The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: July 17, 2006

404 comments on DrumBeat: July 17, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Triffin on July 17, 2006 - 11:25am

With regards to the GW issue ..

I was watching the Discovery channel
program last night hosted by Tom Brokaw
titled Global Warming - What You Need to Know ..
and it sort of hit me .. TPTB won't be mentioning
Peak Oil and depletion issues going forward to
engineer societal change .. the public focus for
change will be the GW issue .. The proposed
"solutions" or mitigation strategies would be
identical to those required to address depletion
and Peak Oil .. I got the distinct impression that
the PR wonks feel GW is a more 'saleable' issue
than depletion or Peak Oil would be for public
'education' purposes ..

Triff ..

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on July 17, 2006 - 11:42am

That's been my hope. In fact my suggestion to politicians was to believe in GW, and if they couldn't do that, pretend to believe in GW. The solutions do indeed build American energy security.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on July 17, 2006 - 11:50am

The proposed "solutions" or mitigation strategies [for GW] would be identical to those required to address depletion and Peak Oil

Some Yes, some No. True for Conservation, Electrification of Transportation, wind & nuke. Not true for coal to liquids, tar sands, oil shale.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on July 17, 2006 - 12:03pm

Alan, well-stated!

I think this distinction that you made is an important one.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on July 17, 2006 - 12:06pm

Ah, true for the environmentally friendly ones? ;-)

It's not like we loose (we being enviro-peak-oilers) when politicians lead with GW.

Indeed, GWers and environmentalists would lose if politicians (as some do) led with energy security.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

vtpeaknik on July 17, 2006 - 12:07pm

Wel, you know, GW is a real problem too... So if attention to GW will get in the way of CTL etc that's a good thing. Even if you think GW is not a problem, CTL is not a long-term solution to PO. For that matter, anything short of a stable population and a steady-state economy is not a solution to the real root problem of both GW and PO.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Testudo on July 17, 2006 - 1:19pm

GW >>> PO

Peak Oil may undo a couple of hundred years of industrialization.

Global Warming threatens to undo a few million years of evolution.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

davet on July 17, 2006 - 2:19pm

Nah, just provides new and different evolutionary opportunities! (Just not for us...)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Reed on July 17, 2006 - 2:28pm

Exactly! In a nutshell.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

fleam on July 17, 2006 - 3:11pm

Global Warming = take measures to protect the environment so your grandchildren can enjoy trees and squirrels and sunsets. Peak Oil = things are going to get rough and you may go w/o a lot of dinners!

The call to "care for the environment" has resulted in a good record of altruistic behavior in Americans, yeah say what you will, but you don't have the kind of "litterbugs" I remember as a little kid, etc there have been changes. If the propaganda is heavy enough, people will change if they figure it's "no skin off my nose, and it's a nice thing to do". And the anti-littering propaganda in the 70s was pretty pervasive as an example - it got results.

Peak Oil on the other hand is just plain fackin' scary. Scary stuff has always resulted in more selfish behavior - exactly what we don't need.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on July 17, 2006 - 5:04pm

Global Warming = Being able to grow crops where we are used to growing them.

I think GW is scarier than PO, which is why I advocate only PO solutions that help both PO & GW. We would be better served with a Depression and less GW than with a recession & more GW.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Reed on July 17, 2006 - 5:31pm

Ok, Fleam, have it your way. Choose your preferred poison. In your case the article Leanan referenced on the prospective oil bonanza in Greenland must be heartwarming -- keeping the good ol' non-negotiable life style rolling. But the need for wearing "brown underwear" is explained at:

http://www.countercurrents.org/po-church170706.htm

The opening qoute has never been more applicable:

"Down one road lies disaster, down the other utter catastrophe.Let us hope we have the wisdom to choose wisely." - Woody Allen

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

alan on July 18, 2006 - 11:58am

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it"
Yogi Berra

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on July 18, 2006 - 2:25pm

Orally.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Donal on July 18, 2006 - 2:41pm

Aura Lee, Aura Lee,
Maid with golden hair
Sunshine came along with thee,
And swallows in the air.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Mad Maxout on July 17, 2006 - 6:02pm

GW and PO are both potential disasters. But GW is making itself more obvious to average people due to crazier weather. Meanwhile, the only obvious symptom of PO is the price at the pump or the price of a barrel.

