"Drill, baby, drill"

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

There will be no "shit hits the fan" moment. Take a look at the shift from coal to natural gas.

Coal is not a crisis moment though, is it? We still use it. A lot. It is not scarce enough to price us out of the game. Consumption has only dropped somewhat because of natural gas.

So the transition is not because we NEED to but because we could (driven partially by past high coal prices).

What you are talking about is when oil become scarce enough that we NEED to switch fast. By your own words, you have said that we don't need to work on alternative fuels until that point. So coal/natural gas is not really the same thing at all.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,120]

>No, let the free market work.

Agreed! Stop government subsidies and supports for all forms of energy. Set a standard for emissions and then hold everyone to the same standard. Then let the market decide.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>No, let the free market work.

Agreed! Stop government subsidies and supports for all forms of energy. Set a standard for emissions and then hold everyone to the same standard. Then let the market decide.

I agree - except we need to ensure that the entire world does it. Especially China.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 444]

No, it is exactly the same thing. We did not switch from coal to natural gas because we ran out of coal, we switched because natural gas is more economical. The same thing, THE EXACT SAME THING, will happen with petroleum. As nascent technologies mature they will become more competitive, just have the courage to let it happen.

[billvon 3,120]

>I agree - except we need to ensure that the entire world does it.

We are not the policemen of the world. All we can do is what's right for us. Sure, we can (and should) encourage, set good examples, develop the technology they can use, work through global organizations and treaties etc. But it is not our role to impose anything on them - just as we would not accept them imposing their solutions on us.

[turtlespeed 226]

billvon

>I agree - except we need to ensure that the entire world does it.

We are not the policemen of the world. All we can do is what's right for us. Sure, we can (and should) encourage, set good examples, develop the technology they can use, work through global organizations and treaties etc. But it is not our role to impose anything on them - just as we would not accept them imposing their solutions on us.

If it will make no difference - Or rather no discernible difference, then why spend the money?

If you need something to keep you warm, Will a 5000 dollar Armani hand woven wool blanket make you warmer than 500 10 dollar blankets?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,120]

>If it will make no difference - Or rather no discernible difference, then why spend the money?

Because

1) It will make a difference and
2) Other countries (like China) are doing it as well.

>If you need something to keep you warm, Will a 5000 dollar Armani hand woven wool
>blanket make you warmer than 500 10 dollar blankets?

I'd prefer a good $50 blanket myself.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

If it will make no difference - Or rather no discernible difference, then why spend the money?

What money are you spending when you stop paying subsidies?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

quade

***What is artificial about the lowering of oil prices? The Saudis are playing bare knuckle capitalism and the the consumer benefits. "Invisible Hand" read about it.

Conspiracy, collusion, price fixing is not capitalism. It's criminal. At least in the US.

Your business and my business can't get together and say we're going to drive a third business out of business.

Ummm....

No. Cartels and monopolies are capitalism.

They are the "dark side" of it, but they are most definitely "capitalism". They are a part of it that hurts consumers in the form of high prices (due to absolute power and total control) in order to enrich the owners of the companies.

Look at the US in the "Wild West" days of capitalism. Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, that crew. They pulled every dirty trick in the book and got rich doing it. Teddy Roosevelt and his "trust busting" tactics made it illegal here in the US, and benefitted the average citizen greatly.

Which is a good thing. Don't misunderstand. I don't like cartels, monopolies and unrestrained, cutthroat capitalism any more than total socialism, communism or facism.

But the dark side of capitalism is most definitely capitalism.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

No, it is exactly the same thing. We did not switch from coal to natural gas because we ran out of coal, we switched because natural gas is more economical. The same thing, THE EXACT SAME THING, will happen with petroleum. As nascent technologies mature they will become more competitive, just have the courage to let it happen.

With government aid. Nearly every energy innovation has had subsidy and government aid help. Because no one wants spend billions to make something that someone might want to buy way down the road when it is needed. Most companies, beholden to shareholders who want to see profits now, don't think in long terms like that.

If you removed all of these, you would see development speed up only at crunch time. And probably miss the mark when it is needed.

You can't just remove all the help and expect the free market to do anything but worry about now. Unfettered capitalism is not forward-thinking.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,120]

>With government aid.

Exactly. The railroads didn't dominate early transportation in the US because they offered a cheaper service than horse drawn wagons - they got their start because the government, realizing the value of an extensive system of transportation, gave them the land on which to build (i.e. subsidized their infrastructure.) Likewise, when it became apparent that road vehicles were coming of age, governments again built roads for everyone to use.

Similarly, we will need infrastructure in the future. For solar/wind to become a significant fraction of our generation, we will need high voltage DC backbones covering the country, so that during a storm in Texas, San Antonio can draw power from Phoenix, and Phoenix can store its excess in Lake Mead. To deal with rising sea levels we'll need better levees and programs to relocate/replace utilities, roads and railways. New systems of transportation may need inductive roadway chargers, or catenary systems, or rights of way for new rail lines/tubes/roads.

By investing in that infrastructure, as we have done innumerable times in the past, we make it possible for technologies/modes of transportation/energy sources to compete on a level playing field - and that means that you don't need subsidies to force one (that doesn't yet have the infrastructure it needs) to be competitive over existing ones (that have already had that infrastructure built out.)

