-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Al Gore has always gotten climate change, global warming, and CO2 levels. He "got it" before I did. The carbon dating of the ice-core samples was enough scientific data to prove to me, engineer that I am, that the CO2 levels are exponentially increasing due to man's activity on Earth: specifically burning fossil fuels. The ice caps shrinking, glaciers receding, ocean levels rising, the threat it all poses - I buy it. He was spot-on. Gore deserves the Nobel Prize and the Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth". He has led the way.
However, in some ways, Al Gore has done a disservice to his own cause by warning about the consequences of global warming instead of the realities of worldwide oil production versus demand. As I have said for years now, the biggest, most imminent threat to the US economy and indeed to worldwide civilization as a whole, will be the inability of worldwide oil production to meet worldwide oil demand while our economies is still oil based.
Global warming or climate change, however one chooses to refer to the "phenomenon", IS real and IS happening. However, it will not pose a serious threat to our economy or our lives for another couple of decades. Oil, on the other hand, has the potential to wreck havoc on our economy, our way of life, and our entire civilization by 2015 if we continue to do nothing. That is only 7 years away.
Don't believe me? Listen to T. Boone Pickens or read the speeches of the CEO's of ConocoPhillips (COP), Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.A) or AmaradaHess at last year's economic forum in Davos, Switzerland. Any one hear Dow (DOW) CEO Andrew Liveris discuss why his company is having to raise prices? These are all oil experts and they are pointing at 2015 (give or take) as oil supply/demand "D-day" and strongly suggesting we begin to do something to prepare us for this reality.
We're seeing the very real effects already today - but people want to erroneously blame it on speculators, "big oil", politicians, etc. Very few, for whatever reason, want to believe in peak oil (even though it has happened in reservoir after reservoir all over the world), or the fact that just maybe the US isn't entitled to cheap and convenient oil for the next 200 years. Being 4% of the world's population and using 25% of the world's oil production (importing 65% of that) leaves the US the most exposed and the most threatened by the realities of worldwide oil production and demand. This as billions of Chinese and Indians are trading in bicycles for gasoline (oil) powered automobiles. Still, we ignore the facts and continue merrily on our way.
By focusing on the "environment" instead of the "economics", Gore has allowed the ideologues and industrialists to pooh-pooh him. End result: we don't have a comprehensive energy policy like the one I have been pounding on the table for years to adopt.
Meanwhile, oil is at $130/barrel, gasoline at $4/gallon, the S&P is on the skids (returning nearly 0% over the last 10 years), the US trade deficit balloons as we send $750 billion dollars (and rising...) every year to foreign oil producers, inflation is raging (but the Fed can't raise rates), and of course as a result, the US dollar is down 50% since Bush took office. Still, our "leaders" cannot or will not see the wisdom of enacting a comprehensive energy policy to regain control of our economy, our financial future, and our national security.
For the first time that I can recall, Al Gore emphasized the oil based economic realities in a speech given in Washington this past week as evidence to back his environmentally based proposals. For years I have been trying to get his "global warming" group to focus on the economic and national security aspects of our oil based economy as a way to solve the climate change issues they are so rightly concerned about. As Gore himself admitted in his recent speech, the solutions to both are the same.
I wonder, if the global warming crowd spent half their resources educating the government, media, and public about the realities of worldwide oil supply and demand, would we be farther ahead in our switch to alternative and clean energy? I suspect the answer is "yes", but we'll never know.
Regardless, I think it is becoming too clear to the environmental crowd that the most imminent threat to the US, its economy, its way of life, and indeed its future is its reliance on oil, 65% of which is imported and which will be harder and harder to obtain in the future as worldwide oil supply fails to keep up with worldwide oil demand. Even the environmentalists in California are ready to support off-shore drilling now that their gasoline is over $4.50/gallon. Amazing how economic realities tend to focus ones perspectives.
Meanwhile, investors should take advantage of the recent energy market "correction" and simply load up on energy related investments. Oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, you name it. We are in the very early stages of the final fossil fuel driven energy crisis which will play out over the next 10 years or so.
