Re: Samuelson on OIl Drilling

"Joe Steel" <JoeSteel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:Xns9A909F7E69016JoeSteel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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 m***** 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.

That's why I advocated the "Manhattan Project" approach -- should
additional 
production (and other things, like an end to hostilities in Iraq and 
Nigeria) lead to a dropping of price, resulting in a negative stimulus to
R 
and D, the investment project goes on.

JG