Listen up. Global warming is happening, was on the cards before us humans ever stumbled across oil. The planet is in a continual state of upheaval, and is going to continue so, even if we humans happen to die out (which personally I consider unlikely).
Regardless of this, we're accelerating the change by a very large factor. This means that the biosphere doesn't have time to adjust, as it would in a gradual (natural) scenario. Kyoto was at best more a PR exercise than any meaningful attempt to curb CO2 emissions, let's face it. And the key players such as the USA didn't even sign up! So, yes, Kyoto was a 'waste' of hot air. (I put 'waste' in quotes because those same politicians could have been doing something less useful than publicising global issues!!) As for peak oil -- well, nobody knows exactly what date it happened / will happen, but the fact is that oil is limited, and as the price shoots up, people sit up and take notice. As my brother says, price isn't a factor -- it's the ONLY factor! The market will continue to adjust in response to supply vs. demand -- and that will likely mean more fuel-efficient vehicles; more hybrids; and more pure-electric vehicles. Yes we are past the end of the era of cheap oil. Too bad for us, but we've seen it coming for many years and we've done not much at all about it. Regards C Time to wake up and smell the coffee Maru -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne Eddy Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 6:20 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 381, Issue 3 Hi, Dan, everyone. The article suggested by Kevin (http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm) suggests that world oil production has already peaked and the amount produced annually will continually drop, and the price of oil will continually rise. I don't know that this necessarily means a doom & gloom future is a certainty, but I would have thought that even if the data and dates were wildly inaccurate, the general scenario (reduced availablity of fossil fuels) is a logical certainty. I am interested why you think that "the peak oil arguement is arm-waving nonsense." What I really wonder though, is why all the "arm waving" about global warming? It seems to reason that if fossil fuel consumption is destined to drop as a result of scarcity, Kyoto is a waste of time and fossil fuels. Why try to legislate a reduced reliance on fossil fuels when it is a physical certainty anyway. I imagine some will say yes but global warming is bad for the planet, and peak oil is only bad for humans. I beg to differ, if I was an wild animal, I'd be hoping for a human golden age. Climate change could we be a luxury compared to a billion hungry human hunter gatherers. Regards, Wayne Eddy >----- Original Message ----- >From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 1:06 PM >Subject: Re: Brin-l Digest, Vol 381, Issue 3 >As for peak oil production, with all due respect, a close (we spent 5 >Christmases in a row together) friend had primary responsibility for >his company's participation in _the_ major new US oil play. I >personally know the factors involved. The peak oil arguement is >arm-waving nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual ecconomics >of the oil patch. For example, the arguement doesn't explain why oil >fell to (inflation adjusted) prices not seen since the Great Depression >in 1998. I have a model (which is based on plain Jane vanilla >ecconomics) that does explain it. Isn't a model that fits data >superior to a model that has been repeatedly falisfied when used in the past? >Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
