Max, I'm not sure it *would* take to shake your sang-froid, the point I was
making was the opposite, ie, despite fatuous assertions to the contrary,
which shows that if you sractch some pen-lers, you find a Samuelson or an
Adelman ('resources are infinite.. the planet has no need of them... oil is
a renewable resource' etc and other certifiable nonsense), the fact is that
energy is not infinite, there is no substitute for petroleum, capitalism
depends on petroleum, and when it's gone, it's gone. It's be gone very soon
indeed and some people (jncluding me) think that actually the Hubbert Peak
has already arrived, and oil production worldwide will now decline sharply.
Mark Jones
http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
> Sent: 27 June 2000 21:57
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:20768] RE: RE: Re: energy crises
>
>
> Jim Devine wrote:
> >what's wrong with the
> > Nordhaus theory? My main complaint is that the recovery from an energy
> > crisis might easily be extremely painful and take a long time
>
> It might take several million years, and I'm not really joking.
> What are the
> alternatives to fossil? (don't please mention PV's, wind, hydrogen etc,
> because they are not alternatives) Mark
>
>
>
> We're supposed to get excited about a catastrophe that
> occurs one million years hence?????
>
> mbs
>
>
