I wonder how this will be spun.....

[Dru]

spinning an evil web

[j_b]

I wonder why he hasn’t mentioned the imminent decline in world wide oil production. (search on his user name for posts predicting this.) Certainly that the absolute slow down and soon decline of oil supplies coupled with an ever increasing world wide hunger for oil will have an impact.

 

it'll certainly have an impact but in which direction? if the fossil fools have their way, shale oil and tar sands will then be mined (which will result in much greater emissions due to greater energetic cost of extraction and processing) and we'll revert to coal (with the expected attending results if the energy industry is not regulated).

[cj001f]

Why did gasoline consumption grow so rapidly during the early years of the 55 MPH speed limit -- and why did it plunge when speed limits returned to local control?

That's right. Car's are more efficient at 70mph.

[Peter_Puget]

I wonder why he hasn’t mentioned the imminent decline in world wide oil production. (search on his user name for posts predicting this.) Certainly that the absolute slow down and soon decline of oil supplies coupled with an ever increasing world wide hunger for oil will have an impact.

 

it'll certainly have an impact but in which direction? if the fossil fools have their way, shale oil and tar sands will then be mined (which will result in much greater emissions due to greater energetic cost of extraction and processing) and we'll revert to coal (with the expected attending results if the energy industry is not regulated).

 

 

Currently getting the oil out of those sources is currently very expensive. How long will it take to create sufficient refineries and transportation services to meet world wide demand? If your assertion regarding oil depletion is correct, my prediction of a large increase in the price gas and related products is much more likely to come true than anything but the most general of weather predictions.

 

What really is being considered is an induced recession. A recession of unknown length and severity. If the US economy tanks the third world would suffer as well. What would be the consequences of such a recession? Who knows? At the very least thousands probably millions would die as a result of reduction in health services. Didn’t the last significant world wide recession proceed WWII?

[Peter_Puget]

Why did gasoline consumption grow so rapidly during the early years of the 55 MPH speed limit -- and why did it plunge when speed limits returned to local control?

That's right. Car's are more efficient at 70mph.

 

GO DOG! GO!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

What really is being considered is an induced recession. A recession of unknown length and severity. If the US economy tanks the third world would suffer as well. What would be the consequences of such a recession? Who knows? At the very least thousands probably millions would die as a result of reduction in health services. Didn’t the last significant world wide recession proceed WWII?

 

The two recessions in the 70's were linked to rising oil prices under OPEC.

 

What you allude to is a very plausible possibility, only in this case the word is "depression" - a severe recession.

[Peter_Puget]

I believe that price controls may have been at work in the 70's!

 

By the way at one point I wokred for a Chinese electronics manufacturer and have witnessed poor Chinese travleing across the country in hope of getting a manufacturing job. If the Chinese experienced a significant drop in demand for their products I bet they would have a very difficult situation with thousands if not millions of unemployable workers to deal with. If any of you truly believe that Bush went to war over oil then just imagine what the Chinese would might do to solve their problem.....

[j_b]

If the US economy tanks the third world would suffer as well. What would be the consequences of such a recession? Who knows? At the very least thousands probably millions would die as a result of reduction in health services. Didn’t the last significant world wide recession proceed WWII?

 

likely scenario if we sit on our hands and do not invest in alternative sources of energy to minimize fighting over the last bit of cheap oil. the choice isn't between millions dying from rapid global warming versus millions dying from the economy tanking, but how do we avoid the coming crises (climate and peak oil) that'll result from business as ususal. there is no real evidence for emissions caps resulting in poor economic performance. a number of corporations and nations have already significantly reduced their energy use and emission release: they are leaner and more successful.

[JayB]

Ever looked at the maximum percent demand that could be satisfied by wind, solar, and "other?" Low single digits at best. Neat stuff but hardly sufficient to satisfy global demand.

 

Increased efficiency and nuclear generation are probably the two areas that will see the greatest increase in funding/interest as a result of any fossil fuel shortage or desire to curtail CO2 emissions.

[iain]

Speaking of fossil fuel shortages I wonder if exploratory drilling in the North Cascades would change peoples' opinions on petroleum consumption.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Speaking of fossil fuel shortages I wonder if exploratory drilling in the North Cascades would change peoples' opinions on petroleum consumption.

