On 3/16/06, Miles Jackson wrote: >This is a bizzare claim: of course oil production will peak at some point and then decline! Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Do you mean to say that you disagree with the projected peak dates? <
what I meant to say was "I really don't want to talk about this topic at this time, especially since it's been over-worked on the e-mail discussion lists I participate in" so "let's agree to disagree" (with the latter aimed at people like Miles, not at SR, who seems to agree with me).
I have a few minutes, so I'll just summarize:
1) of course fossil fuels are a finite resource (though some argue otherwise). But rather than arguing that point, I'll just focus on the points that the "peak oil" proponents tend to ignore.
[This peak oil theory is a cousin of the Malthus/Ricardo theory of 200 years ago or so. It's _natural_ limits to growth which is going to kill us, not capitalism or the hegemonic political bloc...]
2) there is a lot of room to "mine" these resources more efficiently, so that more of the finite resources can be extracted as a percentage of what's there.
3) more importantly, there's a lot of room to use these resources more efficiently, so that less of them of are needed per constant dollar of GDP. For example, the greater use of hybrid engines in cars would increase the efficiency of gasoline use. (I don't think fuel cells do the trick here.)
4) there are substitutes for fossil fuels and there's a lot of room to use them.
5) persistently rising prices for fossil fuels (relative to average prices) encourages the use of the "room" in (2), (3), and (4) by profit-seeking businesses. This is probably not enough to pull off a solution, but there's always government, which brings us to...
6) there's a gigantic _political_ barrier to fully using the "room" in (2), (3), and (4), as exemplified by the Bush adminstration.
[For example, the US could do as the Western European governments do, impose large taxes on gasoline, encouraging more efficient use of fossil fuels and the use of substitutes (points 3 and 4). But even though a lot of (most?) economists think it's a good idea, the Bush oiligarchy (and most of US public opinion) opposes it as if their lives depended on it. (Maybe it does! such a tax tends to drive oil prices down, which would hurt their income and wealth.) ]
7) This suggests that we may see some that _looks_ like "peak oil" but is really a political problem. The political problem keeps preventing relatively easy solutions.
8) But given the (presumed) rise in prices of fossil fuels in the future, one encouraged by the dominant politicos, maybe that's a good thing! High fuel prices will encourage people to stop burning fossil fuels, which should delay global warming and other environmental effects.
>--And more importantly: do you have empirically verified statistical
models to support your preferred date, as the geologists who have
carefully studied this topic do? <
no, I don't. But there is a lot of disagreement in this field. I think it's a mistake to assume consensus, especially when geologists often ignore the kinds of factors I sketch above. They tend not to study political economy. -- Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm