Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: energy crises
Brad deLong wrote: Ummm Brad, you may end being known as the man who put the 'um' in 'dumb'. Do you suppose Simon's bet with Ehrlich is safe ground for you to stand on? You too, simply have no idea what the issue is. Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList
Re: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: energy crises
Max Sawicky wrote: I just don't believe it. When fossil fuels become sufficiently expensive, massive efforts will go into developing alternatives. There will be a lot of money to be made, coordination problems aside. To me that's more likely than green consciousness leading to revolution No, there will be no such massive efforts as you suppose because the material basis for making such efforts will have disappeared. No, there will be no money to be made, but there will be signs of severe social and historical stresses in all countries including the overpopulated, third-worldised US whose Ogallala aquifer will just be running out when the population hits its first half billion. Your hopes are false. The time to do something is obviously now, not later. You should make this the central issue of your work and life because the fact of this crisis simplify falsifies and empties of worth the kinds of worthy but now pointless social policy things you do do. It's hard to accept, I know, and much easier to make a flip joke about barbecues, turn your back on the problem and get on with your life while you can; but this option is already not as easy as it was, because there is so much more evidence now than there was even two years ago, when I last rattled the pen-L bars, and Doug produced a tame petroleum economist to prove me wrong (where he, Doug? Changed specialty?). And in 2 years time when the evidence is incontrovertible enough to be finally getting thru even to economists, self-appointed wonks and marginal pundits, a moment will come when you will all be talking about nothing else, but in reality nothing will change because you will still be being led by the ideological nose thru the wastelands of broadsheet and NGO 'policy analysis' and CNN gibberish about 'the energy crisis'. The results will be to amplify dsaster, and to set a minus sign against your life's work. You want that Max? The US state and polity cannot be saved, it will be destroyed, and the question is only what comes after. Hiding from the clear evidence of energy crisis and whistling in the dark that you 'just don't believe it' does not show manly scepticism, only undimmed ability to avoid the real nitty-gritty. Mark
RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises
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. Human civilisation depends completely on it. There are no alternatives which will allow you to enjoy the same material standards, or your children (certainly). They will live in an energy-poor slow-cooker of a planet. 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 22:05 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:20771] RE: Re: RE: Re: energy crises 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) Can we do a Julian Simon-style bet? What's your timeframe, and what exactly are you expecting? Of course, if you win, none of use will be around to collect. Doug No problem. Start a fund with one penny. In only 10,000 years, at five percent interest, it will compound to $7.8161E+209. Longer is more than my spreadsheet can handle. mbs
Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: energy crises
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, You're doing a good job. This is all a scenario for political disaster, I might note. By the time the shit hits the fan, it's too late to do anything about it. Until it does, nobody except some e-mail listers is moved to even talk about it. Higher prices can stretch out the period over which a resource is exhausted, and spur technology, but I take your point that there are natural and technical limits to the rate at which one can escape scarcities. So escape is not guaranteed. I just don't believe it. When fossil fuels become sufficiently expensive, massive efforts will go into developing alternatives. There will be a lot of money to be made, coordination problems aside. To me that's more likely than green consciousness leading to revolution. And you should have tasted the chicken I barbecued this past week-end . . . mbs
