Conquer Club

Brace yourself for an economic calamity that will make this recession appear insignificant.
Peak Oil is here and within our lifetime it will reach a price where it won’t be economically viable to purchase it as a fuel source.
In our life time the price of oil will reach a level where average Joe cannot afford to buy it and the fuel companies cannot produce it at a price that people can pay. At that point oil companies will plug the wells and walk away from them.
Transport will come to a grinding halt, food production will be impacted, and our whole oil based economy will go into shock.
The world is in denial about peak oil but we should be getting ready because it is inevitable.

Yeah.

Barramundi Dan wrote:Brace yourself for an economic calamity that will make this recession appear insignificant.
Peak Oil is here and within our lifetime it will reach a price where it won’t be economically viable to purchase it as a fuel source.
In our life time the price of oil will reach a level where average Joe cannot afford to buy it and the fuel companies cannot produce it at a price that people can pay. At that point oil companies will plug the wells and walk away from them.
Transport will come to a grinding halt, food production will be impacted, and our whole oil based economy will go into shock.
The world is in denial about peak oil but we should be getting ready because it is inevitable.

You talk about it so callously. You're right that we're not prepared for what will happen when oil production slows down - but the way to deal with it is not to call out people for being in denial, it's to actively work towards energy solutions that will avoid major resource wars.

Unfortunately, too many conservatives are in denial and that is one reason why we are not working, as a nation or as a world, as much toward those alternatives as we should.

Ironically, two nations that ARE doing this are China and Saudi Arabia. So, basically, conservatives are engineering a world where we will either live under China or Saudi Arabia.. so much for freedom!

PLAYER57832 wrote:Unfortunately, too many conservatives are in denial and that is one reason why we are not working, as a nation or as a world, as much toward those alternatives as we should.

Ironically, two nations that ARE doing this are China and Saudi Arabia. So, basically, conservatives are engineering a world where we will either live under China or Saudi Arabia.. so much for freedom!

I disagree on both of your points. No conservative that I know is in denial about exploring alternative energy sources. And China and Saudi Arabia are hardly good examples of exploration of alternative energy. In fact, I think they are probably the two worst examples.

The end is nigh.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Unfortunately, too many conservatives are in denial and that is one reason why we are not working, as a nation or as a world, as much toward those alternatives as we should.

Ironically, two nations that ARE doing this are China and Saudi Arabia. So, basically, conservatives are engineering a world where we will either live under China or Saudi Arabia.. so much for freedom!

I disagree on both of your points. No conservative that I know is in denial about exploring alternative energy sources.

Since I don't know who you do and do not know, I cannot disagree. I will say that those here who say global climate change is bunk, an issue created by Al Gore or simply being exploited by Obama, etc are largely conservative. This is true for people I know myself personally.

thegreekdog wrote: And China and Saudi Arabia are hardly good examples of exploration of alternative energy. In fact, I think they are probably the two worst examples.

Really?

And yet they have invested far, far more than the US in solar, wind and other sources. Now, in the case of China they are expanding use of coal, etc. However, unlike us, they already see these as limited advancements, "necessary evils" to move their economy forward and have very definite plans and infrastructure in place to ensure that they will continue to be leading in alternative energy technology.

Just as an example, if you want wind technology here in the US, you pretty much have to go to China. In fact, a plant in our region had to close just recently. Instead, wind turbines are being bought from China... even using our stimulus dollars.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Since I don't know who you do and do not know, I cannot disagree. I will say that those here who say global climate change is bunk, an issue created by Al Gore or simply being exploited by Obama, etc are largely conservative. This is true for people I know myself personally.

I believe a conservative would say that exploring alternative energy sources has nothing to do with global climate change and more to do with not having enough oil. Thus, I'm responding to the OP regarding oil and I am not responding as to whether conservatives are concerned with global climate change.

Here's some information on China:

http://www.iags.org/china.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8563985.stm

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Unfortunately, too many conservatives are in denial and that is one reason why we are not working, as a nation or as a world, as much toward those alternatives as we should.

Ironically, two nations that ARE doing this are China and Saudi Arabia. So, basically, conservatives are engineering a world where we will either live under China or Saudi Arabia.. so much for freedom!