While we are PO-aware here, most people aren't unless one of us manages to talk one-on-one with someone. Lots of people like to scapegoat oil companies, Arabs, etc. for the ever-climbing gas prices.

But there is a critical difference between the two issues: With GW, we can choose to mitigate it and use less, but PO will force us to use less! Big difference. The gas prices (and its trickle-down effects) will force the mitigation. After all, tar sands are hard to extract. And shale is probably a done deal in terms of being too hard to extract.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

HongKong Trader on July 17, 2006 - 9:49pm

I agree, it's as if we have 2 large asteroids heading towards us. One is large and will hit in 2 years, it's called PO and one is absolutely humongous but won't hit until quite a bit later than PO. It's called GW. Because PO is about to hit us if we don't do something it is forcing us to act. So in the short term we need to take agressive and expensive action to deflect PO. Unfortunately we have watched PO approach us for 50 years and taken no action to deflect it. Afterwards (or maybe at the same time) we can work on GW. Hopefully we will learn that relatively small actions now will deflect GW enough to pass us by rather than making the same mistake we made with PO - i.e. allowing it to get close so that it becomes more difficult to deflect. Small actions count more over large distances than large actions over small distances. At the end of the day, we likely will deflect them either way - it's a matter of cost.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on July 17, 2006 - 7:45pm

Amen.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Solaris on July 17, 2006 - 4:33pm

PO >>>>>>>> GW

Not even close. Does GW have the potential to cause die-back to pre-industrial revolution population levels (1.5 billion people or less)?? Peak fossil fuels is a far more serious problem for civilization in general and it's severe effects will occur much faster.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Donal on July 17, 2006 - 4:54pm

Depends on what it does to the food and water supply.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on July 17, 2006 - 5:01pm

From a purely selfish national point of view I would prefer a dire PO scenario over a dire GW scenario. If you already have a good climate, ok infrastructure and plenty of natural resources it is easier to weather PO and then a climate shift forcing you to move somewhere while abandoning all fixed investments.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on July 17, 2006 - 5:55pm

Wouldn't it be interesting to have crocodiles in Sweden ?

No need for summer vacations in Spain, etc.

Crocodile teeth have been found in the high Canadian Artic islands, along with warm temperate tree species.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Magnus Redin on July 17, 2006 - 6:18pm

Having a freezing winter kills a lot of potential pests wich makes it possible to farm with fairly little pesticides. We loose productive months compared with warmer climates but what is produced is often good with small inputs of nasty stuff.

Having plenty of rainfall, often fairly well distributed over the months makes it very easy to get fresh water and good crops and gives us plenty of hydro power.

I rather have rainfall and a green summer then a nice summer vacation where one can see brown vegetation. The other extreme, a new ice age, is of course even worse.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Testudo on July 17, 2006 - 5:04pm

PO is a more obvious problem for the next generation or two. GW is a more serious problem for our entire planet as an ecosystem.

GW threatens to cause the extinction of a significant portion of the species on our planet. GW means leaving our children a home that is barren in comparison to the world we inherited from out parents. What are all the implications of that? I can't begin to imagine.

Here at the leading edge we will watch coral reefs and polar bears dissapear from the planet. But that is just the beginning. I am confident that 10 generations from now our children will look back and condemn us for poisoning the abundance of life on our planet. The fact that we burned through our oil so fast will just be a side note, a cause, but not an especially relevant effect.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

davet on July 17, 2006 - 5:08pm

There's a report put out by the Pentagon which essentially foresees war. Resource depletion is a major concern, but mass migration from lands no longer able to sustain a population because of climate change and land use is expected to put severe stresses on the global society and economy. If they're right (and they're no more pessimistic than some of PO doomers here) then yes, GW may indeed lead to a major population "drawdown".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

AlanfromBigEasy on July 17, 2006 - 5:22pm

IMHO, yes. Change the monsoons, turn the North American Great Plains into a Dust Bowl, slow or stop the Gulf Stream, etc.

