by Peleg » Mon 30 Jun 2008, 00:02:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sys1', 'd')ohboi : I love your infinity price approach. I did not think about that, even if the EROEI looked also to me as a wall, I didn't linked negative EROEI to infinite price.
This economic viewpoint, meaning trying to translate EROEI to economists , is the best way to make everyone understand what it actually signifies.
Are there not things going on right now that have a negative EROEI? All such activities are 'subsidized' are'nt they? How long can we subsidize tar sands? I like the point, just so you know I am not dissing it.
There is a reason why Sachs, and CERA and alot of other folks who would never have talked about it before are talking $150 and above.
I am actually hoping, maybe secretly that we see a miracle find of new supply and then that we understand this was our warning, we have to diversify. As soon as I entertain that hope it vanishes. And I am left very concerned, not so much for the economy, it does it's thing, and humans have survived alot of stuff, I am concerned for those who are inevitably going to have to go through the same psychological shock that I have struggled with by choice since finding out about this issue. Only many of them are going to get it on the day there is no bread at the Supermarket and the News is talking about Peak Oil non-stop.
It is better to get the information out there. There is no benefit to covering anything up, give the spread of most likely scenarios and let people sort it out. I say that on something like this because the risk here (ala Hirsch) is beyond anything we have ever seen.
If any of the experts felt this was the worst and things were going to get substantially better from here they would say so, and noone really is. Peak Oil my freinds has moved from an issue on the fringe to an issue that those in the know need to know about, it's place in the policy world has changed and will continue to rise within the next two years.