[killJOY]

If this has been posted before, please remove.

Is Lovins hallucinating? I don't have the patience to try and pick apart this article:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8769620/site/newsweek/
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ome experts warn that output will soon peak and prices will reach $100, but nobody really knows for sure (94 percent of reserves are owned by governments, which generally keep the data secret). Fortunately, it doesn't matter: With cheap oil-saving technologies and alternative fuels already at our disposal, the sooner we get off oil, the sooner we'll start making bigger profits.

[Ludi]

I think he's confused, and unwilling to look at reality if it doesn't support his vision.

If it would have increased profits to make vehicles more efficient, manufacturers would have done so by now.

He doesn't seem to say anywhere that we'll have to drastically change our growth-oriented way of life, in fact, he seems to be pushing growth. How he can promote biofuels and still believe we don't have to decrease consumption, I have no idea. I think he really is very confused.

Amory Lovins bugs the heck out of me.

[gg3]

He's also a smart enough guy to know what kind of language will motivate the people whose investment decisions can make the difference between utter collapse and some kind of sustainability over the long run.

Lead those particular horses to water, get them to drink, and there is a greater chance that they will follow you to different waters tomorrow.

[gnm]

Hey like Bush said when he signed the energy bill, we're going to double the output of biofuel production by 2010!

so instead of .03 percent of use it will be .06!


-G

[dukey]

that article is just pure and utter s*** all of it as if you could ever make an 2-3 tonne SUV that fuel efficient etc etc etc

but the most amusing thing is the rating users have given it: Current rating: 4 by 478 users = thats 4/5 which is a high rating, so your average n00b believes this rubbish

[evilmonkeyspanker]

uhm ya, okay... thats nice even if this was workable ... what about all of the 100 million people to poor in the united states to afford all of this new stuff, and who will probably be living in street (those are the nice ones) If everything continues this way and thats the best solution I would say we are heading towards a civil war / anarchy type deal

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', 'H')e's also a smart enough guy to know what kind of language will motivate the people whose investment decisions can make the difference between utter collapse and some kind of sustainability over the long run.

Lead those particular horses to water, get them to drink, and there is a greater chance that they will follow you to different waters tomorrow.

[gt1370a]

I think he also believes that we have enough oil and enough time to make a smooth transition. If we had started that in 1970, maybe he would be right. But if you believe Matt Simmons, then forget about it:
http://www.financialsense.com/transcrip ... mmons.html

********
MATT: ...try to figure out how the world gets through the Winter of 2005 and 2006 because oil demand globally could easily go to 86-88 million bpd during the Winter, and that could easily exceed supply by 2-5 million bpd.[38:53]

JIM: If that was to happen we would almost be looking at $75-80 oil, I suspect.

MATT: No, no, no. Oil prices could easily go up 5-10 times.
************

[MicroHydro]

Lovins is a grifter on the hustle. He believes that his ship has finally come in.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', 'I')f this has been posted before, please remove.

Is Lovins hallucinating?

I don't have the patience to try and pick apart this article:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8769620/site/newsweek/

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ome experts warn that output will soon peak and prices will reach $100, but nobody really knows for sure (94 percent of reserves are owned by governments, which generally keep the data secret). Fortunately, it doesn't matter: With cheap oil-saving technologies and alternative fuels already at our disposal, the sooner we get off oil, the sooner we'll start making bigger profits.

[0mar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', 'I')f this has been posted before, please remove.

Is Lovins hallucinating?

I don't have the patience to try and pick apart this article:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8769620/site/newsweek/

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ome experts warn that output will soon peak and prices will reach $100, but nobody really knows for sure (94 percent of reserves are owned by governments, which generally keep the data secret). Fortunately, it doesn't matter: With cheap oil-saving technologies and alternative fuels already at our disposal, the sooner we get off oil, the sooner we'll start making bigger profits.

[SurvivalAcres]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 't')he sooner we get off oil, the sooner we'll start making bigger profits.

[Blueberry]

I don't know if he is or not, but my dad used to say: The really crazy one's are the one's who don't know they are.

[Dan1195]

All the "biofuels" talk is all about making the bio-ethanol lobby happy and has nothing to do with any long term solution. Sure. We are going take farmland out of food production to produc a fuel and may or may not be even energy positive. Yes the hybrid market is hot. But will take more than a few years for the mpg savings from hybrids versus other models to be significant. No real change in fuel efficiency until US as a whole realizes that high prices are essentially permanent that $0.99 and probably even $1.50 gallon gas is never coming back and gets the government to act depite what the auto lobby wants.

[spudbuddy]

I can imagine that for a growth-oriented kind of person, all this stuff can be just a tad overwhelming.
I mean...almost every single thing that belongs to a growth industry, that has contributed to economy growth...has to turn around and head in the other direction.
I don't know enough about hardline economics to understand how this can happen without the world economy, let alone the domestic one - tilting.
On the other hand, if we manage to survive that debacle, why wouldn't there be all kinds of growth industries?
(namely, replacing all the energy wasteful stuff).
I can see much of the giganticism being replaced by small local stuff...

I wonder...where do all the megacorps go? What do they do? I don't imagine they'll just sneak away like mangy curs...(although I wish they would.)
Can you imagine world governments in the future chasing these guys around the planet...grabbing their money? Hired vigilantes bringing them to justice? Hoo!

I wouldn't mind seeing the life savings of oh, a dozen or so mega-billionaires slurped up to pay for upgraded railroads, re-designed transportation systems.
Then again...maybe this becomes the new growth industry, and all these fatcats just invest in it anyway.

All that advertising...all those Starbucks...all those supercenters and box stores...all those franchises....all those cheap toys and trinkets....
If you consider all the money that adds up to, I can imagine that it could put a hell of a lot of people to work producing real things that we can use. (like real food, for instance.)

Maybe the biggest mindset shift we're going to have to see is the whole idea that growth is good in the first place....
Growth is what brought us to this place.
The growth planet-wide looks more like a cancer to me. Terminal.
Time to bring on the cobalt treatment. We could use a bit of remission.

The gloomiest I ever get about all this is when I can imagine that this "oligarchy" of corpo-giants won't give up what they got without a fight. If they really do have world governments by the balls, perhaps they're so involved in their "game" that they will play to win (whatever that is) at any cost. And that would mean we all lose.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('0mar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '
')On page 287 he claims the world manufactures 15 billion transistors per second. That works out to 3 transistors per second for everyone on earth, or 100 million per year. I think I only buy about 10 million transistors per year, mostly in computer CPUs. I will ask him about that.

[pilferage]

I agree with him, but not for the same reasons.