GW "losers" will migrate or die-off and the disruption from that will carry over into social disruption and a decline in technological civilization (worst case).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oil on July 17, 2006 - 1:30pm

And then it dawned on me, the parallels between the the run up to the Iraq war and Global Warming.

First you create an evil bogeyman, (9-11=Iraq), in the case of Global warming it's anyone who disagrees with the supposed scientific consensus.

Now we are in the "you are either with us or against us" mode of thinking.

Next comes Colin Powell and his charts and graphs proving, or in this case, whichever scientists agree with the case that Humans are causing Global Warming.

Finally anyone who questions you can be considered an uncritical behometh intent on destroying the planet.
Or in the case of Iraq anyone who opposes the war is a coward and is giving into the terrorists. Who had the courage to say no? Certainly not our politicians.

http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/wireservice/0,71042-0.html?tw=wn_politics_lifescience_12

Scary but not caused by humans.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on July 17, 2006 - 1:55pm

Go back to spin school. Saying one argument is "like" another only works if (a) your audience is stupid enough to accept that on face value, or (b) the argument really is "like" the other.

The truth is the Bush admin has been on the BS side of both arguments, Iraq and GW.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oil on July 17, 2006 - 2:00pm

GW has happened in the past. This is an indisputable fact. 50 to 60 million years the ago, the arctic wasn't the arctic, it was more like Northeast Brazil.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on July 17, 2006 - 2:01pm

It is a common troll technique to cast out partial truths in succession. When each one fails, to cast another ...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oil on July 17, 2006 - 2:06pm

Another Tsunami in Indonesia today. I wonder whats happening underneath the seas. Hmm, is there any connection to GW?

BTW, how do you explain the WW GC that took place from 1950 to 1975?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on July 17, 2006 - 2:13pm

What did I tell you about partial truths in succession? Take it to a scientific blog, and see if you can stand on one position without shifting.

Here's a good one:

http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/

Meanwhile, back to PO ...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Wharf Rat on July 17, 2006 - 4:59pm

the arctic wasn't the arctic, it was more like Northeast Brazil.

The world didn't look the same in those days; sea level was 80 feet higher...

How fast can this go? Right now, I think our best measure is what happened in the past. We know that, for instance, 14,000 years ago sea levels rose by 20m in 400 years - that is five meters in a century. This was towards the end of the last ice age, so there was more ice around. But, on the other hand, temperatures were not warming as fast as today.

How far can it go? The last time the world was three degrees warmer than today - which is what we expect later this century - sea levels were 25m higher. So that is what we can look forward to if we don't act soon. None of the current climate and ice models predict this. But I prefer the evidence from the Earth's history and my own eyes. I think sea-level rise is going to be the big issue soon, more even than warming itself.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article345926.ece

Carbon dioxide level highest in 650,000 years
mongabay.com
November 24, 2005

Carbon dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years, according to research into Antarctic ice cores published on Thursday in Science.
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html

And it is ours. Isotope studies.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases -are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oldhippie on July 17, 2006 - 11:51pm

With James Hansen, sea-level rise is the certain outcome of GW, and likely to begin soon. The other prospects are equally scary, we just can't be certain what they are.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Catskill on July 17, 2006 - 6:26pm

that's a good one...

I think that's called plate tectonics - the change in climate during that period occurred over the course of millions of years, not the 150 or so years during which anthropogenic warming has taken place...

don't confuse local warming with global warming...

classic technique from the naysayers - they can pick out every one year anomaly and use it to support their position but as soon as someone says wow - the hottest five years on record have been over the past decade - well, they are the first to scream "that doesn't prove anything, there's no trend, there's no trend, we were cold 750,000 years ago for 3 weeks how do you reconcile that ?"

