Dwayne Monroe wrote:
> Kunstler's premise is straightforward: we're running
out of easily
> extractable petrol and yet, simultaneously, demand
is rising.
Doug Henwood added:
> When I said to him that the greater danger was that
we burn the oil
> we have, not that we're running out of it, Kunstler
agreed.
Charles Peterson opines: The biggest danger is that cheap oil will be replaced by coal, tar sands, and oil shales, which proportional to energy delivered produce far more CO2 and other pollutants.
However, the higher cost may actually save us from the worst of that, while forcing large changes in energy use patterns. The number one thing to change will be the needless long distance transport of food commodities, which is unsustainable with expensive energy.
The best solution would be to shut down the war machines devoted to grabbing all the oil for one's own country ("last one standing" scenario) and instead devote maximum resouces to building wind farms, solar collectors, geothermal, etc., and the required energy storage systems to complement them, as quickly as possible. (That would be the best "defense".) And also rebuilding all transport systems to use electricity, starting with trains. While we still have relatively cheap energy to enable doing this. The longer we put this project off, the more physically difficult it will be, because you need energy to build renewable energy projects and efficient transport systems.
Kunstler is a tedious conservative reactionary. I greatly prefer the books by Richard Heinberg.
Charles Peterson San Antonio, TX
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs