217 comments on "Oil Shale Development Imminent"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
217 comments on "Oil Shale Development Imminent"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
—Upton Sinclair
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
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
Free the rest of the article please, guys!
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 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?)
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").
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!
Thanks for the rant; et
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.