant of option 1 or option 3. This looks to be the current path being taken.
The third is the one that will be hardest to accomplish. This is a society that would have a standard of living much like today, only on far fewer resources and far less consumption by making use of inexpensive renewable fuels. As a consequence of its low consumption, people have to work less because they are using less, less revenue is being generated, less taxes are being generated, and less profits are being generated. The economy is powered down. Instead of coal and natural gas electricity, wind and biomass are used. Less driving and more mass transit(to the point where mass transit is cheap and convenient). Cars would be relegated to a role of fun and entertainment instead of transport, although they may exist for liesure drives among scenic routes on rare occassions(albiet a high speed train would be far faster, less expensive, and more convenient and by default would be the choice of most). Houses would use more efficient lighting, make use of passive solar heating, and electricity would be generated a few blocks away in a highly decentralized system as opposed to many miles. It will take cooperation on a global scale and is entirely possible. Except that those in power and making the money don't wish to cooperate, virtually robbing this future from everyone. To make matters worse, those who are consuming the most and able to shift society into this direction are kept ignorant through their government, encouraged to stay ignorant, encouraged to keep consuming, and are told that they don't want anything different. This society must be in the process of being shifted to before any collapse begins, or it will be nigh impossible to achieve.
Quote:
"Switch to alternatives" is a great soundbite, but how are you even going to begin to do that?
It depends on which scale, whether it is an individual scale or a national scale. The individual scale is easy, if you have the money up front to do it(of which you will save later).
On a national scale or larger is where it gets hard. This would require incentive to use alternatives, of which they need to be the following for the broader public to accept their use:
1) Scalable
2) Widely Available (not there yet for political reasons)
3) Cheap (Usually needs to be widely available and produced in volume)
4) Convenient
The first is a matter of whether we have the resources on this planet. For wind energy, electric vehicles, hemp farms, energy efficient appliances(lightbulbs, refrigirators, ect.), that's pretty much a yes, provided not all 6.5 billion people are shoved into a first world lifestyle(More like half or so) and the population stabilizes(It couls if poverty would be adressed). The second isn't reality for arguably political reasons. The third requires mass production on a national or world scale, or large sums of money up front on an individual scale, but is otherwise a yes. The Fourth requires it being widely available, which may not initially be met, but could be within a decade would society be seriously focusing on this issue and people would agree to make small sacrifices in the interim to keep(or improve) their lifestyle in the long term. But that requires an educated public.
One way to accomplish a 'switch to renewables' is to make companies PAY for the expenses usually passed onto others in the form of pollution, wars, and subsidies. If oil companies had to actually pay for the property and personal(medical and other) damage their emissions and runoff caused, coal powerplants the same, as with auto companies, semiconductor manufacturers, ect. they would NOT be so profitable anymore. They'd have to actually adress these issues, which it would be much cheaper to do by using renewable energy. In either case, profits would still decline, and the economy would still shrink.
The big problem if the above were actually passed is is all the government revenue. The incompetent bureaucrats wouldn't know how to manage it, so laws would have to be enacted to actually punish government officials for innefficiency, whether it be by cutting their pay, demoting them, or perhaps throwing them in jail for extreme circumstances. They're not likely to go along with such a proposal, but an educated public just might. If an efficiency of greater than 85% could be achieved, it would be a worthwhile proposition(and many government programs have exceeded this efficiency, but if and only if the bureaucrats are on task. Usually they're much less efficient). The problem of the bureaucrats could be adressed with decentralization to reduce risk, but again it would take a public educated and willing to actually shrink the overall size of the government.
The good news is, the public can be educated. The bad news is that it takes work and it takes time. Things just won't change overnight, even though the problem of energy has been allowed to get so out of hand that we really only have overnight to fix things. Considering it's possible in theory, it's still worth the attempt.
However, the only garunteed way to be ready for this approaching crisis is to prepare yourself. Don't count on society to prepare for you, but at the same time, do what you can to shift society, even if it is almost garunteed to fail. You won't know if you don't try.
Quote:
I don't see that we have any choice but to let the oil companies and their incestuous political friends burn themselves out. Sure that will lead to higher prices but those higher prices also provide an umbrella to alternatives.
