[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I') don't know, cube. I really do not agree with you. Common sense is not all that common. Some say that common sense is all the prejudices you learn before you're 18 years old that you carry with you till you die. Lack of imagination is not common sense. Its lack of imagination. The economic cost of pursuing 500 blind allies in search of the right answers is lower than the economic cost of doing nothing.
...

[CarlosFerreira]

Agreed. The discussion has been rife that governments, because they can't feel the market's demands, can't plan. But they can finance programs, driven by privates, responding to market demand. That will produce revenue, and it will also help, with powerdown and an emphasis on local management and answer, to provide for everyone's needs, anywhere in the social ladder.

If you can't bear the idea of taxing people and corporations to raise capital for that sort of investment, I can't really think of anything that would be more "fair" (can I say this out loud?).

[MrBill]

I have zero faith in government's ability to 'solve' energy shortages caused by peak oil. Although I do not doubt their ability to tax workers and corporations while looking for answers. Any answers that are found will come from entrepreneurs and private businessmen with or without the government's backing. Government is simply not up to the task. Their distorting subsidies have only exacerbated existing problems. As I said before they cannot lead and they cannot get out of the way.

[CarlosFerreira]

True. They have no feel for the market - the classic planned economy failure - therefore they can't really plan where to invest and can't control the usage of subsidies. Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador spring to mind - when the oil money dwindles, there will be too much good life to pay for.

The proof governments fail to act is Peak Oil itself. One would suppose governments had already acknowledge it, acted to curb its effects. Little has been done, the best parts of what has been done was thanks to private entrepreneurs and most of the bad attempts (like the ethanol subsidies) are government's actions. But who else can finance alternatives, in a situation of economic downturn? With rising prices, inflation is hurting everyone's profits - and this inflation come mainly from the prices of raw materials, which means it's not corporation who are getting more revenue to invest. If deflation were to hit, I suppose it would be even worse. Where else will the money come from to invest in alternatives?

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')here else will the money come from to invest in alternatives?

[vtsnowedin]

Mr. Bill?
What would you have the next president and congress do in their first 100 days that would improve our situation? Notice I did not ask you to have them solve the problem as many foresee no solution ,but surely there are courses of action that are better than others or better than no action at all.

[CarlosFerreira]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I')n a high price environment the money to invest in alternatives comes from the profits earned by selling energy, metals and commodities.

In a low price environment the money to invest in alternatives comes from the profits earned by turning cheaper inputs into value added output by manufacturing.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', 'M')r. Bill?
What would you have the next president and congress do in their first 100 days that would improve our situation? Notice I did not ask you to have them solve the problem as many foresee no solution, but surely there are courses of action that are better than others or better than no action at all.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('CarlosFerreira', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I')n a high price environment the money to invest in alternatives comes from the profits earned by selling energy, metals and commodities.

In a low price environment the money to invest in alternatives comes from the profits earned by turning cheaper inputs into value added output by manufacturing.

[CarlosFerreira]

That makes sense, I guess, especially when read right after the concerns with debt. Excessive debt won't mean we run out of capital, I guess - just that debters will default and someone will take the punch from not getting their investment back.

Talked to a friend biologist who's considering doing a PhD. His area of research during graduation were plants, but he also says there were no projects in that area, so he moved on to Parkinson's disease research. He also says there are still no projects like the one presented in the video, of algae production. No incentives. The projects he talks about are mostly government financed scholarships and internships, so I'm guessing government is lagging behind in the area of bio-fuels.

[vtsnowedin]

Of course I loaded the question. Thats the kind that have interesting answers.
Do nothing because they are chicken is probably what we will get but I was after what they could do that might help.
For starters I think they should consider raising the federal gas tax from the current 18.4 c/gal to a $1.00/gal. In round numbers the current tax raises about 40 billion per year so allowing for demand reduction $1.00 might raise 200 billion. This would reduce the deficit 160 billion, reduce demand for oil, reduce our imports of foreign oil, reduce the wholesale price of oil, remove any need for CAFA requirements on new vehicles, get the country looking for alternatives to oil. ETC. ETC.
Not the whole answer but it would be a a start.

[ROCKMAN]

V,

Raising taxes was a good idea 25 years ago when Carter suggested it. An even better idea now. But given that most of the talk out of DC deals with lowering the cost of fuel we may have to wait another few years before someone has the guts to pull that trigger. I would go even farther then your suggestion: a scheduled increase every year for the next 25 years. Car makers, etc need to know where matters are heading with some level of confidence.