Unfortunately, if policy makers wait for economics to dictate enacting an energy policy like the one I mentioned above (click the link, read it, bookmark it, send it to your friends and politicians), it may well be too late to make the change. We need to be making the change now. If Gore, the Alliance for Climate Protection, and his advocates would focus on the economic impact of declining oil supply/demand fundamentals as much as they do the environmental impact of burning fossil fuels, perhaps they just might get the changes they so desire.
At this point, I bet a lot of investors who have gotten burned by the S&P 500, a shrinking US dollar, and rising inflation would probably be willing to listen. I hate to say I told you so, but to quote an old Cajun friend of mine, "I tole ya I tole ya I tole ya".
Disclosure: Long COP
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largest
increase in followers
in the last 7 days-
1
David Fry
-
2
Bill Gross
-
3
Tyler Durden
-
4
TraderMark
-
5
Peter Schiff
Fastest Climbers » -
1
-
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 72 comments:
With this and him getting us out of the Kennedy/Johnson War in Vietnam, the one world government had to get him out of office for supporting his friends regarding a petty, silly breakin which only resulted in getting a list of Washington hookers.
But take away the energy and we find ourselves back in the stone age or worse. Pretty quickly. Some will adjust to that condition too. But before we get there there will be hell and high water. Too many lives are supported by usage of energy of scale.
As far as I am concerned I will take a few foot of high water anytime over a war about energy resources. We better get energy independent in all aspects including getting our hands on all carbon sources available in this country. (Long offshore drillers).
Not sure if you are right with the idea that pressure sqeezes the CO2 out of ice. High pressure typically favors CO2 absorption in (liquid) water. But if you freeze carbonated water, you will find that most of the CO has gone.
Make an experiment with a beer in your freezer. Taste it before and after and you will notice the difference.
Since you've 'got it', let me pose a question for you to ruminate on:
As far as scientists can tell, since the Earth came into existance, the climate has been much warmer, much colder, glaciers and ice caps have been much bigger and much smaller, it's been wetter and dryer, so at our current incredibily small snapshot of global climate conditions, why is our current climate (or what it was 200 years ago), the way it is 'supposed' to be?
If the answer is, "this is the way 'we' want it to be.", then if you and I disagree, why is your rational and scientific evidence any more valid then my rational and scientific evidence?
Interesting questions for the thinking man, don't you think?
Free Power Forever
nlspropulsion.net/Docu...
Freefall51 - What have you got against energy independence and nuclear power?
According to energy investment banker Matthew Simmons, global oil production is now declining, from 85 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time demand will increase 14%.
This is like a 45% drop in 7 years. No one can reverse this trend, nor can we conserve our way out of this catastrophe. Because the demand for oil is so high, it will always be higher than production; thus the depletion rate will continue until all recoverable oil is extracted.
Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.
We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside," and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.
This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: www.peakoilassociates....
I used to live in NH, but moved to a safer place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area, good climate with much rain and good soil?
I got absolutely nothing against energy independence. I am all for it.
I have my own experience with nukes though. I was living in Munich when Tschernobyl happened. Mr. Zimmermann, the Bavarian Minister of the Interior at that time and the epitome of an idiot, signaled immediately, no problem, this is 2000 km away. Guess what, the wind turned from West to East and brought rain and thunderstorms. The outfall spoiled pretty much everything growing in the open. For weeks and months you would listen horrified to the radio announcing the doses of Becquerel on your salad, in your milk, mushrooms or venison. You would ask yourself, do I get terminally ill if I eat this or that. Well, I am still there;
I am not even against nukes, as long as the efforts to run that technology safely match the risks. It is a challenge but if we put the best brains together and treat the technology with the utmost respect it can be done. But if something goes wrong expect a lot of Zimmermanns coming out of their holes.
