True...

But, for heaven's sake, don't count on it! There's also the possibility that the pigs could stop even walking. You have to make policy based on current knowledge, not hoping that things will work out in the end.

Ok,

Current trends are already showing Malthus to be wrong, both in population growth and in food producution. Produce per acre is up and population growth is down. The only place population is a real problem is in undeveloped countries and that is a self-solving problem.

And to borrow a quote from myself from another post...

Here's an interesting article relating to scientific predictions about the future and how wrong that can be and how wrong the consistently are.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb020404.shtml

Ronald Bailey


I am testifying at an oversight hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on "The Impact of Science on Public Policy" today, Feb. 4, 2004. I was asked to submit testimony about how and why environmental predictions have gone wrong. What follows is the written version of my testimony. (I get a whole five minutes to speak.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Enjoy

All of those wrong predictions seemed to share at least one of two features. Either

a) We've found more of the nonrenewable resource, or
b) The rate of increase has gone down recently.

Both of these share one aspect - they put off the danger until later. There isn't an infinite amount of oil, or enough room for infinite people. Efforts in limiting oil use or population growth may be early, but it is not wasted.

In addition, recent improvements in the rates are often due to efforts on our part, such as for endangered species, environmental pollution, and (as mentioned) population growth. If current efforts are abandoned because old predictions did not pan out, then the problems could easily rise back to the rates from the time of the prediction.

I agree. My point was that things have yet to turn out as bad as any of the predictions say they will.

Make no mistake, we need to get our shit together yesterday on non-renewables. Wind, solar, hydrogen IC engines, underwater turbines, bio-diesel, etc. are a necessity, but I've had my fill of the Green Nazis.

...and hippies too.

Don't discount the possibility of flying pigs until you have a good air defense.
- Raekwin

Some of the arguments presented here make me think of the Y2K problem. Lots of money and labor went in to rewriting software before the end of 1999. New Year's Day 2000 came and nothing bad happened. So, was all that time and money wasted, or were the problems averted because of all the effort that went in to solving it?

The same question can be asked about population, climate and oil issues. Are the 'doom sayers' premature, or does the saying of doom delay the doom?

I found this oil statistics site, with lots of interesting data, while searching for US oil consumption and information on the Bakken Formation (inspired by UT's user title). The following quote incited me to come to the Cellar and look for a Peak Oil thread in which to post it:

With the dramatic increases in oil, gasoline, and (to a lesser extent) food prices since 2004, I wonder if any of the other participants in this thread have changed their views as expressed in those carefree days?

We went through these same 'feelings' in the 1970s. Back then America went from something like 25% oil imported to above 50%. The resulting recession made everyone so depressed. Then early 1980 oil prices dropped to the lowest in the history of mankind. Suddenly all that imported oil gets ignored, everything is better, and we ignore reality. Benchmark for stifled innovations are companies that most quashed innovation – ie GM. (So we foolishly blame the oil companies?)

At best of times, we never get below 50% imported oil. Worse, one of the world's largest producers of natural gas must now import natural gas. So again we have this recessionary attitude until all that bad news becomes acceptable ten years later. And then we again ignore the problem for another 30 years.

The problem could be avoided if we decided to address the problem. But we still burn 10 gallons of gasoline in cars and only productively use the energy from less than two gallons. Waste remains unchanged from 50 years ago. Do we decide to fix this? History says no as demonstrated by the so many who even denied the obvious - that global warming does exist.

The prediction was that domestic production would peak in the 1970s. It did. The prediction was that worldwide production would peak sometime about now. Same solutions to global warming, pollution, gas mileage standards, etc all require the same innovations. However our American attitude towards innovation was to burn more oil, pretend a problem did not exist, and even stifle research into technologies that will be needed maybe 30 years from now - ie quantum physics.

"That all costs money', the MBA complains. A problem does not exist because spread sheet do not measure that problem and cannot predict any solutions. Same problem in 1970s still exist. So we pretend problems don't exist as White House lawyers rewrite the science. Problems solved because we have a big military to protect OUR oil. Eventually this worsening problem will be acceptable so that we ignore it - a lesson from history.

It should have been routine for cars of current sizes to average above 30 MPG long ago. Then we would have technologies that others (ie China, India) need to buy. We did not develop those technologies in the 1980s by pretending those high tech industries are somehow smoke stack industries. So what do we have that they need? So what did we create to avert a same problem that has existed even in the 1970s? Instead, GM can sell SUVs with 1960 technology engines, with gasoline mileage lower than in the 1960s, put fancy painted steel around it, and calls that innovation.

Instead of innovating where the problem is (domestic automakers such as GM), the innovative companies (oil companies) will discover more oil. Then we will pretend that problem is solved. Deja vue from 30 years ago.

So everything was rosy in 2004. I'd like to see what he would tell them today.

More good stuff:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...h/4254875.html

Be sure and follow the pages "continued". Cool and informative graphs and info.

I think the way things are going, we are going to be moving toward hydrogen fueled cars soon anyway. It really is the best answer to the problems.
You want to talk about green emitions....the byproducts from combusting hydrogen is mostly water. We can generate hydrogen from electrolysis of water and seperating it into hydrogen and oxygen.
If they engineer it correctly, we can have a car that you fill up with water and uses an electric motor to seperate water into hydrogen and oxygen, which then uses the hydrogen to fuel the car which in turn generates electricity for the motor. It could then collect the exaust which is mostly water and use it to convert back to hydrogen again.

You just invented perpetual motion!

Geepers, why did not one think of this simple idea years ago? It must be a vast oilco conspiracy to prevent new technologies.

sarcasm? sarcasm? in a thread about the very survival of our species? our way of life? our planet? you sir OBVIOUSLY own large amounts of Halliburton stock and dine with the fat oil barons.;)