Those that deny climate change just want to use smoke and mirrors to continually move the goal posts for the burden of proof. Nothing would ever be good enough. Scientists have been digging further and further back into the climatological record and keep coming up with the same answers - but if they give you 10,000 years well that's not enough; if they give you 100,000 years that's not good enough; ok, well we're up to 650,000 years now - yeah but what about 650,002 years ago blah blah blah blah... There was an ecologist (I think) who was quoted as saying we were going to go down in history as a species who studied every miniscule detail of our own extinction... Troll ostriches like "oil" seem to want to guarantee this happens as we roast the planet...

It's all a bunch of nonsense - the whole argument - the case is closed - we have been and are inducing warming. Now we need to figure out how to deal with it

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

fleam on July 17, 2006 - 3:15pm

This is why I don't read WIRED. I knew one of the founders and he's an asshole, and the mag's content has pretty much satisfied me that the rest are too. WIRED is just a Forbes for younger people, consume, consume, consume.

My take on GW is, even if it's not caused by humans, it's proven that human activities can have a great impact on the atmosphere, land, ocean, so "whoever" caused it, there's a wide range of possible responses by us, to either act as responsible members of the biosphere and help counteract it, or act like dumb yeast and help the Earth become another Venus.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Rick on July 17, 2006 - 4:15pm

I think the nastiest (biggest) interaction of GW and PO is going to come from shortages of NG. As a substitute, we'll burn enormous and increasing quantities of coal [pure fossil carbon] for electricity. On average, I expect our "solutions" to PO will make the GW issue far worse.

So I'd add "coal-to-coal" to Alan's list of problem technologies.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on July 17, 2006 - 5:13pm

How about a moratorium on new coal fired plants unless they can be certified to sequester all their greenhouse gases? Clearly, if we take global warming seriously (which Bush doesn't), this would be a necessary beginning. We simply cannot wait twnenty years for all the necessary technology to come on line. Greenhouse gases accumulate; they don't dissipate in any kind of reasonable time frame. GW has already begun, especially in the higher altitudes and latitudes; so we need to cut back now not when the deus ex machina of hydrogen comes.

Of course, we are having power outages as we speak due to the hot weather. Surprise, surprise, July is hot this year. Who knew?

The question, of course, is what could be done to make a moratorium feasible. We could begin by mandating that all new capacity be solar, wind, hydro, or any other methods that doesn't add to the GHG problem. Second, we could require that air conditioners be universally required to cycle off and on during peak times of the days, as is currently done on a voluntary basis in California. No doubt there are dozens of other things that could be done almost immediately.

Where there is a will, there is a way. I know, what a cliche. But in this case, I think it is true. Also, we could shut down the internet. No, just kidding on that last one. But seriously though, there is apparently a lot that could be done to make all those server farms more efficient. The federal government is on the case so I'm sure that problem will be solved in short order.

How many power plants could we save by just replacing all our bulbs with CFLs. Or turning of the lights, for Chrissakes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Twilight on July 17, 2006 - 12:34pm

Problem is that this would stand in the way of such things as a massive switch to coal, and that's the most likely solution to PO that will be followed. So in some regards, the answers (such as they are) to PO and to GW CAN be at odds. Or rather, the most likly answers to PO and GW are at odds.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tstreet on July 17, 2006 - 12:35pm

The solutions are not identical. Although, if you truly deal with GW, you will probably have dealt with peak oil. However, I don't think that people see GW as a threat to their way of life, whereas Peak Oil is. GW is not a solution to Peak Oil because we only operate on fear. Peak oil is scary. GW is not for most people, even though I personally feel that GW is more important and actually more scary.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Triffin on July 17, 2006 - 2:06pm

Don't forget the intended audiences' degree
of understanding of the subject matter ..

From a govenment's propaganda campaign point
of view it's going to be alot easier to rally
the troops around the necessary changes in our
energy habits/lifestyles via the GW argument
rather than the realities of PO/fossil fuel
depletion ..

TPTB have to use a 'cover story' .. I'm just
advocating that GW is what's going to be used
to accomplish powerdown/PO mitigation/fuel
switching etc etc ..

Triff ..

