RE: End of Cheap oil

From: Vandergraaf, Chuck (vandergraaft@aecl.ca)
Date: Sat Jul 15 2000 - 12:05:45 EDT

  • Next message: Joel Cannon: "Re: End of Cheap oil"

    Wendee,

    Wendee wrote:
    "Well why don't we just destroy vast wilderness areas like Alaska's Arctic
    National Wildlife Refige? Let's denigrate Creation in the name of the
    world's oil-God!"

    I don't think that Glenn suggested we destroy any "refiges." Au contraire, I
    interpret his e-mail just the opposite way.

    "I've been hearing these stats for some 10-15 years now. You get different
    numbers every few years, projecting the known reserves to last another 10
    years or so. I tend to agree oil will eventually run out, but certainly not
    before big-money destroys all the last great wild places. And if you've been
    to Alaska, you know how absolutely amazing and irreplaceable it is."

    "Known reserves" is a vague quantity and refer, to a large extent, to how
    much people are willing to pay for extracting these resources. For example,
    there is about 1% iron in granite but it's not likely that somebody is going
    to start mining granite for iron. Oil will probably never run out because
    there will always be some left in the earth that is not worth recovering or
    that is politically, environmentally or socially not acceptable. There is
    lots of oil in the Athabasca tar sands but getting it out is not cheap and
    getting it all out is probably too expensive.

    "Halellujia for that!! If only it were so. I wish we could return to
    agriarian societies where we drove horse and cart. That would be so
    incredible. Ah to be able to breathe the fresh air and not asthma-causing
    smog. (and I do live in Houston). More realistically, we will turn to
    electric vehicles, OR natural gas (I didn't notice Electric or hybrids
    mentioned in your alternatives - and God willing my next car will be the
    Toyota Prius - the hybrid electric vehicle that just came out). Yes
    petroleum is also used but if we actually put some teeth into legislation
    that required stricter gas mileage on vehicles, than maybe we could cut
    consumption in half. Oh, but then we hear whining by the billion-dollar
    corporations who will "lose money.""

    You may want to return to an "agriarian" society but, before you do, spend
    some time in China or other agrarian societies. In fact, why not leave
    Houston and head back to the land? There's lots of acreage in places like
    Montana or North Dakota or rural Mississippi. As for electric vehicles,
    this simply is NOT a realistic solution. Where are you going to get the
    electricity? Fossil-fuelled power stations? Hydro? Nuclear? Rather than
    spend your shekels on a Toyota Prius, why not give up cars altogether and
    ride a bike? Recumbent bicycles are extremely efficient, more so than
    upright bicycles. Work from home, shop at your nearest grocery store,
    pharmacy, share rides with your neighbors, rent a car for the occasional
    time you need one. Start a movement to increase the use of public transit,
    for example, by calling for free public transit that will entice people to
    give up their cars. And, for heaven's sake, do not fly anywhere; air planes
    use a lot of fuel and air travel places great demands on our decreasing
    fossil fuel supply. Instead, surf the Net for exotic vacations.
     
    "You really can't make valid assumptions about cycles of cause and effect,
    and what will happen. I hear this type of thing from various environmental
    groups all the time, and while I consider myself an environmentalist, I
    prefer caution and faith. We can't predict what inventions will arise or
    what will ensue. Nonetheless I am *all for* less destructive means of
    transportation that gas-driven autos, tractors, trains, ships. But I'd
    rather pump scientific money into alternatives and innovation than in
    investing money in finding more oil."

    I agree but, before we throw "scientific money" into alternatives, let's
    remember the laws of thermodynamics, two of which can be expressed as
    follws:
    * there is no free lunch
    * you can't even break even
    Keep these tenets in mind when you argue for hydrogen fuelled cars!

    "I don't really see how you can make such sweeping generalizations about the
    future."

    Wendee, I'm going to tell you the same thing I told a "thorough-going"
    anti-nuclear, anti-hydro, anti-fossil fuel environmentalist who prided
    himself on his wood stove, his solar panels and his wind mill: " Walk the
    talk and disconnect yourself from the electrical grid. Until you do, you're
    only paying lip service to the environmental approach"

    "We can use statistics to show about anything we want. Conservation efforts
    can be very much more effective than 25-33%. If we actually spent some
    government money on redoing our architecture, our landscaping, our roofs,
    turned our blacktop to concrete, we could significantly reduce our AC bills
    (there is a major EPA project funding several metro areas to do just that).
    But if it were taken seriously all over along with any number of other
    conservation efforts, we would wean ourselves of the milk of the capitalist
    God. Heck I would welcome a stone age again. Sometimes I think this society
    is set up for self destruction anyway."

    Wendee, I've heard these claims before. Show us how conservation can be
    "more effective than 24-33%" What is "government money?" For example, have
    you done an environmental cost analysis of concrete vs. asphalt? Cost of
    constructing and operating wind mills or solar panels? You live in
    Houston; do you live in an air conditioned house or do you use natural air
    conditioning? Did you know that much of the move of people and industry
    from the "rust belt" of Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, etc. to the "sun belt" was
    made possible because of air conditioning?

    "You go to any number of impoverished nations and the people there are so
    much more appreciative and giving -- when they have NOTHING to give -- than
    we are in our fancy car, fancy house, fancy clothes oil-driven society. What
    is more important -- our economic condition or our spiritual condition?
    Obviously we in America have chosen economics over God in many ways. God
    will bless our society with continued prosperity if it turns to Him and not
    to Oil or Money but I don't doubt your scenarios would strike terror in the
    hearts of those who love their Money! (not that they would be so bad for
    those who love God and have faith no matter the circumstance). With God's
    spirit, Christians can endure any circumstance, any poverty, any hunger, any
    pain. And with joy!"

    That easy for you to say. Are you going to deny people in "impoverished
    nations" the benefits that cheap energy has given us, North Americans? Are
    people in Vietnam not entitled to air conditioned hospitals but Texans are?
    Should people in India cook on charcoal stoves while you use a natural gas
    stove or an electric range? Do you keep your food in a electric-pwered
    refrigerator or in a cool cellar? Are people in Bangladesh entitled to less
    than what you have (even if they are not Christians)?

    "Better start training now for conservation work! :) "

    Wendee, who is stopping you? Get on with it! The kilowatts and gallons of
    precious fossil fuel you save may be freed up for somebody else!

    "In Christ's love (and a slight bit of sarcasm)"

    On a personal note, I think you have shown much more "sarcasm" than
    "Christ's love" in your response to Glenn, especially in your opening
    sentence. That approach blunts your message.

    Chuck Vandergraaf
    Pinawa, MB



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 12:11:51 EDT