The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones and other annoying nonsense
MPR's Talk of the Nation this afternoon has a program talking about high gasoline prices, with some named guest, and call-ins by people telling us how high prices affected their life or business.
On caller mentioned a book "The Long Emergency" by Jim Kunstler related to the "growing pains" society" will face as cheap oil is depleted and everything we know in the modern economy will be challenged.
Anyway, the guest offered the horrible quote I've read before, "The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones." along with decades of old claims of predictable oil shortages that didn't happen.
It was confusing to me since in part, the guest seemed fair-minded - recognizing things like that higher prices are good because it'll encourage new development for energy sources. The annoying quote sort of shocked me that he'd reuse a quote meant (in my mind) to comfort people into complacency in a time we should not have any complacency at all.
SURE, "the stone age", which of course was labeled long after it ended, didn't end because we ran out of stones, but whatever. People of the "stone age" didn't eat stones, didn't heat their caves with stones. All they did was HUNT big game with stones, sticks and muscle. This so called age lasted over a hundred thousand years of human's prehistory.
I suppose the quote is correct in the sense that we WON'T run of out oil. It'll just continue to get more and more expensive and rare until society learns to do without and finds something else or whithers into a new dark ages for trying.
It is fun to see our "democracy loving president" humbling himself to the "Crown prince" of Saudi Arabia, looking for "oil relief", and the Saudi's kind offer to raise production eventually from 9.5mb/d to 12.5 mb/d by 2009.
Certainly it is illuminating - the largest world oil producer can increase production by 3 mb/day in 4 years, while the world demand is increases by as much as 2mb/day, and nonopec production is expected to decline by an average of 1-2mb/d. It is gloom for the glory days of consumers, but at least short term, there's yet much we can do to reduce our oil consumption.
Seriously, I don't know what I'd do as President. Of course I know - I'd call for a oil of U.S. oil consumption to decline from 25% of the world's oil consumption, or about 21 mb/d down to say 15 mb/d by 2010, and 10mb/d by 2015. Sometime outrageous like that. The fact is consumers are controlling prices now by their demand. I'd tell the American people - Our security is at stake - we are no longer in control of our destiny as long as we can't control our energy souces.
Well, president Carter offered such a vision, and we know what happened to him, right?
Still, I wish President Bush could just admit higher prices are vital, and lowering prices will give short term relief to a long term problem.
In contrast we have:
"A high oil price will damage markets, and he knows that. I look forward to talking to him about that,'' the president said.
Damage markets? Oh, my! What are we to do with such a vision?
The sad sad thing is probably prices will decline to some degree, as refining capacity catches up or Iraq magically stabilizes. We perhaps can go another 2-3 years without seriously considering the demand side - of conservation, alternatives.
Easy to complain, I know.
Let's just keep the annoying analogy quotes to a minimum, ok? Please!
On caller mentioned a book "The Long Emergency" by Jim Kunstler related to the "growing pains" society" will face as cheap oil is depleted and everything we know in the modern economy will be challenged.
Anyway, the guest offered the horrible quote I've read before, "The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones." along with decades of old claims of predictable oil shortages that didn't happen.
It was confusing to me since in part, the guest seemed fair-minded - recognizing things like that higher prices are good because it'll encourage new development for energy sources. The annoying quote sort of shocked me that he'd reuse a quote meant (in my mind) to comfort people into complacency in a time we should not have any complacency at all.
SURE, "the stone age", which of course was labeled long after it ended, didn't end because we ran out of stones, but whatever. People of the "stone age" didn't eat stones, didn't heat their caves with stones. All they did was HUNT big game with stones, sticks and muscle. This so called age lasted over a hundred thousand years of human's prehistory.
I suppose the quote is correct in the sense that we WON'T run of out oil. It'll just continue to get more and more expensive and rare until society learns to do without and finds something else or whithers into a new dark ages for trying.
It is fun to see our "democracy loving president" humbling himself to the "Crown prince" of Saudi Arabia, looking for "oil relief", and the Saudi's kind offer to raise production eventually from 9.5mb/d to 12.5 mb/d by 2009.
Certainly it is illuminating - the largest world oil producer can increase production by 3 mb/day in 4 years, while the world demand is increases by as much as 2mb/day, and nonopec production is expected to decline by an average of 1-2mb/d. It is gloom for the glory days of consumers, but at least short term, there's yet much we can do to reduce our oil consumption.
Seriously, I don't know what I'd do as President. Of course I know - I'd call for a oil of U.S. oil consumption to decline from 25% of the world's oil consumption, or about 21 mb/d down to say 15 mb/d by 2010, and 10mb/d by 2015. Sometime outrageous like that. The fact is consumers are controlling prices now by their demand. I'd tell the American people - Our security is at stake - we are no longer in control of our destiny as long as we can't control our energy souces.
Well, president Carter offered such a vision, and we know what happened to him, right?
Still, I wish President Bush could just admit higher prices are vital, and lowering prices will give short term relief to a long term problem.
In contrast we have:
"A high oil price will damage markets, and he knows that. I look forward to talking to him about that,'' the president said.
Damage markets? Oh, my! What are we to do with such a vision?
The sad sad thing is probably prices will decline to some degree, as refining capacity catches up or Iraq magically stabilizes. We perhaps can go another 2-3 years without seriously considering the demand side - of conservation, alternatives.
Easy to complain, I know.
Let's just keep the annoying analogy quotes to a minimum, ok? Please!
posted by Ares Olympus at 1:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home