by shortonoil » Sun 29 Apr 2007, 17:12:27
MonteQuest said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f conservation is able to take some of the sting out, then it will be able to increase available supply, which will lower the price relative to what it might have been, thus increasing consumption back up the the current supply limit.
This is again a regurgitation of the economist flat earth view; that money creates energy. This is flat wrong; energy creates money. If a society has X Btu available to it, and only X, then no matter what the price, you still only have X Btu to expend. Because people save money doesn’t mean there will be energy to buy, the price becomes completely irrelevant if the supply is not there. In actuality, in time, the price goes up until they don’t have the money to buy it. This summer you are probably going to get a first hand example of this.
This is how conversation can work: lets say it requires 1000 Btu to fry an egg (one burnt egg!). You don’t have the money to buy 1000 Btu, so you put a lid on the fry pan and now it only takes 500 Btu. You can buy 500, so you have a fried egg. Conservation did not increase the available supply, it merely utilized what you had more efficiently. Now if that was the last 500 Btu on the planet, no amount of money is going to get you one more fried egg, even though you saved 400 Btu worth of funds in putting the lid on the egg.
Trying to explain conservation or energy use in terms of money, in a decline energy situation, will produce nothing but fallacious arguments. Money is a construct of someone’s imagination, Btu are real.