 

Whatever the market will bear, economies of scale, the Republicans all ride organic recycled hemp bicycles with solar-powered compact flourescent night lights, you're an elitist environmentalist hypocrite with no grasp on science, facts, or reality blah blah blah blah blah.

 

DFA brought up a similar (if not identical...hmmm) point some time ago, and the then-omnipresent right-wing goons neatly sidestepped the question with some jive about low-impact horizontal drilling or some shit like that. Comical and sad, all at once.

[JayB]

Speaking of fossil fuel shortages I wonder if exploratory drilling in the North Cascades would change peoples' opinions on petroleum consumption.

 

Exploratory mining in the Rockies, Sierras, et al didn't seem to have much of an effect on people's opinions concerning gold, silver, lead, molybdenum, copper, or gemstone consumption. All in all - oil drilling would probably have a far less significant impact than timber harvests.

 

This hypothesis would really get interesting if the tax revenue generated by the said drilling was slated to fund social and environmental programs...

[AlpineK]

However the government will end up subsidizing the drilling opperation just like they subsidized all other extractive businesses in the Western US.

[j_b]

Ever looked at the maximum percent demand that could be satisfied by wind, solar, and "other?" Low single digits at best. Neat stuff but hardly sufficient to satisfy global demand.

 

i don't understand this. on the one hand you regularly castigate environmentalists as "backward nincompoops against progress", and on the other hand you seem to have no ability to foresee that science would sooner than later provide sound technological alternatives to fossil fuels if we gave ourselves the means to reach such goals (and we'd easily have at least 200billion dollars to sink into it if our choices were different). i certainly don't have ready made solutions (although it is obvious that investing in infrastructure would allow to use already existing technologies to our advantage), but would you have asked what percentage of information exchange was fulfilled by fiber-optic cable 20years ago?

 

Increased efficiency and nuclear generation are probably the two areas that will see the greatest increase in funding/interest as a result of any fossil fuel shortage or desire to curtail CO2 emissions.

 

nuclear has many problems: dangerous, not flexible, demands quantities of water to cool down the core, waste disposal is unresolved, etc ... so i don't see why it should be favored over hydrogen technology for example.

 

increased efficiency also means revising concept of development such as that of urban sprawl for example.

[sitandbefit]

I hate to defend the oil industry as I worked for it and saw firsthand how bad the methods are, but I am curious about the subsidization argument. Here in Wyoming the oil industry pays for everything, the only thing we give the oil companies is the virginity of the wilderness areas, etc. As far as monetary subsidies I am unaware of any.

[foraker]

subsidy = tax break (e.g. Boeing but no one else)

[Fairweather]

Boeing tax break = jobs = increased property value = local consumer spending = secondary jobs = a vibrant economy = more tax revenue.

[foraker]

what Boeing jobs? where? corporate welfare?

i might be for it if it were true but i'm not seeing the return on a $3 billion tax break. my guess is it's mostly going to go to the pockets of investors and execs.

Edited May 3, 2005 by foraker

[cj001f]

Boeing tax break = jobs = increased property value = local consumer spending = secondary jobs = a vibrant economy = more tax revenue.

= money not spent diversifying the Seattle economy, providing a broader base of jobs, making it less cyclical.

[Fairweather]

Actually, I don't really like it either. But to make it out as something completely sinister is just not accurate. I'm glad to see Boeing is back to kicking Airbus' ass again this year.

[Fairweather]

Boeing tax break = jobs = increased property value = local consumer spending = secondary jobs = a vibrant economy = more tax revenue.

= money not spent diversifying the Seattle economy, providing a broader base of jobs, making it less cyclical.

 

Can you say 'Seattle-centric'? I thought Boeing provided jobs state-wide? Everett? Auburn? Renton? Fredrickson? Those tax-breaks were primarily doled out by the State. aka: a lot of non-Seattle residents.

[JayB]

Ever looked at the maximum percent demand that could be satisfied by wind, solar, and "other?" Low single digits at best. Neat stuff but hardly sufficient to satisfy global demand.

