Re: Energy Economics In A Vacuum

[sartesian <sartesian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

But of course, the killing for diamonds or petroleum has nothing to do
with the supply of either, but with profit.

As a pro-Hubbert instructor at the Colorado School of Mines said, "Oil
companies have no interest in making oil.  They only care about making
money."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leigh Meyers" <the.buffalo.in.the.midst@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: [PEN-L] Energy Economics In A Vacuum


> ...or should I say Energy Economics as if hydrocarbons, like greasy
> blood  diamonds, are forever.
>
> (In the long run, innumerably more people will be killed, and land
> turned to waste-land, for hydrocarbons than diamonds. So where are the
> newspaper ads begging us to not buy 'blood hydrocarbons'?
>
> Courtesy of Bill Totten @ [a-list]
>
>
> What if the Oil Runs Out?
>
> Though the government is planning a massive expansion of transport
> networks, it has never considered this question.
>
> by George Monbiot
>
> Published in the Guardian (May 30 2007)
>
>
>
> Motorised transport is a form of time travel. We mine the compressed
> time of other eras - the infinitisimal rain of plankton onto the ocean
> floor, the settlement of trees in anoxic swamps - and use it to
> accelerate through our own. Every tank of fuel contains thousands of
> years of accretions. Our future depends on the expectation that the
past
> will never be exhausted.
>
> The energy white paper the government published last week talks of new
> taxes, new markets, new research, new incentives. Anyone reading the
> chapter on transport would be forgiven for believing that the
government
> has the problem under control: as a result of its measures, we are
> likely to see a great reduction in our use of geological time.
>
> But buried in another chapter, and so far missed by all journalists,
> there is a remarkable admission. "The majority (66%) of UK oil demand
is
> derived from demand for transport fuels which is expected to increase
> modestly over the medium term". {1} To increase? If the government is
> implementing all the exciting measures the transport chapter contains,
> how on earth could our use of fuel increase?
>
> You won't find the answer in the white paper. It mysteriously forgets
to
> mention that the government intends to build another 4000 kilometers
of
> trunk roads and to double the capacity of our airports by 2030. Partly
> to permit this growth in transport, another white paper, also
published
> last week, proposes a massive deregulation of planning law {2}. There
is
> no discussion in either paper of the implications of these programmes
> for energy use or climate change. There are plainly two governments of
> the United Kingdom: one determined to reduce our consumption of fossil
> fuel; the other determined to raise it.
>
> What happens beyond the medium term is anyone's guess {3}. But it
should
> be pretty obvious that more roads and more airports will mean that our
> rising use of transport fuel becomes hard-wired: the future health of
> the economy will depend on it. So the government must have examined
this
> question. If our economic lives depend on continued growth in the
> consumption of transport fuels, it must first have determined that
such
> growth is possible. Mustn't it?
>
> Last week I phoned four government departments (trade and industry,
> transport, environment, communities and local government) in the hope
of
> finding this assessment. It does not exist. No report has ever been
> commissioned by the British government on the issue of whether or not
> there is enough oil to sustain its transport programme.
>
> In full, with cites:
> http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/05/29/what-if-the-oil-runs-out/
>