[brenthutch 444]

Why can't you self loathing doomsayers just be happy for another half a century of low oil prices. You were wrong about peak oil, you were wrong about catastrophic global warming. Just be happy that you were wrong. "Warmest year ever" = record food production, end to the California drought, fewer tornadoes, more polar bears. The US is now the biggest oil producer on the planet. Lower energy prices help EVERYONE! Just swallow your pride and be happy.

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

Why can't you self loathing doomsayers just be happy for another half a century of low oil prices. You were wrong about peak oil, you were wrong about catastrophic global warming. Just be happy that you were wrong. "Warmest year ever" = record food production, end to the California drought, fewer tornadoes, more polar bears. The US is now the biggest oil producer on the planet. Lower energy prices help EVERYONE! Just swallow your pride and be happy.

You have a funny idea about what a doomsayer is.

You think not wanting a boom/bust cycle and desiring a sustaining energy source is doomsaying? Planning is doomsaying?

Well, no wonder we are having this debate. You want a shitty future.

My bad.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,120]

>Why can't you self loathing doomsayers just be happy for another half a century of low
> oil prices.

Hmm. I've never said "doom" and I don't really loathe myself so I'm afraid you are, once again, completely wrong. Sort of a defining characteristic of several of the climate change deniers here.

>You were wrong about peak oil, you were wrong about catastrophic global warming.

Where did I say that the warming would be "catastrophic" for everyone?

>"Warmest year ever" = record food production, end to the California drought . . .

Drought isn't over. But at least you are admitting that the climate is indeed warming. Progress!

[BartsDaddy 7]

brenthutch

end to the California drougut.

I live in southern California, that drought ain't over. Northern California got average rainfall,after years of below average. Southern California is still below average. We are still in a drought.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>With government aid.

Exactly.

So now you are for subsidies? The oil companies will be very happy to hear that you want the government to pay for their pipelines.

[GTAVercetti 0]

brenthutch

***>With government aid.

Exactly.

So now you are for subsidies? The oil companies will be very happy to hear that you want the government to pay for their pipelines.

He has always been for subsidies, I think. Mostly because that is how every step forward in this sector has been made.

I don't like speaking for him, but I am pretty sure he was being a devil's advocate.

Bill will surely correct me if I am mistaken. Probably in a very polite and reasonable fashion too.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[brenthutch 444]

To paraphrase a great man; the leftist position is: if it works tax it, if it works very well regulate it and if it does not work subsidies it.

[kallend 2,150]

brenthutch

To paraphrase a great man; the leftist position is: if it works tax it, if it works very well regulate it and if it does not work subsidies it.

Ah yes, the Saint who initiated the shift of national wealth from the middle class to the top 0.01%, who illegally traded with Iran and armed the Contras. Who armed Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Whose economic policies led to the the Savings and Loan meltdown...

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

So I will put you in the "America was better under the Carter administration" column.

Soviet invasion of Afganistan
Stagflation
Iranian revolution
Iranian hostage crisis
Contras
Etc etc....
The seeds of your discontent were sown during the Carter years my friend.

More
"Facing an Islamic revolution, the Shah appealed to Carter for help. On November 4, 1978 U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski called the Shah and said the United States would "back him to the hilt." This would never be the case. Brzezinski insisted to Carter that the U.S. must encourage the Shah to "brutally suppress the revolution".

"State Department officials believed Carter should reach out to the Revolutionaries in order to smooth the transition to a new government. This was a deciding moment in world history. Carter decided not to take either recommendation and to this very day, the world is suffering the consequences of his indecisiveness."

[wmw999 2,589]

Except that those seeds were sown long before Carter.
Iran -- we didn't like heir government in the 1950's and put the shah in. That went well.
Stagflation -- probably started under Nixon, was well underway under Ford (remember the WIN buttons? Whip Inflation Now).
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? Why -- the Soviets weren't scared enough? Ya know, other countries don't always base their actions on the US.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[brenthutch 444]

wmw999

Except that those seeds were sown long before Carter.
Wendy P.

Perhaps, however they were certainly fertilized and watered under Carter. You make a good point though, it is rarely as simple as Democrats/Republicans are good/bad. For example the spending on the military under Reagan contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union under Bush the resulting "peace dividend" was recognized during the Clinton years.

[kallend 2,150]

This is interesting: apparently Trump's campaign manager has been a lobbyist for green energy, and in particular for a solar energy company.

www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/trump_campaign_manager_is_a_lobbyist_who_has_never_won_an_election.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

All the more reason to oppose Trump.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

More
"Facing an Islamic revolution, the Shah appealed to Carter for help. On November 4, 1978 U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski called the Shah and said the United States would "back him to the hilt." This would never be the case. Brzezinski insisted to Carter that the U.S. must encourage the Shah to "brutally suppress the revolution".

"State Department officials believed Carter should reach out to the Revolutionaries in order to smooth the transition to a new government. This was a deciding moment in world history. Carter decided not to take either recommendation and to this very day, the world is suffering the consequences of his indecisiveness."

The world is not suffering the consequences of Carter's non-interventionism. The world is suffering the consequences of Eisenhower and Chruchill's interventionism. Dismantling a democratic Iranian government and creating a dictatorship for no other reason than western greed and selfishness.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?