Michael, go suck an egg
I believe that global warming or climate change or whatever we want to refer to it is real. I believe the ice-core sample data, and I looked at two independent sets of data and understand that a third set exists which matches the other two. I also believe my own observations about what is happening in the world today. Everyone understands that climate change is cyclical. That is basic. What I believe is that burning of fossil fuels is releasing so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the cyclicality is now around a rising temperature trend line, and the slope of that trend line will exponentially increase as man increases fossil fuel usage. I'm an engineer, and I took thermodynamics and know a little bit about system analysis, so, consider this from just an objective viewpoint:
1) man burns 85 million barrels of oil a DAY (really think about that, we throw these numbers around, but imagine 85 million barrels of oil lined up on your local interstate highway....every day).
2) man burns who knows how much coal a day, most of it dirty
3) at the same time of 1) & 2) we have seen, and continue to see, deforestation of the Earth
how can the combination of 1,2, and 3 NOT have a materially impact on CO2 levels? and rising CO2 levels have been proven to affect global climate.
So, feel free to throw your arrows my way, I can take it. At the same time, I just keep watching the ice-caps melt away, the number of major storms worldwide increasing every year, temperatures increase, and drought and water problems multiply across the planet.
All that said, the real point of the piece is this, and alot of the comments prove it: the global warming argument is a polarizing one which prevents the REAL crisis (oil supply not keeping up with oil demand) from being addressed. We have oil at $130/barrel today and there are no real shortages yet. Wait until shortages begin to appear and panic sets in - then you'll see the price of oil really sky-rocket. At that point, I bet alot of people who doubted global warming and didnt want to do anything about it will wish they had supported it because of the economic and social disruption we are going to see due to our dependence on oil, and the subsequent lack sufficient quantities of it in the very near future.
The Arctic has been ice free many times in the last 10,000 years alone. the ice cap on Mars is shrinking. Its a natural solar cycle.
we are being mislead by world-wide activist organizations and governments that global warming results from human activity.
That is false. "Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules Climate Change". A report by this title that can be downloaded from sepp.org
But we are running out of oil bi time and you are so right. This is the big problem.
there's tons of oil in America but Congress has locked it away.
Here is my transport energy plan; www.strategicnine.com/...
> jack
inscon: the ice core samples are hundreds of *thousands* of years.
john: you're right, there's alot of heat...most of it caused from high (and growing quickly) CO2 levels trapped in the atmosphere.
CLH: unfortunately, at this point, your comment is incorrect because nuclear can't solve the oil based transportation problem because we don't have a sufficient electric or hydro or nat gas (or other) based solution and infrastructure to replace the gasoline powered automobile. nuclear electrical generation could free up some nat gas, and my energy policy is all for it:
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
fireball and every one else: of COURSE climate change is cyclical, no one argues that. what we are arguing about is that the cyclicality is now around a rising temperature trend line whose slope is increasing at a rate not seen in hundreds of thousands of years of data. it is pretty much a scientifically proven and accepted theory in the scientific community - even the US government's scientist. that said, cheney has been snuffing out the data and the comments of our own scientists' reports.
Following through on Mr. Gore's idea of generating ALL energy from renewable sources in 10 years would crater the oil bubble. Additional drilling wont have nearly the same impact on oil prices.
Besides, look at the daily oil chart. The trend line has been broken to the downside, it's going down in the short run at least.
People are simply too locked into their own POVs, unwilling to question them, and unwilling to work out and resolve conflicting data -- other than to ignore what doesn't fit into their own preconceived notions and trumpet the "truth" of their own "opinions" and the "lies" that others believe.
There are solid economic reasons to get off petroleum ASAP, by any and all means. No one method is likely to prove viable by itself. But instead people quibble about the finer details of a question that probably cannot be definitively answered for a thousand years, when it will be too late to do anything about it if they are wrong.
Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life on THIS world (or at least in short order the little that exists will expire).
