I guess we can grow indefinitely.

Yea, shale oil!

We can keep growing the economy, the population, the size of our vehicles.

Weeeeeee!

Who needs to worry about global warming, overpopulation, soil degredation, air pollution, population pressure, ocean desertification, land desertification, shrinking aquifers, when we got the smarts (hyuck hyuck) to bring shale oil online.

Yup. So long as we got that whole fossil fuel thing for our ridiculous autocentric economy sussed out, the rest should just fall in line, 'cause we all know that cars have nothing to do with all those other problems. Nope. Those cars exist outside of physics. See, now stay with me here 'cause I gotta use some of that G. W. Bush intullectual reasoning to pull this off, cars are MAGIC. Or, maybe they are like intelligent design, they just sort of were put here by some super-duper nerd with a cosmic pocket-protector, the ole immaculate industrial process!!

Yup. Don't worry people. We gots plenty of fuel for our holy automobile. No, put away any thoughts of having to do without, the automobile god will be appeased.

Why? 'Cause we is such smart people.

Just ask G.W. Bush. Remember how he set us all straight on global warming?

So, yet again, the beautiful Western Slope of Colorado is poised to become a national sacrifice zone so there can be a billion people in the United States sitting in traffic jams in Ford Expeditions.

Look, I'll happily go back to horses just to help save the beauty of the West.


Cherenkov,

Your points are well taken, but a bit of a rant....and once more, like so many people, you confuse several fundamental intellectual positions into one "fusion" argument:

  1.  We can discuss whether oil shale will work, and at what cost (environmentally, economically, etc.)
  2.  Or we can discuss whether even if it will work on a large scale, it is morally and asthetically right to do it.

Those are completely different arguments.  It's the same case with the car:  Try a thought exercise:  Suppose a clever technician could create a car that used ZERO ENERGY  (we don't know how, but just suppose) made no pollustion, and the materials in building the car could be recycled, so that 99.9% percent of the raw materials could be re-used to make yet another car...no waste.

Would "The Car" be a morally acceptable choice then?  Or could a claim be made (perfectly valid) that in all of human history, cars are a recent oddity, and that humans are socially, spiritual, asthetically and morally damaged by being able to travel long distances at relatively high speeds in comparison to history. This would be an asthetic and moral decision, having nothing to do with the technology of the car.

So it is with several oil alternatives.  Many of those who find technical advance a hateful thing seem to most terrified that solutions can be found!

Take an example:  The Amish community have never tried to make the case that cars and modern technology does not work.  They simply take the moral position that modern technology is morally corrupting. It is their right to take this position.

It is NOT in any way a technical argument, however.

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

To Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout,

Hmm. Perpetual motion. Nice thought experiment. However, this sort of strawman argument is precisely why western civ is in such trouble. The techies are constantly promising silly crap like your perpetual motion car. Just imagine if we could all have our own personal aircraft! Soon nuclear energy will make electricity too cheap to meter! Dioxin is harmless! Asbestos is good for your baby's sleeper! Don't worry, we'll fix that little thalomide baby with these really keen artificial limbs!

But the comments I make earlier still hold. This issue is not if we can do this ridiculous thing, the issue is should we given that a continuation of this environment destroying technology will continue to destroy the environment.

I've got news: no environment, no humans.

I make the argument that cars do work. So what? They work to destroy the environment. As to whether it is a technical argument, of course it is a technical argument. The technical aspects of so-called advances in society are destroying the natural world without which we cannot live. TECHNICALLY, that would be a really stupid thing to do, no matter how cool the tech may be.

Think outside the box, the self-limiting box the techies love to create. Think in terms of systems, planetary systems, not the niggling little worries about whether we should kill the planet with THIS cool automobile or THAT cool automobile.

Here is a thought experiment, think of a world without the car. Ahhhhhh. See? So pleasant, so calm.

I have already detailed why continued use of fossil fuel will be a spectacularly dumb thing to pursue. That covers point one. I have no doubt that someone will come up with a way to use it. None. But why do so? Why keep the human factory going? Do we need to continue to grow? Do we need more humans? Do we need more autos, clean or otherwise? Can you see that the environmental footprint of the automobile is immense and destructive?

As far as the second part, separating morality from can-do-itness is the bane of western civ. So, you would have me believe that we should separate the two. It's okay to research Cyklon-B so long as we don't talk about what it does to people in "showers." It is okay to talk about the technical aspects of GM corn as long as we ignore the morality of peasant farmers having their fields contaminated. Waterboarding is okay as long as we don't examine the morality.

Yeah, I can see why it is so important to separate morality from our little technical projects. Wouldn't want to have to think about consequences or some such wooly-headed idea.

Hateful? Saving millions of people from the inanity of our techno-civ is hardly hateful. Not that it will happen. Too much money to be made in murder. Look at war, look at refugees in Sudan, look at our system of destroying whatever we need to in order to insure our way of life.

Our idiotic healthcare system is a fine example. You did know that people without insurance pay as much as ten times as much for the same service as the insured? All that technology and we ration it. We essentially let people die in order to enrich the insurance companies. All that technology and we let people die. Nope, don't look at the morality, because It will only make you not want to look in the mirror.

The other night I saw a reprise of a 60 Minutes interview with Mel Brooks. He was talking about his show the Producers, the show that features such fun songs as, "Springtime for Hitler."

Asked why he wrote something like that, something that seemed to make light of such a dramtically awful and scary subject, he said he did it because it is the only way to deal with such dreadful people. To kill them would be to become them. To ignore them would enbolden them. But, to laugh at them, to point and laugh at them and get the rest of the world to do so, now that is accomplishing something.

I am now pointing and laughing at the people who believe that we can tech our way out of this crisis. They are unknowingly acting as Fuhrers leading the world down a really bad and destructive path. They think they are doing right by the world, but they are not. Physics pretty much puts the kabosh on that.

So, I encourage everyone to point and laugh at the techies. Their illogical ways need to be drowned out with laughter.

Cherenkov

You covered so many ideas and positions that it would be impossible to stay up,so just let me return to one of your sentences which essentially says it all...
"Here is a thought experiment, think of a world without the car. Ahhhhhh. See? So pleasant, so calm."

That is potentially true (although lack of cars in no way ASSURES a pleasant, calm world).  But, of course, it also posits another set of problems.  Two of my three living sisters live hundreds of miles from me.  So a world without some type of transport would mean that I would probably never see them again.  Of course, we could say, well, we will use trains.  I have nothing against that, but of course, trains are not "So pleasent, so calm" either....they are large, consume metal, consume labor to build, consume fuel of some kind...and will in the end result in consumption of at least some resources.

Your other interesting sentence, "Yeah, I can see why it is so important to separate morality from our little technical projects. Wouldn't want to have to think about consequences or some such wooly-headed idea."

Some may feel that way, but that was decidedly NOT what I was saying in any way.  But giving up technology is a moral choice with real consequences.  Just tonight, I spen 5 hours laying on my back in an emergency room with serious blood pressure issues.  Without the technology to try to cope with this problem, I would for all practical purposes be gone from this world, and "peak oil" or "carbon release" would not trouble me.

Before this century, life really was "brutish and short".  Suffering was MUCH more commonplace in all locations in the world, and options were few, except for the very wealthy.  Saying that we should STOP technical development is indeed a very, very cruel blow to inflict on somebody else (and most folks who say it still have cars, TV's, computers (including access to TOD! :-), air conditioned homes, and central heating.  It is easier to say we should stop technology, as long as someone else has to give it up  (I have spoken before about the elitism implied in many of the "no fossil fuel, no carbon, no tech" arguments.  It is, to say the least, extremely disturbing)

If you say to me, "All scientific indications are that carbon release should be reduced by X, and that fossil fuel should be reduced by X to achieve this, unless non carbon release energy can be used, indicating a possibility to X reduction in fossil fuel....", then we are simply arguing about the value of X...this is a technical discussion, and it DOES take in the moral discussion (i.e., that humans and the environment will suffer if we exceed X), and does not simply dismiss the suffering of humans.

On the other hand, if someone says, "I demanb 0% percent carbon release, and I don't care who has to suffer to achieve it!", that would be a moral position and could be seen as no more moral than "release the carbon, I want to drive!"

W.H. Auden once said that the measure of any culture, (and he meant all the way back before the oil age) was, "Variety achieved with Unity retained."

Such it will be with the post fossil fuel era, and the future.  It is human nature not to accept less that the most that can be sustainably achieved.  The argument, and it is at THE VERY HEART of decisions being made RIGHT NOW, is what can be sustainably achieved?  

So, there are those who can point and laugh all they wish.  As long as they are still driving, using electricity, and on TOD, it will be assumed that they mean for "some one else", the proverbial "they" to give up any hope at variety of life so they can continue to live the way they please.  It will be seen as elitism.....so just stay out of the street while pointing and laughing or there is a risk of being run over!

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout


By the way.....

By the way....

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/06/us_oil_consumpt.html

According to BP's just-released Statistical Review of World Energy 2006, consumption of oil in the US dropped 0.16% in 2005 from the year before, declining from an average of 20.732 million barrels per day (mbpd) to 20.655 mbpd.

Global consumption of oil, however, increased 1.3% from 2004 to 2005, climbing from 81.444 mbpd to 82.459 mbpd. US share of global consumption thus dropped from 25.46% to 25.05%.

The 2005 decline is US consumption was the first since 2001, when it dropped 0.27% to 19.649 mbpd from the year before.

China, the second-largest consumer of oil behind the US, saw its consumption climb 2.9% from 6.772 mbpd to 6.988 mbpd. Japan, in third place, also increased its oil consumption 1.4% from 5.286 mbpd to 5.360 mbpd.