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

homebrew on July 17, 2006 - 1:26pm

Anyone else find it ironic that Subaru sponsored that GW special on Discovery?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

The Interloafer on July 17, 2006 - 1:50pm

Not really. I can't watch TV without being advertised to by automakers. They sponsor everything. All the time.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on July 17, 2006 - 1:58pm

They've traditionally had good envio-cred. They were the car of choice among Sierra Club types, etc. For a 4wd they got pretty good mileage. That was before they started to trubo everything and give everything a 6 sec 0-60. Since then the earthers have been moving to hyrbrids.

Subaru has promised hybrids from time to time (and their parent company makes some for the asian market?), but so far ... they are leaning more toward the performance market in the US.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack Greene on July 17, 2006 - 3:54pm

odograph,

If you live in snow/mountain country (I don't) the outback from Subaru is almost a requirement because of the all wheel drive. Lots in Colorado for example.

Their 2005 Outback met very tough emissions standards in California to make them a "green" car. Interestingly, their Forester did not.

I am a long time Subaru owner (have one now, and six in the past - I need the 4w drive for work) but shortly plan on going for the Ford Escape hybrid.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

davet on July 17, 2006 - 4:07pm

If you live in snow/mountain country (I don't) the outback from Subaru is almost a requirement because of the all wheel drive

I used to live in upstate NY, lots of snow and ice, and while the hills were small they could be steep. Never had a problem in my old Saab. I remember cruising down the MassPike in a blinding blizzard, cars off the road every mile or so, every one of them an SUV -- though I don't remember if any were Subarus ;) I think the 4wd requirement in snow is often more a desire than a need, and too often a crutch to make up for lack of judgment. Having said that, 4wd is definitely a plus, right behind 1. driving technique, and 2. snow tires (it still amazes me how many people won't drop $400 on snow tires for their $30000+ SUVs...)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Jack Greene on July 17, 2006 - 4:27pm

davet,

O.K. requirement is too strong, let us say liked, especially if you do not want to put on snow chains.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jokuhl on July 17, 2006 - 8:34pm

We have a 97 Subaru Legacy All Wheel wagon. Manual shift and windows, no frills.. love it. You have to hop out through snowbanks at least a dozen times in a Portland (ME) winter, and slick and icy streets are almost always managable, as is avoiding all the 2wheel drive cars & pickups skidding around.

Wish I could get it in diesel, and hang out at the dumpsters of all the greasy diners in town.. But we still get low 30's, and use our bikes and sneakers when we can avoid driving.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on July 17, 2006 - 9:05pm

Do you have Michelin Arctic-Alpine tires?

IMO, they are the best.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jokuhl on July 18, 2006 - 12:03pm

Wish I knew.. just got some all-weather radials which are doing great, but haven't kept the brand in mind..

Bob

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

davet on July 17, 2006 - 10:08pm

Well, there's the TDI Quattro ... across the pond (they get all the good stuff!)

Don S: had good luck with Bridgestone Blizzaks, might be newer and better things now.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Don Sailorman on July 18, 2006 - 8:56am

Blizzaks are excellent.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Wolfric on July 17, 2006 - 5:01pm

I live in what you could call northerm Quebec with lots of snow, many snowmobile and I dont know how many mountains.

While I do mostly town or rural trips, I have no need for a Pick-up or a 4WD. I get by (like many other folks around here) with a small Toyota Corrola. Small cars are very popular around here.

When you work as a lumberjack,have week-end leisure or any work in the forest, you need a pick-up.

While I think I could make a difference if they'd use something else, I dont think It would amount to anything significative.

The bulk of our petroleum compsumtion is from forestry machinery and agricultural uses. I know that filling one forest "camp" with diesel for a week need the same amount of liquid than a regular gas station for a full year.

A a side note forest "camp" are much more spacious than they were 30 years ago. They dont freeze in winter, you have to put on slippers after comming in. A large locker room is located next to the entrance, for putting up working clothes. They have satelite TV, phone, highspeed internet, pool tables, large cafeteria with many choices of all you can eat food. Many of food choices are pretty healthy for that matter, even vegeterian menu from time to time.