Perhaps one could make the case that the additional sunlight is being converted to infrared when it hits the ground, and held in by clouds. There is data that shows a statistically significant correlation between cloud cover and temperature for the week that air travel was grounded following 9-11, the cloud cover being a direct result of contrails and water vapor from combustion directly contributing to cloud formation. But that argument leads back to our use of petroleum-based fuels, so I doubt that you want to go that route.
In any event, it is clear that the thing being modeled (the planet) is a WHOLE lot more complex than a ball with incident radiation impinging upon it. Possibly more complex than we are capable of understanding.
That means the "cause" of global warming could be any or all of a huge range of things, and not attributable to any one thing, but possibly interruptible by altering a few key things. News flash -- we cannot alter the output of the sun.
While a runaway greenhouse effect may or may not eventually occur, the consequences of it happening are significant enough to deal with it as if it were going to.
And in any event, LONG before we get to that stage, we will have seen widespread climate change, possibly the desertification of most of the places where we grow food, amid an exponential increase in the number of mouths demanding to be fed.
1) get off the petroleum economy, ASAP. Jack up taxes to discourage consumption, offer incentives to use other energy sources.
2) start conserving energy via more efficient designs for appliance, homes, cars, etc.
3) begin rebuilding the deconstructed passenger rail system, as in short order we will not be able to fly except via nationalized airlines, paid for from our tax dollars
4) get serious about nuclear power -- overhaul the bureaucratic nightmare makes it take years to get anything approved. Create workable "standard" designs and USE them, instead of having each one be a custom design with its own learning curve.
5) follow T Boone's lead on windpower and natural gas -- not that it's the only solution, it just seems likely to produce results in short order
6) crank up tax incentives for people to install PV solar and convert our national centralized power generation network into a decentralized one, with the utilities acting as brokers instead of sources. Perhaps we need to separate those roles, with separately-owned power grids.
7) invest in long-shot R&D efforts, like the Bussard Polywell fusion reactor (google it). If we can spend billions year in and year out on Tokamak research, we can kick in the $200M to see if his prototype scales up.
8) throw out the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (with the Enron loophole), so that our national energy markets are not "gamed" by investment bankers and hedge funds.
(9 I was going to say to investigate Bush & Cheney for treason and war profiteering, but I'm starting to foam at the mouth, so I'd better stop here.
Re forecast shortages of oil. Reminds me of my University Lecturer on the topic of Corrosion early 1960 - "if the world doesn't control corrosion of iron products the world will run out of iron before the end of the century". Over the next 5 years enough iron ore was found in western Australian alone to supply the world for hundreds of years. Much more has been found in the same State over the past 40 years. When oil explorers are freed from the shackles imposed by Governments I have no doubts additional large fields will be found. Emotive responses have sidelined uranium from discussion over past 40 years. It's time for it to return to the mainstream of debate.
Far from the earth heating up, facts from the past 10 years show otherwise, it's been cooling! Like everything to do with the Universe cycles exist everywhere, even in climate. Old Testament book - Ecclesiastes speaks about the seasons and the times to sow, reap and cast out etc and concludes: "there is nothing new under the sun". Quite clear - it's all happened before. Lets face it, man wasn't cause of the previous cycles so what was? Methinks political spin is being used for ulterior motives.
I live is Sydney, Australia and much of OZ has long coastal foreshores. If sea levels were going to rise, due to icecap melting in the near term, then we could expect an exodus to higher ground. Strange, no ones selling - in fact prices continue to rise [not sea levels], so punters believe otherwise. I think the punters are on the ball and far from convinced.
I resent the mention of President Bush in the article in how it was referenced. It was like, 'yeah well Gore got it wrong but Bush is to blame'. Typical Democrat, blame the realists when the dreams of socialistic utopia evaporate!
