RE: Life after the oil crash

Glen,

I’m commenting on your response to my comment about the wisdom of being able
to buy strawberries in January when it’s -40 outside (and yes, it was good
to meet you in person after all the e-mail communication over the years!).

I agree that the gummint is not often the most efficient organization. But
it cannot always be a matter of efficiency or lowest cost. Let me use your
example of the mail system. Canada Post is not as efficient as FedEx, UPS,
or DHL. But Canada Post does provide a service at a reasonable cost to all
Canadians, regardless of where they live. I can mail a letter from my PO
Box to the holder of the PO Box next to mine for 55¢. I can also mail an
identical letter from my home town to Inuvik, on the Arctic Ocean. I doubt
if FedEx charges the same (I have never had the need to mail anything to
Inuvik). Now you can argue that, in an ideal system, the price of an item
or an activity should reflect the cost in producing that item or activity.
However, in that case, it might cost 10$ to send a letter to Inuvik from any
location in “inhabited Canada.” That would mean that very little mail would
be sent to Inuvik and that might mean that nobody would want to live there.
Same goes with isolated mining communities in northern Canada.

In most developed countries, it is assumed that the gummint will take on
certain tasks that could just as well, or be done cheaper, by private
industry. The US highway system is a case in point. It might be cheaper to
have all private roads with each owner charging a toll. I remember being
surprised that the sidewalks in Grand Rapids, MI, were a rather motley mix.
It turned out that, at that time and in that part of the city, the sidewalks
in front if a house were the responsibility of the owner. I am used to
having the city or town look after this and I prefer not to have to worry
about it.

You may well be right that “capitalism has done much better than other
systems at providing the maximal amount of wealth for the maximal number of
people.” The problem is, of course, those people who do not fall in the
“maximum” category. That’s why I have suggested that society finds some
way, on the one had, to foster an improved standard of living and, on the
other hand, to ensure that the disenfranchised do not fall between the
cracks.

Getting back to the strawberries, given that we have a limited supply of
fossil fuels, should it be used to ship strawberries halfway across the
continent. But, this question is probably in the same category as asking
why no environmental impact statement is needed before a war is started.

Chuck

  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of glennmorton@entouch.net
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:07 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Life after the oil crash

This is a note to several. First to Chuck, then to Janet (responses to a
couple of emails) and finally to Bob Schneider.

Chuck wrote:

>I can buy strawberries in January when it’s -40 outside. That’s only
>possible because diesel fuel is cheap enough to transport
>strawberries
>from California to Manitoba (and probably because the strawberry
>growers can use cheap labour to pick them).
> Question, is this a good
>use of our resources?

Chuck, First off, after meeting you in PA, it is nice to have a face to put
with your name.

I am not smart enough to know the answer. I do know that when the government
gets involved, usually the results are not very good. Who thinks government
schools are better than upper crust private schools? Who thinks the mail
system is great? Who thinks that government bureacracies are highly
efficient? Usually individual decision makers, all trying to maximize their
personal good are much better at solving problems than one person (or a few)
at the top trying to solve the problem. This phenomenon was why capitalism
has done much better than other systems at providing the maximal amount of
wealth for the maximal number of people. I tried to find my reference but
couldn't. It actually has been shown mathematically that this is the best
approach to finding a solution in a large solution space.

JANET wrote:

>-----Original Message-----

>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>Behalf Of janice matchett
>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 10:37 PM

>Most of the doomsday predictions are based on a very simple fallacy of
>assuming that current trends will continue unless
>something dramatic is done about them, by the ubiquitous but never
>defined "we" or "they."

>

>This neglects Herb Stein’s first law: If something can’t go on forever,
>it won’t. This is true of population bombs, energy crises, budget
>deficits, crime rates, and so forth. ....

I would like to note that the current trend is for more and more oil to be
produced each year. That is the current trend. Running out of energy is NOT
an assumption of the current trends will continue. It is precisely the
opposite.

And as to Stein's law, I think you miss the point. Of course an energy
crisis won't go on forever. If we run out of energy, the population will
plummet until there is balance between supply and demand. This is what
happened to the reindeer on St. Mathews Island.

