Here is the pitch from Mr Michael Lind. The basic thrust of the article is that there is enough stuff in the ground to give us six times the reserves of natural gas as we thought there were ten years ago. And, additional oil is a side benefit. To quote the author's "bottom line":
We may be living in the era of Peak Renewables, which will be followed by a very long Age of Fossil Fuels that has only just begun.Why is this bad news? It is bad news because there are folks out there who will go into overdrive to make sure we don't exploit this potential source of energy. Forget the bad economy and the millions across the world living in poverty. We don't want to see fossil fuels exploited.
I wonder if there has been a study of the impact on longevity if we have to cut back on energy production?
Hat tip to Ann Althouse.
Regards — Cliff
2 comments:
It's astounding to me, what with the Exxon Valdiz grounding, the Deepwater Horizon blowout and the various meltdowns at Chernobyl and Fukushima, that people are still calculating energy costs based on marginal production expenses, and not the full accounting of the true magnitude and impact of the issue.
The national security interest alone in micro-generation and renewable resource utilization should make wider adoption the law of the land, and not just a hippie-dippie pipe dream. But, as always, lazy people looking for the easiest way out will mumble inanities like "drill baby drill" and we will ever remain on this treadmill of foreign dependence, astronomical environmental costs, and insolvent national finances.
I don't disagree that all sources of energy should bear their social costs. I am all for a 50¢ tax on each gallon of gas, to help cover these social costs. I would add two caveats, the first being that the tax collected should go into a real "lock box" so that it doesn't get squandered. The second would be that it should be rebated to those earning less than $35,000 pa.
And, I think the tax structure for the extractors should be examined, to see how it encourages or discourages production of energy. That is a job for the US Congress.
On the flip side, I think that we should ask the economists to help us calculate the social benefits of various cheap energy sources. For instance, do we really save lives by having Trauma Centers and quick access to Emergency Rooms? If so, then we have fossil fuels to thank for it up to this point plus at least another ten years, when the new clean energy alternative comes on line.
In fact, I think that the "Precautionary Principle" could result in a decline in the improvement of life on this planet.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment