Well, assuming that was true, we still have a vast supply left.
If we don't use it for cars, we should have plenty of time to
develop alternatives even for medicines, etc. It's easy to
say the sky is falling, but people have been saying that for
years...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 15:07:35 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Right, but the vast majority of our use of oil is for cars. Remember, we
have lots of oil in the US. We could be self-sufficient if we wanted to.
I
suggest raising gas prices to $5/gallon. Give the automakers lots of
incentives to increase fuel efficiency and create alternative cars.

65% of the America's oil has already been burned. We could have been
self-sufficient, but now? Unless there is a massive and comprehensive
energy policy installed immediately, *we* may have oil, but our children
will have to live without.

http://www.faultline.org/news/2001/1...ependence.html

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:46:55 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Well, assuming that was true, we still have a vast supply left. If we
don't use it for cars, we should have plenty of time to develop
alternatives even for medicines, etc. It's easy to say the sky is falling,
but people have been saying that for years...

I'm not saying we don't have time, I'm saying that the time we have is
getting short and we still don't have a comprehensive energy policy.
Upthread, you asked about a recession. As our economy is now based on
cheap oil, when oil is not cheap there will be, at a minimum, economic
consequences. You are right, people have been saying the sky is falling
for years, but one thing is absolutely certain, oil is a *finite* gift.
One day, the sky will be falling. I'm saying that day is sooner rather
than later.

Damn, and we ran out of dinasours... I wish we could get
moving. I'm seriously thinking about buying a hybrid, but
they're just not quite what I need. The Ford Escape is
pretty close.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:46:55 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Well, assuming that was true, we still have a vast supply left. If we
don't use it for cars, we should have plenty of time to develop
alternatives even for medicines, etc. It's easy to say the sky is
falling,
but people have been saying that for years...

I'm not saying we don't have time, I'm saying that the time we have is
getting short and we still don't have a comprehensive energy policy.
Upthread, you asked about a recession. As our economy is now based on
cheap oil, when oil is not cheap there will be, at a minimum, economic
consequences. You are right, people have been saying the sky is falling
for years, but one thing is absolutely certain, oil is a *finite* gift.
One day, the sky will be falling. I'm saying that day is sooner rather
than later.

Ya know, I have 20 years of Mother Earth News magazines. The 'experts'
used to say exactly the same thing.

Back in the 1970's.

PDW

In article , thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:46:55 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Well, assuming that was true, we still have a vast supply left. If we
don't use it for cars, we should have plenty of time to develop
alternatives even for medicines, etc. It's easy to say the sky is falling,
but people have been saying that for years...

I'm not saying we don't have time, I'm saying that the time we have is
getting short and we still don't have a comprehensive energy policy.
Upthread, you asked about a recession. As our economy is now based on
cheap oil, when oil is not cheap there will be, at a minimum, economic
consequences. You are right, people have been saying the sky is falling
for years, but one thing is absolutely certain, oil is a *finite* gift.
One day, the sky will be falling. I'm saying that day is sooner rather
than later.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:48:57 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote:

Ya know, I have 20 years of Mother Earth News magazines. The 'experts'
used to say exactly the same thing.

Back in the 1970's.

And that makes them wrong? Hubbert predicted, in 1956, that US production
would peak in 1970. He was scoffed at then, but looking back, that is
when US oil production peaked. Since 1984, new oil discoveries have
failed to replace oil production. Demand is constantly increasing,
especially in Third World countries such as China and India. And, this
country still does not have a comprehensive energy policy. You may think
oil supplies are infinite, but they are not. Peak oil will be sooner, not
later.

I don't think oil supplies are infinite at all. I merely think that
we'll use something else when it becomes important to do so. Fuel cells
for one example.

Notice how wireless comms is making copper based phone systems less
important? We used to wonder how the 3rd World could build a comms
infrastructure. Simple now.

Point is that doomsayers like you always cry like Chicken Little but
the date is always some time in the future. When that date comes
around, quiet reigns - and another prediction is made for some future
time.

Frankly your record sucks.

PDW

In article , thunder
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:48:57 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote:

Ya know, I have 20 years of Mother Earth News magazines. The 'experts'
used to say exactly the same thing.

Back in the 1970's.

And that makes them wrong? Hubbert predicted, in 1956, that US production
would peak in 1970. He was scoffed at then, but looking back, that is
when US oil production peaked. Since 1984, new oil discoveries have
failed to replace oil production. Demand is constantly increasing,
especially in Third World countries such as China and India. And, this
country still does not have a comprehensive energy policy. You may think
oil supplies are infinite, but they are not. Peak oil will be sooner, not
later.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:28:02 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote:


I don't think oil supplies are infinite at all. I merely think that we'll
use something else when it becomes important to do so. Fuel cells for one
example.

Notice how wireless comms is making copper based phone systems less
important? We used to wonder how the 3rd World could build a comms
infrastructure. Simple now.

Point is that doomsayers like you always cry like Chicken Little but the
date is always some time in the future. When that date comes around, quiet
reigns - and another prediction is made for some future time.

Frankly your record sucks.


If it makes you comfortable to characterize me as a doomsayer so be it,
but frankly you don't know anything about my record. I entered this
thread in response to Jon's talk about a recession. As this country's
economy is based of cheap imported energy, any upward energy pricing will
have a major effect on it. As our domestic oil production peaked in 1970,
I find it difficult to comprehend this country not having a comprehensive
energy policy. I believe this only makes sense and is not doomsaying. By
the way, fuel cells show promise for a cleaner environment, but they are
not a energy source.

I agree that spiraling oil prices will have an effect on our
economy. In fact, they have quite an observable effect.
However, I believe we have the wherewithal to overcome
the adverse economic consequences. Not saying you're
a doomsayer. I'm saying that the doomsayers are wrong
that the economy will collapse.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"thunder" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 11:28:02 +1000, Peter Wiley wrote:


I don't think oil supplies are infinite at all. I merely think that
we'll
use something else when it becomes important to do so. Fuel cells for
one
example.

Notice how wireless comms is making copper based phone systems less
important? We used to wonder how the 3rd World could build a comms
infrastructure. Simple now.

Point is that doomsayers like you always cry like Chicken Little but the
date is always some time in the future. When that date comes around,
quiet
reigns - and another prediction is made for some future time.

Frankly your record sucks.


If it makes you comfortable to characterize me as a doomsayer so be it,
but frankly you don't know anything about my record. I entered this
thread in response to Jon's talk about a recession. As this country's
economy is based of cheap imported energy, any upward energy pricing will
have a major effect on it. As our domestic oil production peaked in 1970,
I find it difficult to comprehend this country not having a comprehensive
energy policy. I believe this only makes sense and is not doomsaying. By
the way, fuel cells show promise for a cleaner environment, but they are
not a energy source.

"thunder" wrote

I find it difficult to comprehend this country not having a comprehensive
energy policy.

Gasoline was $1.25 in San Diego in 1979 but only 43 cents a few miles away
in Tiajuana. Why? A Mexican official explained "Cuz you have an Energy Czar
and a comprehensive energy policy and we don't"