"An example featuring mammals is provided by the reindeer of St. Matthew
Island, in the Bering Sea (Klein, 1968). This island had a mat of lichens
more than four inches deep, but no reindeer until 1944, when a herd of 29
was introduced. By 1957 the population had increased to 1,350; and by 1963
it was 6,000. But the lichens were gone, and the next winter the herd died
off. Come spring, only 41 females and one apparently dysfunctional male were
left alive (Figure 2)." David Price "Energy and Human Evolution _Population
and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies_Volume 16, Number 4,
March 1995, pp. 301-19

Lichen were the energy source for reindeer. They ran out of it and the
energy crisis didn't go on forever. Stein is right. The reindeer all died
off and balance was re-established and there was no longer an energy crisis.
In case you haven't noticed, the earth is a lush island in an otherwise
hostile universe. Eventually we will use up all the energy or most of the
energy. How do you think balance will be restored at that time?

The only thing which is really at question is WHEN will we run out of those
non-renewable resources, like coal, oil, natural gas, uranium, thorium etc.

IN ANOTHER NOTE JANET WROTE

>>Tjalle T Vandergraaf wrote:"True, any scheme will involve some
>>"skewering of the other guy."
>
>### You have no clue.
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352736/posts
>Janice

Janice, while I don't agree with Chuck's suggestion, he clearly does have a
clue. People who are going without, will do whatever it takes to not 'go
without'. Chuck understand's human behavior better than you seem to.
Humanity does not behave according to political theory--which is what your
post is all about. Your post actually is an indictment not of Chuck's
suggestion but of the free democratic society. In a free society, people are
free get their congressman to do what they want. And if that means making me
a robber baron, all the better. Let's hear it for democracy which allows
money to go to the benefit of the politician so that he will do what the
donor wants. Do I think we should change the system? No, but I am not blind
to the problems. Even calls for electoral funding reform are nothing more
than the losing side wanting to stop the populr side from getting more money
than they get, which is entirely self-serving rather than noble. If they
were the beneficiaries of more money, they would be against election reform.
Mankind has yet to invent a perfect political system.

BOB SCHNEIDER wrote:

>I recall that within a week of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Exxon and other
oil >companies began putting commercials on TV, repleat with scenes of
beautiful, clean >waters, birds, and forests, that pledged their love for
the environment. You'd think >that they were among the foremost
envirnomentalists in the country. Modern >versions of these adds abound on
TV today.

Frankly, I dislike this blame game. Maybe because I am in the oil industry
but I always want to ask, how much petroleum derived food did you eat last
year(think of fertilizers, tractors, etc)? How many fresh veggies are you
going to eat this winter? Do you use refrigeration to keep the food fresh
(or do you eat rotten meat like our ancestors?) How much oil was spent
getting food to your local grocery store? What fibres are your clothes made
of--any rayon in them? Did you use one of those plastic disposable diapers
on your baby(or do you let your baby run around butt naked like they do
here)? How much oil was burned to bring the lumber, plumbing, pipe and
shingles to the place where they used that material to build your house? Did
you take an airplane flight? Did you use heating in the winter to keep you
warm? Does the mail man bring your mail in a truck? Did you drive a car last
year and otherwise give rise to the demand for oil which requires us to ship
oil out of many places, not just Alaska?

When you want to blame someone for the Exxon Valdiz, look in the mirror.
Maybe you are not quite the environmentalist you think you are.

THe oil industry does the very best it can to avoid problems like this, but
like any human endeavor things go wrong--often caused by humans doing stupid
things (like the drunk captain). But Exxon didn't take him to the bar just
before sailing and buy him all those drinks. The last thing Exxon wanted was
to lose several million dollars worth of oil and then be assessed huge fines
and clean up costs. So many seem to think that the oil industry just loves
a good oily beach but all of us in that industry have children and want the
same clean environment that everyone else does. Your kind of blame game
absolves you of any responsibility and you can feel so good (and maybe
sanctimonious) after disposing of your guilt and responsibility for the
need of the oil.
Received on Sat Oct 29 20:46:03 2005