Whine and swear all you like. It will make no difference whatsoever.
Now, back to discussion with the adults...
PeakOil is You
THE Bill O'Reilly Thread (merged)
Re: Watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight 10/27/05
by bobcousins » Sun 30 Oct 2005, 08:44:33
It's all downhill from here
-
bobcousins - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1164
- Joined: Thu 14 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Left the cult
Re: Watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight 10/27/05
by The_Toecutter » Sun 30 Oct 2005, 17:11:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is true that in the real world economies of scale distort the operation of the theory of supply and demand. Also its a given that with entrenched interests in businesses and politicians the system is not only distorted, but bent (i.e. illegal). But that's the system we have, and we are stuck with it.
Since we're "stuck" with the system we have, there are two possibilities to get it unstuck:
1) Change the system. This would require the cooperation of the power elite and for them to relinquish power. While possible in theory, not bloody likely.
2) Destroy the system. Looks like peak oil is about to do it for us, but it could also lead us into a very long period of fascism amd war as the entrenched bureacracies vie for resources and attempt to maintain control(corps and governments).
There are what I'd like to call three main possible societies for our future, the society of collapse, the society of fascism, and the society of sustainability.
The first possibility is obvious. Instead of nations powering down their economies voluntarily, peak oil does it for them. Its the doomer scenario, all out Mad Max, huge dieoff. I do recognize it is possible, but I don't think it's likely in the short term. Makes for good science fiction, I must admit.
The second will inevitably lead to either the first or the third possibility in the long term, but in the short to medium term, those currently making money off the system don't wish for that to change. Thus we see resource wars over a period of years and not sudden collapse, dwindling civil liberties, perhaps restrictions on personal mobility, and that surveillance society most civil libertarians fear is formed. Humanity, now facing dwindling resources, completely ruins its environment before either going extinct, or going to some variant of option 1 or option 3. This looks to be the current path being taken.
The third is the one that will be hardest to accomplish. This is a society that would have a standard of living much like today, only on far fewer resources and far less consumption by making use of inexpensive renewable fuels. As a consequence of its low consumption, people have to work less because they are using less, less revenue is being generated, less taxes are being generated, and less profits are being generated. The economy is powered down. Instead of coal and natural gas electricity, wind and biomass are used. Less driving and more mass transit(to the point where mass transit is cheap and convenient). Cars would be relegated to a role of fun and entertainment instead of transport, although they may exist for liesure drives among scenic routes on rare occassions(albiet a high speed train would be far faster, less expensive, and more convenient and by default would be the choice of most). Houses would use more efficient lighting, make use of passive solar heating, and electricity would be generated a few blocks away in a highly decentralized system as opposed to many miles. It will take cooperation on a global scale and is entirely possible. Except that those in power and making the money don't wish to cooperate, virtually robbing this future from everyone. To make matters worse, those who are consuming the most and able to shift society into this direction are kept ignorant through their government, encouraged to stay ignorant, encouraged to keep consuming, and are told that they don't want anything different. This society must be in the process of being shifted to before any collapse begins, or it will be nigh impossible to achieve.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Switch to alternatives" is a great soundbite, but how are you even going to begin to do that?
It depends on which scale, whether it is an individual scale or a national scale. The individual scale is easy, if you have the money up front to do it(of which you will save later).
On a national scale or larger is where it gets hard. This would require incentive to use alternatives, of which they need to be the following for the broader public to accept their use:
1) Scalable
2) Widely Available (not there yet for political reasons)
3) Cheap (Usually needs to be widely available and produced in volume)
4) Convenient
The first is a matter of whether we have the resources on this planet. For wind energy, electric vehicles, hemp farms, energy efficient appliances(lightbulbs, refrigirators, ect.), that's pretty much a yes, provided not all 6.5 billion people are shoved into a first world lifestyle(More like half or so) and the population stabilizes(It couls if poverty would be adressed). The second isn't reality for arguably political reasons. The third requires mass production on a national or world scale, or large sums of money up front on an individual scale, but is otherwise a yes. The Fourth requires it being widely available, which may not initially be met, but could be within a decade would society be seriously focusing on this issue and people would agree to make small sacrifices in the interim to keep(or improve) their lifestyle in the long term. But that requires an educated public.
One way to accomplish a 'switch to renewables' is to make companies PAY for the expenses usually passed onto others in the form of pollution, wars, and subsidies. If oil companies had to actually pay for the property and personal(medical and other) damage their emissions and runoff caused, coal powerplants the same, as with auto companies, semiconductor manufacturers, ect. they would NOT be so profitable anymore. They'd have to actually adress these issues, which it would be much cheaper to do by using renewable energy. In either case, profits would still decline, and the economy would still shrink.