Ah, cause the times they are a changing!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tom deplume on July 17, 2006 - 7:56pm

I missed the commercial where Subaru tells me to buy a Hummer to restore my manhood.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

tom deplume on July 17, 2006 - 7:57pm

I missed the commercial where Subaru tells me to buy a Hummer to restore my manhood.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

step back on July 17, 2006 - 8:54pm

Did you see that commercial where they tell you to buy a Hummer to "Get Your Girl On"?

"Hey ! Jake was next"
"Well now we're next beeowitch and you're just a loser"
"Oh my. There is a Hummer ad. It shows me how to Get My Girl On. As God is my witness, I will buy that Hummer and never go hungry for status again. Ma loser days are a Gone with the Wind foreever. Jake shall never be pushed or pulled off that pride slide again. Frankly I give a damn. Wheee."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

davet on July 17, 2006 - 10:14pm

And I thought the Chevy Apprentice ads (Hitler liked small cars/Girlie men like Priuses/Go ahead, get 15 mpg/Drop $100 on a tank of gas/Because if you don't/Everyone will think your penis is small. Lots more like that...) were tongue in cheek!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

alan on July 18, 2006 - 12:04pm

what happened to the theory that men buy powerful cars to make up for "shortcoming"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TrueKaiser on July 17, 2006 - 8:53pm

well they did a great job more or less on presenting the problem.
they did forget a few things, they forgot to say after mentioning the natural variance in the earth orbit that it was already ruled out as a cause.
they forgot the mention the major feedback loop of melting permafrost.
but the worst thing of all out of the whole thing is their mention that we can have our cake and eat it too and all you have to do is change a couple little light bulbs, go deeper into debt buying yet another car, wile unplugging appliances when not in use. NOT a single mention of the initial carbon cost(excluding the unplugging, though still it doesn't do a thing to their initial carbon debt.) of everything they tout as a solution which none of them actually do anything to take ANY c02 out of the air.
Hint being carbon neutral is taking OUT the c02 you put in NOT just putting out a little less. It's like telling people they will get out of the hole they are in by using a hand shovel instead of a larger one while they dig.
I hope i will stay alive long enough to be in line for the 'HA-ha' moment.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oaksmoke on July 17, 2006 - 11:16pm

All the talk about GW is just talk. Nothing will be done about GW. PO & Peak energy will hit us so hard that GW will be totally ignored. It really is impossible to damage the planet any more than nature has damaged it in the past. A supervolcano or asteroid would dwarf our damage in an instant. If we had the energy we could move cities and do anything needed to counter GW. Unforunately we aren't even going to have the energy to continue our current lifestyle. I guestimate with a fudge factors I pulled out of my butt that we need to build 100 1 gigawatt nuclear plants a year just to maintain current energy production over the next 30 years. I'm all for it. Let's go nuclear to the max. It's the only way to give us time and prevent death by coal

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oldhippie on July 17, 2006 - 11:59pm

Thank you for pulling that out of your butt. Unfortunately the human species is capable of causing damage on the scale of asteroids or volcanoes.
You might also note that humanity has no possiblity of altering asteroid strikes hundreds of millions of years ago. Altering current behavior is at least a theoretical possibility.
Even if neither you nor I expect it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oil CEO on July 18, 2006 - 3:24am

"Altering current behavior is at least a theoretical possibility." Thank God for your optimism. I nominate that for the daily William S. Burroughs dark-humour-of-the-day award. You guys should work together more often. You generate a certain kind of "energy." I like it. I like it alot.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

oldhippie on July 18, 2006 - 10:55am

Some of the rhetoric around here is overwhelming at times. A guy who talks about pulling fudge factor out of his butt I can deal with. Laughing enough I could care less if he's wrong.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Oil CEO on July 18, 2006 - 3:16am

Hardcore. I tend to agree with you. And so does oldhippie.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on July 18, 2006 - 9:30am

So half my electric power already comes from non-fossil fuel sources. Is that just an accident, or was someone thinking (in California) along the lines of PO and/or GW?

I do remember that alt energy got its big push in the 70s.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.