 

i don't understand this. on the one hand you regularly castigate environmentalists as "backward nincompoops against progress", and on the other hand you seem to have no ability to foresee that science would sooner than later provide sound technological alternatives to fossil fuels if we gave ourselves the means to reach such goals (and we'd easily have at least 200billion dollars to sink into it if our choices were different). i certainly don't have ready made solutions (although it is obvious that investing in infrastructure would allow to use already existing technologies to our advantage), but would you have asked what percentage of information exchange was fulfilled by fiber-optic cable 20years ago?

 

Increased efficiency and nuclear generation are probably the two areas that will see the greatest increase in funding/interest as a result of any fossil fuel shortage or desire to curtail CO2 emissions.

 

nuclear has many problems: dangerous, not flexible, demands quantities of water to cool down the core, waste disposal is unresolved, etc ... so i don't see why it should be favored over hydrogen technology for example.

 

Must be those pesky thermo, physics, and chem courses I took during the course of my nonscientific education.

 

Generating the energy necessary to produce the hydrogen also requires energy and produces waste. Moreover, every time you convert energy from one form to another you lose quite a bit of efficiency. Presently - the only two economically feasible methods for producing hydrogen gas involve electrolysis or the conversion of methane and water to hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide. The latter can be forced to react with H20 to form carbon dioxide and water - but the net result is still one unit of C02 per four units H2 produced.

 

The portability of hydrogen is a point in its favor, but looking at hydrogen as an energy source without considering the the processes necessary to produce it is sort of like touting the enironmental benefits of an electric car that you charge with a diesel generator.

 

Neat stuff but no panacea.

[foraker]

i'm saying i'd like to see the digits on how much it 'helped' the economy. anecdotally, i've not seen any of our ostensible public servants going around saying 'woo hoo, 3000 *new* jobs'. i'm beginning to suspect either few or no new jobs or it was all just a bribe to keep Boeing here regardless. what about all the other poor sods who wanted a tax break? what about them? if everyone doesn't get it, isn't it a subsidy?

[mec]

i'm saying i'd like to see the digits on how much it 'helped' the economy. anecdotally, i've not seen any of our ostensible public servants going around saying 'woo hoo, 3000 *new* jobs'. i'm beginning to suspect either few or no new jobs or it was all just a bribe to keep Boeing here regardless. what about all the other poor sods who wanted a tax break? what about them? if everyone doesn't get it, isn't it a subsidy?

 

Boeing was just looking for the cheapest route, and the state was trying to keep some pride. The jobs story is just a bunch of number throwing. Depending on what anlayst you ask, I am sure the jobs number can vary from loss of jobs to many times the 3000. I am sure some folks in the state office got a nice bonus for keeping Boeing in Washington, and all us taxpayers get to foot the eventual bill.

 

I definitely think that it is a subsidy, but in the world of the WTO, tax breaks are fair game. Airbus gets them too. The subsidy fight is over the cheap loans that Airbus gets and Boeing doesn't. Basically a pissing match. Boeing does get more military money than Airbus does, so can Airbus consider those subsidies, since the military work is design work and build paid in full. Whereas new production must be financed...

[j_b]

Must be those pesky thermo, physics, and chem courses I took during the course of my nonscientific education.

 

Generating the energy necessary to produce the hydrogen also requires energy and produces waste. Moreover, every time you convert energy from one form to another you lose quite a bit of efficiency. Presently - the only two economically feasible methods for producing hydrogen gas involve electrolysis or the conversion of methane and water to hydrogen gas and carbon monoxide. The latter can be forced to react with H20 to form carbon dioxide and water - but the net result is still one unit of C02 per four units H2 produced.

 

The portability of hydrogen is a point in its favor, but looking at hydrogen as an energy source without considering the the processes necessary to produce it is sort of like touting the enironmental benefits of an electric car that you charge with a diesel generator.

 

Neat stuff but no panacea.

 

it's not the amount of education that matters, it's what you do with it.

 

of course, i didn't mean producing hydrogen with fossil fuel. i acknowledge that hydrogen technology is very far from being readily available and our energy need is such that producing hydrogen from a clean source would be debatable in its usefulness (so far). efficiency, however, is an entire debate in itself since it doesn't really mean the same thing whether considering unlimited sources of free/clean energy (wind, solar, ..) than it does for fossil fuels and nuclear. btw electricity from nuclear is only ~70% efficient because heat is an important byproduct.