Re: Samuelson on OIl Drilling

On Thu, 01 May 2008 11:15:07 -0500, Joe Steel wrote:

> "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.

We were poised to do all of that when the @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Bush/Cheney
Administration hit town.

-- 
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend