Understanding the Issues 2008: Energy

[djnemo65]

I don't think people adequately understand the paucity of oil that remains in this world. If you are familiar with peak oil theory (which isn't so much a theory as a geoligical fact) then you know oil will reach a peak point of production after which the quality of oil will be reduced and it will be increasingly more difficult to extract. Increasing oil consumption in the developing world, particularily in China but really everywhere, is only quickening this inevitability. Now some argue that oil production peaked last year, but when it peaks is really irrelevant. What matters is that it will.

That means that at some point we are going to face a major day of reckoning, since not only transportation but the world's entire industrial infrastructure is predicated on access to relatively cheap oil. My point is that a major technological project is needed to avert what will likely be an extremely unstable period, as the world's 3 powers - Europe, America, China, and their respective allies - fight over the remaining scraps.

I think all 3 candidates fall short in doing enough on this and I wish someone would speak to the people honestly about the poisonous effect that increased consumption in a world of declining oil production will have on the stability of the global economic system.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I don't think people adequately understand the paucity of oil that remains in this world. If you are familiar with peak oil theory (which isn't so much a theory as a geoligical fact) then you know oil will reach a peak point of production after which the quality of oil will be reduced and it will be increasingly more difficult to extract. Increasing oil consumption in the developing world, particularily in China but really everywhere, is only quickening this inevitability. Now some argue that oil production peaked last year, but when it peaks is really irrelevant. What matters is that it will.

That means that at some point we are going to face a major day of reckoning, since not only transportation but the world's entire industrial infrastructure is predicated on access to relatively cheap oil. My point is that a major technological project is needed to avert what will likely be an extremely unstable period, as the world's 3 powers - Europe, America, China, and their respective allies - fight over the remaining scraps.

I think all 3 candidates fall short in doing enough on this and I wish someone would speak to the people honestly about the poisonous effect that increased consumption in a world of declining oil production will have on the stability of the global economic system.

Theoretically though economics would say that as thise "day of reckoning" approaches the costs of oil will become untenable driving a major movement towards alternative fuel.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Theoretically though economics would say that as thise "day of reckoning" approaches the costs of oil will become untenable driving a major movement towards alternative fuel.

Yeah I agree and that's what is likely to happen. The problem is that we will have a painful adjustment period while we try to figure things out. And I don't mean painful as in having to eat out less, I mean major global instability. That's the worst case scenario, but I don't think an implausible one. It's not as if countries have never gone to war over oil before.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

I don't think people adequately understand the paucity of oil that remains in this world. If you are familiar with peak oil theory (which isn't so much a theory as a geoligical fact) then you know oil will reach a peak point of production after which the quality of oil will be reduced and it will be increasingly more difficult to extract. Increasing oil consumption in the developing world, particularily in China but really everywhere, is only quickening this inevitability. Now some argue that oil production peaked last year, but when it peaks is really irrelevant. What matters is that it will.

That means that at some point we are going to face a major day of reckoning, since not only transportation but the world's entire industrial infrastructure is predicated on access to relatively cheap oil. My point is that a major technological project is needed to avert what will likely be an extremely unstable period, as the world's 3 powers - Europe, America, China, and their respective allies - fight over the remaining scraps.

I think all 3 candidates fall short in doing enough on this and I wish someone would speak to the people honestly about the poisonous effect that increased consumption in a world of declining oil production will have on the stability of the global economic system.

I'm starting to really question if we're anywhere near peak production. I mentioned in an earlier post that geologists are finding huge deposits off the coast of Brazil and other places that were previously out of reach but can now be drilled.

Not that I'm arguing w/ you, cause I don't really know the science, but I suspect that environmental damage will become critical before oil supply becomes critical.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by The Goat

I'm starting to really question if we're anywhere near peak production. I mentioned in an earlier post that geologists are finding huge deposits off the coast of Brazil and other places that were previously out of reach but can now be drilled.

Not that I'm arguing w/ you, cause I don't really know the science, but I suspect that environmental damage will become critical before oil supply becomes critical.

Yeah i've heard stuff like that and I am really in no position to judge when oil production will peak. I just think it makes more sense to start preparing for it now, if for no other reason then to put America in a position to technologically dominate the next century the way it did the last.

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Yeah i've heard stuff like that and I am really in no position to judge when oil production will peak. I just think it makes more sense to start preparing for it now, if for no other reason then to put America in a position to technologically dominate the next century the way it did the last.

That is the kind of forward-thinking/leadership this country needs!!! I can't see fossil fuels being the "energy of the future" either and totally wish we could get ahead of the curve in the energy sector.

[djnemo65]

Let me add FRPLG, that's assuming that there aren't any tenable renewable alternatives ready at the time, and right now we are light years away.

[12thMan]

For what it's worth, crude oil is now $110.74 per barrel.

[MTK]

$4/gallon here we come!

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

$4/gallon here we come!

We're definitely on our way.

[BDBohnzie]

The energy that matters to me is the fuel I put in my car, and the fuel that heats my home and runs my appliances...

And while I yearn for the day of $0.79/gallon (Junior year in college, several gas stations in and around Salisbury, MD hit this mark), I'd just like to see gas and heating oil back to relatively user-friendly levels. We're all used to seeing $3+ that $2 would be a relief, but I'd love to see it cheaper than that.

It was a huge mistake allowing companies like Exxon and Mobil, BP and Amoco, and Chevron and Texaco to merge and limit refinery production. It's a matter of another big hurricane to bust through the Gulf of Mexico before we see $5/gallon nationwide.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by BDBohnzie

The energy that matters to me is the fuel I put in my car, and the fuel that heats my home and runs my appliances...

And while I yearn for the day of $0.79/gallon (Junior year in college, several gas stations in and around Salisbury, MD hit this mark), I'd just like to see gas and heating oil back to relatively user-friendly levels. We're all used to seeing $3+ that $2 would be a relief, but I'd love to see it cheaper than that.

It was a huge mistake allowing companies like Exxon and Mobil, BP and Amoco, and Chevron and Texaco to merge and limit refinery production. It's a matter of another big hurricane to bust through the Gulf of Mexico before we see $5/gallon nationwide.

Ahh, I too long for the days where I could pay for a gallon of gas with a few quarters and a dime. But, the silver lining in the skyrocketing price of oil/gas is it's starting to make the search for alternative fuels make sense in the short-term. As others have noted, the only thing that is going to force our country to kick it's addiction to oil is money.

[GTripp0012]

I don't want a Candidate that has a hard and fast plan before are even elected to the office. I want a candidate that will take the office, and use the additional Top Secret information, that only the executive branch and intelligence agencies are privy to, to re-evaluate our current energy plan, and apply the necessary resources to fix it.

I don't think either Hillary or Obama is capable of that. I'm not sure McCain is either, but he does seem like he would have the best chance to stave off economic collapse.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't want a Candidate that has a hard and fast plan before are even elected to the office. I want a candidate that will take the office, and use the additional Top Secret information, that only the executive branch and intelligence agencies are privy to, to re-evaluate our current energy plan, and apply the necessary resources to fix it.

I don't think either Hillary or Obama is capable of that. I'm not sure McCain is either, but he does seem like he would have the best chance to stave off economic collapse.

Really? McCain seems best suited for that? To a great extent the candidates have to show their hand in terms of how they plan to deal with the current economic woes. That's all the voters really have to go; the candidate's promises. And while they are all privy to top secret information, if what they've revealed thus far is an indicator of how they plan to deal with the economy, I would simply beg to differ on your statement about John McCain.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Really? McCain seems best suited for that? To a great extent the candidates have to show their hand in terms of how they plan to deal with the current economic woes. That's all the voters really have to go; the candidate's promises. And while they are all privy to top secret information, if what they've revealed thus far is an indicator of how they plan to deal with the economy, I would simply beg to differ on your statement about John McCain.

Inherith lies the problem. Campaign promises are made on a hypothetical scale based on a lack of information (because as Senators, they aren't necessarily privy to the Top Secret level of information, stuff that could ultimately make or break any plan), and therefore are really not meant to be kept. I don't believe them to be an indicator of anything, and if they are, I would probably vote against all those plans.

The problem is that the voters aren't electing a set of issues, they are electing a man (or woman).

My personal intuition believes that McCain's experience and relatively bipartisan voting record gives him an advantage over the other two, but again, it's really just my intuition...and I of course have no facts to defend that with.

I think you did hit the problem on the head, is that, these Campaign Promises are all the voters have to work with when deciding who to align with, and that really isn't worth anything at all. Ultimately, when voting, we are pledging semi-blind alligence to our candidate. I know some Bush voters feel spurned by their allegiance to him, as is reflected in his approval rating, but that doesn't mean they voted stupid, it means they picked what seemed like the better candidate at the time--which in no way assures a positive result.

You can look at their voting record, but once a person is elected to the presidency, it seems like a lot of their beliefs change. Bush, for example, certainly adopted policies that were more to the left of traditional conservative once in office, and he beat McCain in the 2000 primaries because he ran as the more conservative of the two candidates.