The alternatives have had an umbrella over them for almost a decade, but the only ones that have joined them under it have usually gotten off the grid themselves due to the large players not willing to let things change.
The plus side is, the more that use alternatives, the more that will be exposed to them. Take my car I'm building for instance. When finished, I'll be able to charge it in my garage, drive it to the race track, dust off a few Porsches and musclecars, and drive it back without using one drop of oil for fuel. People will come to know that car after seeing other gas guzzlers get spanked by it at the track, and they will be wondering why they can't go out and buy one.
May not put one in their garage, but at least it plants the idea in their head. Some will decide to do research, and of that a percentage will actually decide to build their own and the cycle will continue. If enough decide to boycott the big automakers, this could spark change in just this one area, but unlikely to do so right away(although the possibility, however small, exists).
Similar things can be said about people who have solar and wind generators on their roofs and grow some of their own food as a hobby.
Quote:
Anyway, I think your fundamental assertion is dead wrong. The dangerous manipulation is if the oil companies held prices artificially low, which is precisely the reverse. This policy was deliberately adopted by OPEC to stifle development of alternatives. This policy has now collapsed, and we have come back to a situation where supply/demand can take effect.
High prices are much more a disadvantage to oil companies than low prices.
Historical context matters. Advantages and disadvantages change with the surrounding politics of the time. In the 70s, the oil industry was dead scared of alternatives becoming competitive, so they bought a bunch of them out and used political wrangling to put some businesses involved with alternatives out, and to keep legislation that would promote these alternatives from being passed. As you mention, they did keep prices artificially low, but a big chunk of that was government subsidies courtesy of Joe Taxpayer. Now they're scared of alternatives being adopted now that they failed to keep them from becoming competitive, but they did manage to keep them under wraps to an extent with their political wrangling of before, so now they keep their political wrangling active to keep the cheaper alternative from being used. Today we see yet MORE lavish subsidies heaped upon these old dinosaurs courtesy of Joe Taxpayer, and they are free of being accountable for the damage they cause society to boot! And this is in a time of record prices. It is interesting how the oil prices are now artificially high from profiteering, but artificially low due to all the tax subsidies. This may sound contradictary, but read between the lines: those subsidies are being pocketed.
Since they did suceed in smearing alternatives(as opposed to keeping them more expensive like they intended) in the public mind, and got onto themselves many subsidies, they are now free to ride this out as long as they want. If anyone steps up to them, they resort to more political wrangling. They like their record profits very much, and post peak they look forward to seeing them rise due to unmet demand.
Overall, you're quite reasonable. We do share many views in common.
Quote:
all you people need to just shut the f#ck up and bow down in front of Toecutter and his budda-like wisdom and patience. The guy (are you really only 25 years old?) should be president for goddamn sake
that was the most measured and reasonable defense of the electric counterculture I believe that I have ever heard. I have been a fan of alternative energy systems for years. I have solar electric and hot water on my roof. My friends have homebuilt electric cars. But I have never heard someone present the case so well as here.
Among all the phony cornucopean biofuels, tar-sands, oil-shale hype, nuclear power, conservation, and other public relations crap, here is a simple technological solution that we can all get our driving gloves around! And it comes replete with a conspiracy to boot. Yeah! f%*K the capitalist pig oil-company whores. f&*k the brown-shirt dying automobile company d#cks! yeah! Toecutter for president!
Saying I have the wisdom and patience of Budda is quite a bit overdoing it, but I see your point. I don't consider myself wise, but I do consider myself interested.
And I'm 20, not 25. I'm sure there have to be others more qualified than myself to answer some of these questions, but I have a lot of interest in this subject. My knowledge of it is pretty much academic, and not practical, however. Most of my experience is through reading, and not actual work. Slowly but surely I seek to change that, but learning takes time. My car will be my first experience with demonstrating renewables. After that, I intend to live off the grid. the largest impedement in my progress is money though. With my dad not working and me in college, I'm amazed I can still scrape money(and time) together to use the internet about 10 hours a week. _________________ The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