The big problem if the above were actually passed is is all the government revenue. The incompetent bureaucrats wouldn't know how to manage it, so laws would have to be enacted to actually punish government officials for innefficiency, whether it be by cutting their pay, demoting them, or perhaps throwing them in jail for extreme circumstances. They're not likely to go along with such a proposal, but an educated public just might. If an efficiency of greater than 85% could be achieved, it would be a worthwhile proposition(and many government programs have exceeded this efficiency, but if and only if the bureaucrats are on task. Usually they're much less efficient). The problem of the bureaucrats could be adressed with decentralization to reduce risk, but again it would take a public educated and willing to actually shrink the overall size of the government.
The good news is, the public can be educated. The bad news is that it takes work and it takes time. Things just won't change overnight, even though the problem of energy has been allowed to get so out of hand that we really only have overnight to fix things. Considering it's possible in theory, it's still worth the attempt.
However, the only garunteed way to be ready for this approaching crisis is to prepare yourself. Don't count on society to prepare for you, but at the same time, do what you can to shift society, even if it is almost garunteed to fail. You won't know if you don't try.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't see that we have any choice but to let the oil companies and their incestuous political friends burn themselves out. Sure that will lead to higher prices but those higher prices also provide an umbrella to alternatives.
The alternatives have had an umbrella over them for almost a decade, but the only ones that have joined them under it have usually gotten off the grid themselves due to the large players not willing to let things change.
The plus side is, the more that use alternatives, the more that will be exposed to them. Take my car I'm building for instance. When finished, I'll be able to charge it in my garage, drive it to the race track, dust off a few Porsches and musclecars, and drive it back without using one drop of oil for fuel. People will come to know that car after seeing other gas guzzlers get spanked by it at the track, and they will be wondering why they can't go out and buy one.
May not put one in their garage, but at least it plants the idea in their head. Some will decide to do research, and of that a percentage will actually decide to build their own and the cycle will continue. If enough decide to boycott the big automakers, this could spark change in just this one area, but unlikely to do so right away(although the possibility, however small, exists).
Similar things can be said about people who have solar and wind generators on their roofs and grow some of their own food as a hobby.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nyway, I think your fundamental assertion is dead wrong. The dangerous manipulation is if the oil companies held prices artificially low, which is precisely the reverse. This policy was deliberately adopted by OPEC to stifle development of alternatives. This policy has now collapsed, and we have come back to a situation where supply/demand can take effect.
High prices are much more a disadvantage to oil companies than low prices.
Historical context matters. Advantages and disadvantages change with the surrounding politics of the time. In the 70s, the oil industry was dead scared of alternatives becoming competitive, so they bought a bunch of them out and used political wrangling to put some businesses involved with alternatives out, and to keep legislation that would promote these alternatives from being passed. As you mention, they did keep prices artificially low, but a big chunk of that was government subsidies courtesy of Joe Taxpayer. Now they're scared of alternatives being adopted now that they failed to keep them from becoming competitive, but they did manage to keep them under wraps to an extent with their political wrangling of before, so now they keep their political wrangling active to keep the cheaper alternative from being used. Today we see yet MORE lavish subsidies heaped upon these old dinosaurs courtesy of Joe Taxpayer, and they are free of being accountable for the damage they cause society to boot! And this is in a time of record prices. It is interesting how the oil prices are now artificially high from profiteering, but artificially low due to all the tax subsidies. This may sound contradictary, but read between the lines: those subsidies are being pocketed.
Since they did suceed in smearing alternatives(as opposed to keeping them more expensive like they intended) in the public mind, and got onto themselves many subsidies, they are now free to ride this out as long as they want. If anyone steps up to them, they resort to more political wrangling. They like their record profits very much, and post peak they look forward to seeing them rise due to unmet demand.
Overall, you're quite reasonable. We do share many views in common.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')ll you people need to just shut the f#ck up and bow down in front of Toecutter and his budda-like wisdom and patience. The guy (are you really only 25 years old?) should be president for goddamn sake
that was the most measured and reasonable defense of the electric counterculture I believe that I have ever heard. I have been a fan of alternative energy systems for years. I have solar electric and hot water on my roof. My friends have homebuilt electric cars. But I have never heard someone present the case so well as here.
Among all the phony cornucopean biofuels, tar-sands, oil-shale hype, nuclear power, conservation, and other public relations crap, here is a simple technological solution that we can all get our driving gloves around! And it comes replete with a conspiracy to boot. Yeah! f%*K the capitalist pig oil-company whores. f&*k the brown-shirt dying automobile company d#cks! yeah! Toecutter for president!
Saying I have the wisdom and patience of Budda is quite a bit overdoing it, but I see your point. I don't consider myself wise, but I do consider myself interested.
And I'm 20, not 25. I'm sure there have to be others more qualified than myself to answer some of these questions, but I have a lot of interest in this subject. My knowledge of it is pretty much academic, and not practical, however. Most of my experience is through reading, and not actual work. Slowly but surely I seek to change that, but learning takes time. My car will be my first experience with demonstrating renewables. After that, I intend to live off the grid. the largest impedement in my progress is money though. With my dad not working and me in college, I'm amazed I can still scrape money(and time) together to use the internet about 10 hours a week.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
-
The_Toecutter - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2142
- Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