I disagree on both of your points. No conservative that I know is in denial about exploring alternative energy sources.

Since I don't know who you do and do not know, I cannot disagree. I will say that those here who say global climate change is bunk, an issue created by Al Gore or simply being exploited by Obama, etc are largely conservative. This is true for people I know myself personally.

Why is believing that global warming is bunk automatically associated with loving oil?? Liberals are the only ones who try to paint that picture. I'd say the majority of conservatives believe in developing alternative energy alongside of continuing to use our oil resources because the danger of continuing to depend on Middle Eastern nations that despise us is too great. There is a HUGE difference between the two scenarios, so it fails to link them together.

Just as an example, if you want wind technology here in the US, you pretty much have to go to China. In fact, a plant in our region had to close just recently. Instead, wind turbines are being bought from China... even using our stimulus dollars.

We've already established there are many cases where the same liberals who cry for alternative energy block efforts to build wind and solar farms in areas that can support them simply because they will be "aesthetically unappealing".

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Unfortunately, too many conservatives are in denial and that is one reason why we are not working, as a nation or as a world, as much toward those alternatives as we should.

Ironically, two nations that ARE doing this are China and Saudi Arabia. So, basically, conservatives are engineering a world where we will either live under China or Saudi Arabia.. so much for freedom!

I disagree on both of your points. No conservative that I know is in denial about exploring alternative energy sources.

Since I don't know who you do and do not know, I cannot disagree. I will say that those here who say global climate change is bunk, an issue created by Al Gore or simply being exploited by Obama, etc are largely conservative. This is true for people I know myself personally.

Agreeing or disagreeing with global climate change is irrelevant to whether someone should think in terms of alternative fuels. MANY conservatives are in favor of researching alternative fuels for the sole reason of getting out from under the thumb of OPEC and the like. It has nothing to do with global climate change and everything to do with national interests.

To answer all three of you together, because if gobal climate change is bunk, the coal is a nice, ready alternative. If its real, then we need to look for solar and other similar carbon "neutral" sources.

That said, I agree that there are plenty of reasons aside from global warming to be concerned.

Night Strike wrote:

Just as an example, if you want wind technology here in the US, you pretty much have to go to China. In fact, a plant in our region had to close just recently. Instead, wind turbines are being bought from China... even using our stimulus dollars.

We've already established there are many cases where the same liberals who cry for alternative energy block efforts to build wind and solar farms in areas that can support them simply because they will be "aesthetically unappealing".

And, of course, unlike you conservatives, we liberals are all united in one voice with no diversity of opinion.

In truth, Nightstrike, the people opposing the wind farms near here were very far from liberals. Even so, some environmentalists do oppose specific wind farms and solar farms. The biggest thing the intelligent folks say, though, is that we need to actually think these things out, look at impacts and not just leap from one fire to another because its politically expedient. (you get idiots on both sides arguing just about any point).

Hey, y'all remember when the world shifted from timber to coal for energy purposes?

Yeah, "Fear of a Peak Oil" is mostly BS. Thanks, guys. We'll shift to something else as oil gets too expensive.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, y'all remember when the world shifted from timber to coal for energy purposes?

Yeah, "Fear of a Peak Oil" is mostly BS. Thanks, guys. We'll shift to something else as oil gets too expensive.

That technology does not current exist, and there's no logical reason to assume that it'll magically appear as we run out of oil.

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, y'all remember when the world shifted from timber to coal for energy purposes?

Yeah, "Fear of a Peak Oil" is mostly BS. Thanks, guys. We'll shift to something else as oil gets too expensive.

That technology does not current exist, and there's no logical reason to assume that it'll magically appear as we run out of oil.

No doubt its a slightly naive or idealistic idea, but the mother of all invention is need....well, actually its actually laziness, but you get the idea.

Technology is also very much dependent upon need. Alternative energy sources really are not economically feasible at the moment. However, as the demand for them increases, as will the funding for them, and while no doubt this will be seamless, or perhaps not even chaotic, there is no doubt that when most agree its necessary, it will happen quicker than it seems possible.