In 2002, the Cheney energy bill was introduced which included drilling in ANWR, offshore and an increase in coal liquification, nuclear plant builds. 92% against for Dems, 89% for Republican. You need a 60% supermajority to pass a bill. In 2004, President Bush went public, saying we needed to end our addiction to oil. Or let's bring up 1997 when ANWR was voted yay by both parties, but President Clinton vetoed it. Al Gore himself mentioned breaking the oil addiction on his election platform in 1999 and trumpeted coal liquification. So for Al to act like coal & oil are evil now just simply demonstrates his failed attempt at being the global tax collector and his entire party squarly in the camp of being looked at as loons. Meanwhile, some folks from the Sierra Club are flying around in private jets to further lobby Washington to do nothing on energy. Yeah, very bright Al Gore and Dems. The approval rating of this Congress says it all: 9%. President Bush: 23%. So the Democrats are good for nothing and the Republicans good for very little.
P.S. "Red" Greens! I love it, buddy. Thanks!
I should have been less cryptic, consider, whether or not one believes in significant human causes to global warming (it is warming) it seems we all should agree that it's in our national interest to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Imported oil contributes to lots of our other problems IE geopolitical, military, economic, environmental, etc. Wouldn't be a bad thing to work on these and in the process reduce co2 levels too, you think?
AlGore does not even get the basics right. The concept of global warming is based on the idea that greenhouse gas, the CO2 from your car, is bottling up the heat of the earth by capping the radiation. Heat radiation takes place in infrared or near-infrared, spanning a wavelenght spectrum from 1 - 350 x10-6 m. CO2 adsorbs photon radiation at two discrete wavelenghts 4.26 and 15.00 x 10-6 m and it gets warmer by getting excited. This is of course reversible. This also implies that most of the infrared radiation of the whole IR spectrum goes past the CO2 unfettered into space. The idea that CO2 can retain the heat of the earth is the equivalent of the attempt to stop a water flow with a sieve that has only two strands. This is pure nonsense.
Re Silex Systems Limited [SLX] - I have to be honest - I don't know anything about it except for that available on the Australian Securities Exchange website. Herewith link to SLX:
www.asx.com.au/asx/res...
Thought our All Ordinaries Index bottomed on July 16 but how SLX fits into that cycle I have no thoughts. Good luck.
Global warming is making a lot of green for him.
He gets anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000 for a single talk on global warming. No wonder he did not want to run again for president and get only a measly $200,000 year.
You would think someone worth $100 million would do these talks for free, especially if he really believes in the them.
Matthew Simmons does all his talks on Peak Oil for free.
So, my question is, ( because I like investments better than politics) long term, and tax issues aside, are the CanRoys still a good investment? Any ideas?
1. I don't think Al Gore gets Peak Oil - - or at least he's not willing to come out and say the words. Read his proposal; there's not a hint of the idea of the finality of a production peak anywhere.
2. Fitz-man, your energy plan has one short paragraph on electrified railroads. Alan Drake has set out a comprehensive proposal on Electrified Railroads at www.theoildrum.com/nod... that you could borrow from to expand your plan. He makes the case that, even using coal-fired power plants, CO2 pollution from electric rail transport is substantially reduced from that emitted by any fossil-fueled truck transport. The potential energy savings from expanding electric rail are massive.
Open your eyes, look past political issues, and read about climate change until you can article your point past the one point that really doesn't mean much "the climates always changing". Sure its always changing but we're headed towards- unseen since Dinosaur Times Earth and it's changing faster than ever.
Ignorance won't isolate you from the problems.
I think we will run out of hydrocarbons before there is a real threat of world endangerment . The real problem is running out.
spike: the reason i mentioned the californians was that, i just recently saw a poll where for the first time since the santa barbara beach spill, a majority of those in california were favoring off-shore drilling. personally, i don't think we have a choice. we can either get serious about energy, or, watch our economy, currency, and way of life dissapear. it is that critical IMHO. time will tell...
fireball: welp, like i said, i've made up my mind on global warming and the scenario 1,2,3 in my earlier comment has yet to be addressed by anyone on here. the amount of CO2 released by man's burning of fossil fuels, combined with the planet's continuing deforestation, mesh with the ice-core data samples. couple all that with the common sense observations any aware human can easily see about what is going on currently with our planet is enough to convince me of the problem. that said, REGARDLESS of the global warming debate, the point of the article was we kill two birds with one stone (although some say only one bird...) by addressing the oil supply/demand problem, which is the most imminent threat to the US.
