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.

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:30:25 -0700, Jonathan Ganz wrote:

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.

One thing I have noticed over my years is that this country is incredibly
resilient. We have made mistakes, but we also have overcome them. IMHO
abandoning Carter's energy self-sufficient initiatives was a mistake.
Since then, our energy policy has been market driven leaving us vulnerable
to the whims of foreign interests. Oil may not be the primary reason for
the Iraq War, but no doubt it wasn't far from any of our minds.

I firmly believe we can ameliorate our dependence on oil, but it will take
a major national effort that has yet to enter mainstream debate. Whether
or not to drill an ANWR just isn't enough. It has been pretty clearly
established that roughly 1/2 the world's supply of oil has already been
burned. Now, that might not prove catastrophic in our lifetime, but I
fear we are leaving our children and their children headed for a
train-wreck.

"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"

Of course, but I would rather live in SD than TJ. The polution is
awful in TJ. We do get to breathe the same air though.

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

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"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"