The problem is, we live in the here and now, and we simply dont care about tomorrow...genetically speaking. However, when we dont have oil today, there is no doubt we will get damn fucking creative about it. Luckily, some are doing just that as we speak. Unfortunately, most of the money for such research is given to the very companies that would be replaced by the new technologies, in some sort of backwards logic that a 5 year old would not even understand.

AAFitz wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Hey, y'all remember when the world shifted from timber to coal for energy purposes?

Yeah, "Fear of a Peak Oil" is mostly BS. Thanks, guys. We'll shift to something else as oil gets too expensive.

That technology does not current exist, and there's no logical reason to assume that it'll magically appear as we run out of oil.

No doubt its a slightly naive or idealistic idea, but the mother of all invention is need....well, actually its actually laziness, but you get the idea.

Technology is also very much dependent upon need. Alternative energy sources really are not economically feasible at the moment. However, as the demand for them increases, as will the funding for them, and while no doubt this will be seamless, or perhaps not even chaotic, there is no doubt that when most agree its necessary, it will happen quicker than it seems possible.

The problem is, we live in the here and now, and we simply dont care about tomorrow...genetically speaking. However, when we dont have oil today, there is no doubt we will get damn fucking creative about it. Luckily, some are doing just that as we speak. Unfortunately, most of the money for such research is given to the very companies that would be replaced by the new technologies, in some sort of backwards logic that a 5 year old would not even understand.

But what if there is no solution? Or what if there is one, but it will take more than 5 or 10 years to even figure out? The fact that those are possibilities means we are addressing this entirely the wrong way. I concede that it is possible that when we run out of oil, the money and time we put into alternative energy sources will pan out; but it is also possible that it will not pan out, and we are simply not planning for that eventuality.

Metsfanmax wrote: But what if there is no solution? Or what if there is one, but it will take more than 5 or 10 years to even figure out? The fact that those are possibilities means we are addressing this entirely the wrong way. I concede that it is possible that when we run out of oil, the money and time we put into alternative energy sources will pan out; but it is also possible that it will not pan out, and we are simply not planning for that eventuality.

Alternative energy pretty much has to pan out, already is, to a point. However, your estimate is off. We won't find solutions in 5-10 years. Its more like 20.
HOwever, even aside from technology, the big problem here is that so much is invested in our current infrastructure. Areas like China, Africa and even South America that don't have such infrastructure are, ironically, at a bit of an advantage in some ways because they can "start from scratch".

China, right now, is investing very, very heavily in alternative energy, all the while objecting to being forced to comply with limits, etc. They are not dumb. They use fossil fuels now, but use them to boost the other technologies, to "kick start" their economy.

Hydrogen has some potential, but it is controversial. Other organic fuels, particularly things involving algae, etc have some potential. BUT, part of the thing is that we are unlikely to find one, single source to simply replace oil. We need to look at all different kinds of solutions for different issues.

PLAYER57832 wrote:To answer all three of you together, because if gobal climate change is bunk, the coal is a nice, ready alternative. If its real, then we need to look for solar and other similar carbon "neutral" sources.

This presumes that all conservatives are corporatists driven by the oil-based machine, which is absolutely not true. In fact, it's not particularly close to true.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: But what if there is no solution? Or what if there is one, but it will take more than 5 or 10 years to even figure out? The fact that those are possibilities means we are addressing this entirely the wrong way. I concede that it is possible that when we run out of oil, the money and time we put into alternative energy sources will pan out; but it is also possible that it will not pan out, and we are simply not planning for that eventuality.

Alternative energy pretty much has to pan out, already is, to a point. However, your estimate is off. We won't find solutions in 5-10 years. Its more like 20.
HOwever, even aside from technology, the big problem here is that so much is invested in our current infrastructure. Areas like China, Africa and even South America that don't have such infrastructure are, ironically, at a bit of an advantage in some ways because they can "start from scratch".

Strengthens my point even more. If it will take 20 years to develop a reasonable solution to oil, the problem is that we may not start on that development until less than 20 years before resource wars occur.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:To answer all three of you together, because if gobal climate change is bunk, the coal is a nice, ready alternative. If its real, then we need to look for solar and other similar carbon "neutral" sources.