lentz: i think the debate is comical as well. you tell me where all the additional CO2 from burning 85 million barrels of oil and millions of tons of coal a day are going? at least we agree on transitioning away from oil as most of your points are in my energy policy as well.
jackooo - they should have raised gasoline taxes in the 1990's when oil was cheaper. they should still raise taxes on gasoline...over time..gradually..with plenty of warning...to provide the kick in the ass Americans need to face reality.
maximo: *think* - that is good advice. nobody's thinking these days...everybody just has their agenda. i mean people still think george bush is a "conservative" republican. but he's not. he's grown the US government the biggest its ever been, taking away our liberties and privacy, grown the biggest fiscal deficit in history which has caused the US dollar to drop like a rock, opened our borders to illegals while proclaiming to be the leader of the war on terror, and cratered 50 years of American foreign policy. there is nothing conservative about bush - he's the most radical president we have ever had. yet, people still "think", he's a "conservative" republican. he isn't. i am.
mcgregor: "man wasnt the cause of previous cycles, so what was"? well, as many have said, the Earth's climate is cyclical and there are many reasons for previous changes (volcanoes, meteor strikes, etc. etc). that said, these changes happened at specific times due to specific stimuli or, over hundreds of thousands of years. what we are seeing now is, over just the past 100 years, is an exponential growth of CO2 in the atmosphere which is NOT the result of a meteor strike or a bunch of volcanoes going off. what we are seeing now is the effect of burning 85 million barrels of oil a DAY and burning millions of tons of coal a DAY while at the same time the Earth's forests are being cut down to grow crops or harvest wood. the ice-core samples very clearly point out the exponential growth in CO2 in just the past 100 years so, compare that to the data from the last hundred thousands years and you will begin to comprehend.
thinkbig: if you were thinking big, you would see that george bush has done more to make us the socialistic utopia that you mention. we have the US dollar down 50%, we have the gov. taking over publicly traded firms on wall street and bernanke and paulsen wanting the gov to take over even more control of the financial system, and you have the gov now able to tap your phone conversations and basically do anything that want with what should be private data. so, think about all that. bottom line is this: under bush, the middle class has been gutted bigtime while the ultra rich are harvesting the country's wealth (i am not talking about people with a million or two dollars (they aren't rich, they just think they are), i am talking about the people with hundreds of millions and billions of dollars). that leads to a stratified social system where control is easiest to implement (especially via energy and food prices and availability - which is the next phase of their grand plan). thus why it is so important to get an energy policy in place, and thus, why those in charge are dragging their feet on it. their policy is to let the disaster unfold so they can "govern" by catastrophe. read the "shock doctrine" by naomi klein.
maximo: your last comment was dead on and better said than my article which was my attempt to make the same point.
fireball: the poles ARE melting and there will soon be only 1 or 2 more glaciers in "glacier national park". these are facts, not opinions...
freefall51: i, and the nobel prize committee, disagree with you. even bush has finally admitted global warming (or as he says, climate change) is a real phenomenon. i thought the leader of the "republicans" finally conceeding would bring along his troops just like rush limbaugh does, but, reading these comments, apparently that's not enough. maybe a few more years of evidence will bring those slow to embrace science around to reality.
calvin: unfortunately, wrt to a real energy policy, i would agree with you and it's gonna get ugly over the next decade.
mcgregor: tell the folks down in south florida and southern california that are fighting erosion of their seaside property that ocean levels are not rising and storms are not more destructive than in years past.
longoil: banging al gore on the money question is similar to banging t. boone pickens on his energy opinions because he can make money on the conversion to wind energy. as pickens said the other day on CNBC: "money?? i HAVE plenty of money! i am doing this because i am an AMERICAN and i care about the country my children and grandchildren will inherit". what about people who just plain give a damn? there are some you know.