[CarlosFerreira]

Funny I should be answering this while pausing The End of Suburbia. I had never seen the film.

OK, we tax it. How would you allocate that income? How do you make sure that corruption doesn't take hold of that sort of cash? Who decides where the money goes to? How do you make sure that, when things get really sour because of economic downturn and job losses, that money keeps being well invested (I suppose we would all like to see it invested in existing alternatives and research for further alternatives), instead of being blown up in some appeasing money give-away for the discontent masses?

Back to the film.

[ROCKMAN]

That's an easy one to answer Carlos: the money goes into the black hole of gov't income. From there I'm sure it will be spent as wisely and productively as it has been for the last 50 or 60 years.

Now you can stop worrying my friend. The gov't is here and ready to help us.

[CarlosFerreira]

Phew, feeling much better now, thanks ROCKMAN!

Oh, and another good news: EIA says demand will grow more than expected next year:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ONDON (Reuters) - World oil demand will rise slightly more than expected in 2009, but supplies will also increase, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday.

Demand will rise by 930,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2009, 60,000 bpd more than previously forecast, the IEA said in its Oil Market Report for August. It cited higher European demand for the revision.

Oil prices have fallen steeply from a record high of $147.27 a barrel on July 11 to about $113, pressured by evidence of slowing demand and economic growth in industrialized countries.

"The basic fundamentals look easier going forward, and we're pleased to see that," David Fyfe, an IEA analyst and acting head of its Oil Industry and Markets Division, told Reuters.

[ROCKMAN]

Carlos,

I'm not an economist by a long shot but I watched the demand destruction in the mid 80's caused by the earlier price spike. I know it takes a good 12+ months for the inflation factors works its way thru the system. Just a wild guess but I would say our economy is currently responding to $60 to $80 oil. Economies are very slow to heat up and cool off compared to the 24 hour news cycle. But I've been a little surprised the economy hasn't taken a bigger hit by now. Despite all the whining things are not that bad right now. I've lived thru very bad times and we're nowhere near that point at the moment. But 12 months from now...????

[vtsnowedin]

How would I spend it??? They already have spent it several times over. Raising the tax might make everyone sit up and take notice and perhaps they will have to stop some of the spending. Remove all ear marks, cut all the strings attached to the 38 billion they parcel out in highway construction funds. Lots of room for efficencys there. Just not borrowing 160 billion from China would save about 7 billion the first year. Oh another thing lets start by throwing every last congressman and all the senators that are up for reelection out on their ear. Like lawyers in cement that would be a good start.

[ROCKMAN]

True V. I suspect the only real immediate effect would be the coersed conservation side of the coin. I long ago gave up on the concept of the 2 party system delivering anything close to an efficient gov't. When you start the revolution just drop me a line...we have enough guns in Texas for everyone that'll need 'em.

[vtsnowedin]

Vt is pretty much set in that department myself included.

[MrBill]

[align=center]Peak Oilers at cutting edge of engineering-environmental debate[/align]

"The complexity of newly engineered systems coupled with their potential impact on lives, the environment, etc., raise a set of ethical issues that engineers had not been thinking about,"
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')rancis Collins, who is stepping down as head of the government human genome project, said he had often heard researchers say "it's better if people don't know about it." But he said he was proud that the National Human Genome Research Institute had from the beginning devoted substantial financing to research on privacy, discrimination and other ethical issues raised by progress in genetics. If scientific research has serious potential implications in the real world, "the sooner there is an opportunity for public discussion the better," he said in a recent interview.

In part, that is because some emerging technologies will require political adjustments. For example, if the planet came to depend on chemicals in space or orbiting mirrors or regular oceanic infusions of iron, system failure could mean catastrophic - and immediate - climate change. But maintaining the systems requires a political establishment with guaranteed indefinite stability.

As Collins put it, the political process these days is "not well designed to handle issues that are not already in a crisis."

Or as Goldston put it, "with no grand debate over first principles and no accusations of acting in bad faith, nanotechnology has received only fitful attention."

Meanwhile, there is growing recognition that climate engineering, nanotechnology and other emerging technologies are full of "unknown unknowns," factors that will not become obvious until they are put into widespread use at a scale impossible to turn back, as happened, in a sense, with the atomic bomb. Before its first test, some of its developers worried that the blast might set the atmosphere on fire. They did not anticipate that the bombs would generate electromagnetic pulses intense enough to paralyze electrical systems across a continent.