This presumes that all conservatives are corporatists driven by the oil-based machine, which is absolutely not true. In fact, it's not particularly close to true.

No, not at all. If you ignore environmental concerns, coal is the most ready, cheapest source for fuel. It could easily replace oil. Plus, we have some of the largest coal reserves in the world. To a lot of people coal means jobs. Solar and wind, by contrast may seem like "nice ideas", but are often percieved as being too far off or too impractical, etc.

Also,... and I may be too tired to be really clear here, but our economy is based on consumption. If we don't consume oil, then consuming coal will serve. Sun and wind don't get consumed. They don't add so much growth to the economy.

The contrast is considered a "liberal" view, that we need to look more toward sustainability. That is considered "liberal" because it means looking more at the environment, not using so many resources (using them more wisely), etc.

Now, in truth, I think that a lot of what peopel here throw out as "conservative" is really right wing or even far right wing, but I believe you speak of true conservativism.

Metsfanmax wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: But what if there is no solution? Or what if there is one, but it will take more than 5 or 10 years to even figure out? The fact that those are possibilities means we are addressing this entirely the wrong way. I concede that it is possible that when we run out of oil, the money and time we put into alternative energy sources will pan out; but it is also possible that it will not pan out, and we are simply not planning for that eventuality.

Alternative energy pretty much has to pan out, already is, to a point. However, your estimate is off. We won't find solutions in 5-10 years. Its more like 20.
HOwever, even aside from technology, the big problem here is that so much is invested in our current infrastructure. Areas like China, Africa and even South America that don't have such infrastructure are, ironically, at a bit of an advantage in some ways because they can "start from scratch".

Strengthens my point even more. If it will take 20 years to develop a reasonable solution to oil, the problem is that we may not start on that development until less than 20 years before resource wars occur.

Sorry, but we likely are already past that point. That is, we are past the point where we can get solutions quick enough without very, very serious changes/cuts/damage to our economies. The only question is how bad things will get before there is a solution.

Sadly, we DID have a chance... even 10 years ago. However, .. it just did not happen.

Also, water is growing to be even more of a problem than oil. And, while people might be able to do without cars, even a lot of "stuff" we think critical, people cannot live without water.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:To answer all three of you together, because if gobal climate change is bunk, the coal is a nice, ready alternative. If its real, then we need to look for solar and other similar carbon "neutral" sources.

This presumes that all conservatives are corporatists driven by the oil-based machine, which is absolutely not true. In fact, it's not particularly close to true.

No, not at all. If you ignore environmental concerns, coal is the most ready, cheapest source for fuel. It could easily replace oil. Plus, we have some of the largest coal reserves in the world. To a lot of people coal means jobs. Solar and wind, by contrast may seem like "nice ideas", but are often percieved as being too far off or too impractical, etc.[/quote]

Which has what to do with "Unfortunately, too many conservatives are in denial and that is one reason why we are not working, as a nation or as a world, as much toward those alternatives as we should."?

PLAYER57832 wrote:Also,... and I may be too tired to be really clear here, but our economy is based on consumption. If we don't consume oil, then consuming coal will serve. Sun and wind don't get consumed. They don't add so much growth to the economy.

Um...the energy created by sun and wind is consumed precisely as the energy created by oil and coal is. Similar or equivalent jobs in the oil and coal industry exist in the sun and wind industry. I'm not sure what you mean by "don't add so much growth to the economy". In fact, I would say they add considerable growth due to their being new technologies still at this point, coexisting with those others.

Woodruff wrote:Now, in truth, I think that a lot of what peopel here throw out as "conservative" is really right wing or even far right wing, but I believe you speak of true conservativism.

A lot of what YOU throw out as "conservative" is really right wing or even far right wing, frankly.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: But what if there is no solution? Or what if there is one, but it will take more than 5 or 10 years to even figure out? The fact that those are possibilities means we are addressing this entirely the wrong way. I concede that it is possible that when we run out of oil, the money and time we put into alternative energy sources will pan out; but it is also possible that it will not pan out, and we are simply not planning for that eventuality.