optionsgirl: i'm glad that you like reading me. we are far apart on economics? so, you like big fiscal deficits, a weak currency, and tax breaks for billionaires? if you like bush's economics...they've been just great for the S&P500 huh? ok...sorry..i'll behave ;) you ask: at what point will it be unonomical to develop canadian tar sands? won't happen. they are in for the long haul and the oil majors all know it which is why they are investing there. COP is even going to work on a pipeline all the way to the gulf to refine the sludge. i think canroys are a good play for US investors because the canadian loonie will continue to show strength against the weak US currency, which in my opinion can only weaken further due to the policies of the administration. just put it in your IRA so you can get the favorable tax treatment. on specifics, i still can't detail it out cause i've been on an extended vacation and haven't had time to research them. but, i will soon.
kebu: all for electrified transportation...actua... any kind other than gasoline fired. it's in my policy.
morgan: i can't believe we are either! :)
lonie: well, i disagree. just because oil supply won't keep up with oil demand doesn't mean the world still wont burn millions of barrels a day for decades to come. and coal will continue to be relied on since we are sooo slow to deal with the energy problem in a realistic fashion and because of china. so, there are definitely enough fosil fuels to roast the planet. that said, i believe the economic and social turmoil due to the oil "problem" will happen first.
I give you credit that you blog something that gets that many controversial comments and that you then even feel compelled to comment on them. That is fun.
That said, the fact that you have to cite the judgement of GW Bush to make your case for global warming is actually a case against it.
fireball: thanks for the kind words and the comments. wrt carbon dating of the ice-core samples, a few things are very interesting to me:
1) carbon dating has been an accepted scientific method for quite some time. it's been used in many varied geological and archaelogical situations without being questioned.
2) the carbon dating data of the ice-core samples prove and match the cyclicality of the Earth's climate history which so many people point to as saying "it's all just cyclical". yet, when this same technique also shows CO2 levels rising exponentially in the last 100 years, all of a sudden there are many theories as to why that data is "flawed"
3) the ice-core samples have now been tested by multiple independent international scientific groups, and they are all in agreement (99% anyhow). the only groups or scientist that i know of are the ones like the MIT guy who has been accepting money from XOM for years. he is pretty much marginalized by all credible groups, including the US governments own scientists, whose reports on global warming are very conclusive (at least before cheney altered them).
To put it in undestandable terms. When you run your car inside a closed garage, CO will accumulate and in about 20 to 30 minutes you will die from carbon monoxide poisoning.
The earth is like a big super duper enclosed garage enclosed by the forces of gravity. At the rate we are burning fossil fuels, it will be about 80 to 100 years before most animals (includes humans) on earth will choke and die. However, this will never happen. why? Because in a few years time, within the next 10-20 years, the climate pattern on earth would have changed so much that our ciites will experience more and more extreme weather like more powerful typhoons, tornadoes and hurricanes, more dry weather in formerly moderate areas and more extremely wet in other areas causing flooding and drought where there it has not happened before. There will be extreme snow fall but for short periods in some areas. Weather patterns will change at a rate much faster than people can adjust. The result - less harvests in farm lands, flooded cities, destroyed man made structures everywhere. This has been happening for a number of years now. An example of this is the Mississippi which is flooding again only 13 years after the last one. The cycle is getting shorter all the time as we continue to burn hydrocarbon.
With all these changes comes changes in insects and diseases. More of them are moving north as the weather pattern shifts. Diseases will cause more people to get sick and/or die.
I other words, the people population on earth (the root cause of climate change) will start to decline and the CO2 generation will decline with it. The earth will self correct our man generated excesses.
