Re: Samuelson on OIl Drilling

"John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:Nd1Sj.125814$fB7.88202@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

> "Joe Steel" <JoeSteel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9A90635628FA1JoeSteel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Killing ourselves by polluting our environment and, at the same time,
>> making ourselves more dependent on a limited resource may be "common
>> sense" to some but it's not very smart.  The better choice is using
>> this op****tunity to solve a problem which will never go away; oil is
>> a limited, dirty resource and no amount of production enhancements
>> can make it clean and unlimited.  We have to find other ways to do
>> what we do with oil.
> 
> Joe, you're not wrong, but there are no serious economists or 
> prognosticators that foresee alternatives being a substantial ****tion
> of overall energy production until the next century, assuming we
> prefer not reverting to a pre-Industral Revolution economy.
> 
> Part of Samuelson's point (also driven home by prior articles on the 
> subject) is that we're stuck with the dirty, filthy energy source for
> the rest of our lifetimes and at least those of our kids, if not our
> grandkids as well. We can't shut off the spigot until we have a cost
> effective, viable alternative, and although various alternatives will
> be coming on line over the next few decades, critical masses leading
> to economies of scale are even further off.
> 
> We need to develop fossil resources now whilst investing in a
> Manhattan Project for fuel alternatives. Would you not agree that such
> is prudent? 
> 
> JG
> 

I'm not sure I do.  While Samuelson may be advocating what seems to be a 
"common sense" solution to the oil problem, it probably will make the 
problem worse.  An increased supply of oil removes the pressure to find 
alternatives.  Without that, our progress toward the solution is less.