Alternative energy pretty much has to pan out, already is, to a point. However, your estimate is off. We won't find solutions in 5-10 years. Its more like 20.
HOwever, even aside from technology, the big problem here is that so much is invested in our current infrastructure. Areas like China, Africa and even South America that don't have such infrastructure are, ironically, at a bit of an advantage in some ways because they can "start from scratch".

Strengthens my point even more. If it will take 20 years to develop a reasonable solution to oil, the problem is that we may not start on that development until less than 20 years before resource wars occur.

Sorry, but we likely are already past that point. That is, we are past the point where we can get solutions quick enough without very, very serious changes/cuts/damage to our economies. The only question is how bad things will get before there is a solution.

Sadly, we DID have a chance... even 10 years ago. However, .. it just did not happen.

Also, water is growing to be even more of a problem than oil. And, while people might be able to do without cars, even a lot of "stuff" we think critical, people cannot live without water.

I'm not particularly afraid of water - I do actually believe that in the case of water, we will develop quick ways to treat seawater for human consumption, precisely because it is necessary for survival. But the use of oil is based on greed and desire, not on necessity, and so people are too blind to look far enough ahead. If it is true that alternative energy will not be ready when the oil runs out, then I believe we're in for major wars.

Metsfanmax wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: But what if there is no solution? Or what if there is one, but it will take more than 5 or 10 years to even figure out? The fact that those are possibilities means we are addressing this entirely the wrong way. I concede that it is possible that when we run out of oil, the money and time we put into alternative energy sources will pan out; but it is also possible that it will not pan out, and we are simply not planning for that eventuality.

Alternative energy pretty much has to pan out, already is, to a point. However, your estimate is off. We won't find solutions in 5-10 years. Its more like 20.
HOwever, even aside from technology, the big problem here is that so much is invested in our current infrastructure. Areas like China, Africa and even South America that don't have such infrastructure are, ironically, at a bit of an advantage in some ways because they can "start from scratch".

Strengthens my point even more. If it will take 20 years to develop a reasonable solution to oil, the problem is that we may not start on that development until less than 20 years before resource wars occur.

Sorry, but we likely are already past that point. That is, we are past the point where we can get solutions quick enough without very, very serious changes/cuts/damage to our economies. The only question is how bad things will get before there is a solution.

Sadly, we DID have a chance... even 10 years ago. However, .. it just did not happen.

Also, water is growing to be even more of a problem than oil. And, while people might be able to do without cars, even a lot of "stuff" we think critical, people cannot live without water.

I'm not particularly afraid of water - I do actually believe that in the case of water, we will develop quick ways to treat seawater for human consumption, precisely because it is necessary for survival. But the use of oil is based on greed and desire, not on necessity, and so people are too blind to look far enough ahead. If it is true that alternative energy will not be ready when the oil runs out, then I believe we're in for major wars.

I went back and edited my answer, not realizing you had already responded. I edited because I did not want to divert into the subject of water (but.. you should be very, very afraid!).

Here was my edited response:
Sorry, but we likely are already past that point.

Just think about it. What sane group of people would seriously think that there is anything OK or "just" about placing wells that had any potential at all to destroy so much of the Gulf? That situation happened because oil has become so important to our ecnomy, etc that so many people are just willing to ignore the impacts. Partly, it IS due to ignorance of environmental consequences, but another big part is the importance of oil.

A lot of people attribute the Iraq war to oil, as well.

So,... we are already there. Too many people just are not willing to admit it yet.

PLAYER57832 wrote: Just think about it. What sane group of people would seriously think that there is anything OK or "just" about placing wells that had any potential at all to destroy so much of the Gulf? That situation happened because oil has become so important to our ecnomy, etc that so many people are just willing to ignore the impacts. Partly, it IS due to ignorance of environmental consequences, but another big part is the importance of oil.

A lot of people attribute the Iraq war to oil, as well.

So,... we are already there. Too many people just are not willing to admit it yet.

Well, I am a firm believer that if we are to escape the energy crisis, it will only be because of individuals who are not like the current leaders of the oil industry. If everyone working on alternative energy is like them... then well, we're fucked. But as a scientist, I have faith that there are some of us who are truly working to make society better, so I have not lost faith yet.