Just to be clear, I was not referring to the accumulated natural production
over millions of years (see below), but to the 'proven reserves' that are a
function of current technology and price....and world politics.
If Mark rejects the 'official' estimates of (rising) oil reserves I quoted,
how do we guess if there is 10 years or 1,000 years worth left? How much is
in the Alberta tar sands?
I wrote that technology and prices can (not _will_) increase reserves
faster than consumption; I suppose I should have added under certain
conditions, and for a time, but I didn't realize this was necessary.
The point is that capitalism has access to more oil now than when OPEC
shook things up in the 1970s, and real oil prices can still rise a lot
before they reach heights that capitalism was able to stumble over without
falling flat on its back.
Sorry, it is not abundantly clear to me why dwindling oil is a sound
political focus for anti-capitalists.
Bill:
> > I forget who Simon's bet was with (Paul Erlich?), but it is
> > undeniable that
> > better technology and higher relative prices can increase reserves of
> > non-renewable resources faster than they are depleted through the
> > outragious rate of consumption in rich countries.
Mark:
>This, too, is completely wrong and shows the futility of trying to debate
>these issues in fora where the most absurd statements which have absolutely
>no basis in fact or theory are uttered ad nauseam without respect for the
>evidence, which is contrary, abundant and clear.
and, that
>What we are talking about here is the rate at which fossil fuels accumulate
>under the earth and ocean-shelves. It is very slow indeed, and therefore of
>no practical importance. For humankind, once the fossil carbon in the mantle
>NOW is bnurnt, that's IT. It took 500m years to accumulate and we've used it
>in 250 years.