....and the U.S. still has so many tricks up it's sleeve to cut production, we haven't even began to scratch the surface, and without hurting peopeles lives  (in fact, as they reduce fuel consumption, they will start to realize that their life is better than before)....you ain't seen nothing yet! :-)

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

It was the warm winter in North America, not conservation, substitution, ingenuity or anything.
Free the rest of the article please, guys!
Before this century, life really was "brutish and short".  Suffering was MUCH more commonplace in all locations in the world, and options were few, except for the very wealthy.  Saying that we should STOP technical development is indeed a very, very cruel blow to inflict on somebody else

I've heard this hackneyed argument so many times it makes me wanna barf! Roger, I would really expect better of you. Sure there are nice things that technology delivers to us, I'm not denying that. But.... the "nasty, brutish and short" notion comes from the so called 'dark ages' and not from pre-agricultural human societies where there is actually solid evidence that indicates people were often healthier than their agricultural descendants.

I don't fall into the 'technology is BAD' camp, nor do I fall into the opposite camp of 'life nasty, brutish and short without technology.' Why can't someone acknowledge the dark side of technology without getting bashed like this.

If there is any camp I'm in, to be brutally hontest with all and with myself, it's the 'have our cake and eat it too' camp. Much simpler life-style with certain essential technologies. They can be extremely simple technologies. We don't need 99% of the technology we have today to enjoy avg. life expectancies equal to or better than we have in the US (several countries with simpler tech. bases already do this).

Anyway, end of this rant.

I think that most of would agree that we are happy to let others live any life style they choose, but if they try to force the rest of us the live the same life style then things are going to get very exciting.
I have the highest respect for the Amish, but I would not want to live that way myself.
It's called "Freedom", and thank God we have that here in the USA (at least for a little while longer?)
Economics will force a change in your lifestyle more than some "Other".  

Those farmers that go to a lower energy/lower fuel type farming will do well.  Those that demand to do "farming as usual" will need more loans, debt, and will eventually leave farming (except perhaps as farmhands).

Price ammonia fertilizer.  Tell me that a smart farmer is not trying to figure out how much to cut back.

If you are not looking for what is the smallest piece of farm equipment that will "do the job", then you may not die a farm owner.

(My grandfather got some ribbing about his Ford Ranger, loaded with hay bales one level above the top of the cab, and three more bales on top of that to hold them in place.  He started life as a sharecropper in the hills of Kentucky and died owning 800 acres of Kentucky bluegrass free & clear.  He was always critical of farmers that spent too much on equipment that "couldn't pay it's way" and was "more for show").

Well, I was a lifetime subscriber to Mother Earth News back in the 60's and 70's - Until the owners sold to a new owner and they said "Guess what, we aren't going to honor your lifetime subscription". The new owner is now trying to con people into lifetime subscriptions again. Once burned twice shy.
Anyway, that will give you some idea of what my outlook is on farming. I would agree that loans and debt are a good way to get yourself out of farming (or anything else) I don't own a vehicle I didn't pay cash for and while they are all 30+ years old I can still do all the maintainence on them easily myself (which you can't do with the "new cars". Rebuilt the engine and transmission in my 77 pickup 2 years ago. Just finishing dong some major work on my '62 VW Beetle and should have it back on the road in a week or two. Had a new VW convertible in '62 and just had to have another VW so I can listen to the sound of the engine going down the road <smile>.
Modern "Summertime" farmers that only grow grain crops are going to have some problems in the future I think. The "old ways" of keeping a variety of livestock on the farm will have to return. And then you have manure to fertilize the fields for free. Also, it is a lot more effieient to raise cattle on grass pasture than to raise them in a feed lot and grow corn and haul it and process it into feed and then have to dispose of the "hazardous waste" (manure) by hauling it somewhere to dump it.
I think you grandfather and I would have agreed on most things about farming. Especially on getting your farm paid for and then NEVER putting a mortgage on it again. Darn double digit increases in property taxes are more than enough to contend with.
Mowing your lawn with sheep and chickens is a lot more energy efficient than mowing with a riding lawn mower. (After you put up the fencing) City folks will have to go back to - Push Mowers! Remember them. I still  have a couple that I am rebuilding - Just in case <BG>
Have a nice day!
Amen!!!  

Thanks for the rant;    et

Sorry to have to disillusion you, but life really was short, brutish and boring until the advent of modern civilzation. Read a few archeological analyses of digs in ancient cemetaries before you try to foist off the noble savage stuff on us.
   A great modern ongoing example is the ongoing civil waranarchy in Liberia and the Congo. Life expectancy has declined to 37 years according to the World Health Organization and the region is infested with child armies and tribal warfare with solid rumors of cannibalism and slavery.
Not trying to foist off any 'noble savage' stuff. There is simply quite a lot of data from various places and times indicating that in many cases pre-agricultural peoples had healthier diets and generally better states of health than did post-agricultural peoples. I'm sure the life-expectancy thing was a mixed bag. Some places and times it was better than others. No stereotypes intended here.