How do we prolong the good living on earth as we know it today and pass it on to our next generation? Start reducing our consumption of hdrocarbons fast and bring down the population growth to a more sustainable level. Who decides where the sustainable level is? Mother nature will determine that of course!
thefitzman.blogspot.co...
however, from a humane perspective, i am against enforcing a population control policy. at the same time, i am a big fan of education...and if we only had world leaders that would discuss the energy, pollution, and natural resource strain of population growth, perhaps it would help.
You are mistaken to put T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore in the same boat as per your remarks of Jul 22 10:07 PM
I have the highest respect for T. Boone Pickens. He is taking a great risk with his money and other investor's money and is certainly entitled to reap the rewards from his wind farm project. His project will have a definite effect on reducing America's dependency on foreign oil
Al Gore on the other hand is taking zero risk and making a lot of money from his powerpoint slides and generating zero value. I am also annoyed that he got a Nobel prize for very little sacrifice on his part. Mother Theresa lived in poverty her entire life and helped millions. Martin Luther King Jr. died for his cause and Nelson Mandela spent 30 yrs in prison. I do not believe Al Gore deserves to share the company of these great people who sacrificed a lot.
I have read your energy policy and I am in agreement with 95% of it.
1) I disagree with your advocacy of Hydrogen. I put it in the same boat as corn ethanol. Both have a negative EROEI.
2) I don't think drilling ANWR and the US coast is a good idea for now. Drilling those regions is a short term solution and would create a false sense of security. I think continuing the ban would strengthen the focus on long term solutions like conservation, higher CAFE standards and alternative energy sources. I think it is better to keep those regions for future use and let Saudi Arabia and other ME countries drain their reserves.
My last Al Gore comment on this blog trail.
T. Boone Pickens is "Doer" and Al Gore is a " Talker"
I do believe climate change is a real, I just don't like Al Gore (in his 10,000 sq ft mansion) getting rich off it.
1) it effectively "stores" the energy created by wind for use in those times when the wind doesn't blow
2) it is a potential for transportation, yet today, i agree is not cost effective or very user friendly.
to ignore an "energy" element like hydrogen, that is in such abundance in the universe, would be a mistake IMHO
wrt drilling: i didn't want to drill either, and i didn't want to use nuclear either. the problem is, we as a country have wasted sooo much time getting an energy plan together and implemented, we are facing economic ruin. from my analysis, we are going to need every bit of energy, from all sources (including nuclear and CS oil) in order to keep the economy from imploding. perhaps i am just a pesimist on the matter, but i started this rant 4 years ago, and everything i have seen (falling US dollar, an S&P500 that has been dead money, rising inflation, and of course, skyrocketing energy prices) simply reinforce my condidence that i am correct. it helps that pickens, mulva, and the CEO's of royal dutch, hess, and dow chemical are now saying similar things.
wrt respect to al gore, your comments and others to this thread effectively prove the point of my article: al gore and his advocates for whatever reasons are divisive - many people just don't buy it due to al himself, the science which they question, or whatever reason. the foreign oil economic argument is something more people will respond to. read my latest submission to SA to see why the pickens approach is better (if they publish it).
let's just agree to disagree on al. were it not for his efforts to publicize this crisis (i.e. a doer), alot of us might still be in the dark, or at least many years behind. look how far behind we are in spite of all his work. also, i am sure pickens has a big house or two himself :)
Thanks for the detailed reply.
There are not too many options to store electricity effectively from wind or solar sources. There is already a shortage of key elements (i.e. lithium) used in battery production for hybrid cars (e.g. the Prius), so batteries are not a good option on a large scale. Ultracapacitors might be a good energy storage medium, but I believe the technology is still in its infancy.
I do enjoy your articles, keep up the great work !!
I look forward to your Pickens article.
User217130: what is "ME geopolitical issues" and why does an oil correction of 20% after rising 500% mean that the theory is incorrect? oil is still over $100/barrel...nigeria is blowing up pipelines...one in turkey went up...iraq is still unstable...russia is at war in the caspian sea area and worldwide supply/demand is the tightest ever. please explain your viewpoint with more substance and maybe you can convince me i am wrong. it will take more than a sentence though....