Re: Samuelson on OIl Drilling

"John Galt" <whoisjohngalt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
news:_x5Sj.60396$pm2.49823@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

> "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
> 
> 
> 

I like the idea of a Manhattan Project for energy but it should go beyond 
merely finding an alternative to oil as a liquid fuel.  We have to find 
ways to eliminate the use of liquid fuel; for instance, telecommuting 
rather than driving to work, online retail rather than travel to stores, 
electric railroad trans****tation rather than diesel fuel highway 
trans****tation.