Peak Oil Peters Out: Neo-Malthusian Cult Website The Oil Drum Shuts Down

PeakoilPaulfleet/dreamstimeThe Oil Drum (TOD) was founded and frequented by believers in the theory of peak oil, the hypothetical point at which the world's oil supplies go into irreversible decline. Peak oil devotees typically predict that apocalyptic economic consequences would follow hard on falling crude supplies. In a note to readers TOD contributor and co-founder and former President of ASPO Netherlands (Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas Netherlands) Rembrandt Koppelaar explained:

A few weeks ago the ISEOF board (The Institute for Energy and Our Future that facilitates The Oil Drum), Euan, Super G, JoulesBurn, and Myself, met to discuss the future of The Oil Drum. A discussion we have had several times in the last year, due to scarcity of new content caused by a dwindling number of contributors. Despite our best efforts to fill this gap we have not been able to significantly improve the flow of high quality articles.

The folks over at Marketwatch at the Wall Street Journal speculate:

With news of record-breaking North American oil and gas production seemingly every day, maybe it just got too hard to maintain a site devoted to the notion that the world’s oil production was at or near a peak.

You think? As long as people remain free to benefit from their creativity, then Malthusians will always be wrong.

For more background see my post, "Remembering 'Peak Oil' Madness," and my articles, "Political Peak Oil," and "Peak Oil Panic."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Despite our best efforts to fill this gap we have not been able to significantly improve the flow of high quality articles.

    So, Peak Retard?

  • Paul.||

    Apparently, they ran out of even that. See: lack of contributors.

  • Ralfy||

    Actually, they have a lot of contributors. And even outside the site, one will find dozens of reports on the issue from international banks and other sources.

  • Sevo||

    "So, Peak Retard?"

    Nope. Ehrlich is still getting ink.

  • ||

    Jerk store called and they are running out of Malthusians.

  • GILMORE||

    Funny...I sent the article to my Peak Oil-ranting buddy with the title "Peak Retard passes without comment".

    I suppose it is the most obvious first thought.

  • Paul.||

    One wonders, what will they do now that they've not only reached, but passed Peak Retard. Will they go to Alternative Retard?

  • Paul.||

    Now that I'm thinking about it, the possibilities are endless.

    Wind and Solar Retard, Retard rationing, perhaps even a Retard Cap and Trade scheme. Hybrid Retard! I think this is a great opportunity for a Green Retard revolution. Green Retard jerbs for everyone!

  • Wind Rider||

    They went full retard.

    Never go full retard.

  • Independent||

    "So, Peak Retard?"

    Clearly the comments in the curiously named "reason.com" disprove that.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Drink! But don't address actual ideas.

  • ||

    ...to scarcity of new content caused by a dwindling number of contributors. Despite our best efforts to fill this gap we have not been able to significantly improve the flow of high quality articles.

    These guys are really, really obsessed with the concept.

  • Knarf Yenrab (prev. An0nB0t)||

    My theory is that the editor discovered the concept of economic scarcity and price systems in a single afternoon and, in a road to Damascus moment, packed it in.

  • Paul.||

    If that's true, we can conclude one incontrovertible fact: Tony is not the editor of Oil Drum.

  • Swiss Servator - past LTC(ret)||

    Tony is the editor of Derp Drum.

  • Independent||

    Yep, something will ALWAYS pop up as an alternative. Like for instance, if oil were to rise from $27.69 to $87.13 in 10 years - more than tripling in price - there is no question that we would transition off of oil to something else and the price of oil would plummet.

  • marxist slayer||

    Not sure what decade you're living in but the current price for a barrel of oil is $106.

  • Independent||

    I was using sarcasm.

  • Independent||

    Actually, more correctly called "irony".

  • ||

    As long as people remain free to benefit from their creativity, then Malthusians will always be wrong.

    Well there probably is a hypothetical limit to how much oil there is....the problem with the oil drum is nearly every bit of evidence available has been telling us carbon fuel is currently no where near that limit.

    Also we did run out of dodo birds...so it is possible.

  • Ron Bailey||

    C: And yet dodos were theoretically a renewable resource.

  • Rich||

    Peak Retard!

  • DontShootMe||

    Even the Penguins of Madagascar couldn't save the Dodo.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Unless something is a "resource" that's of actual practical use to humans, there's no reason for humans to put any effort into saving it.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You have to think of a limit in terms of what can be reached, not how much is in the ground.

    [O]il reserves should not be thought of as physical entities. Rather, they are economic judgments: how much petroleum experts believe can be harvested from given areas at an affordable price. Even as companies drain off the easy oil, innovation keeps pushing down the cost of getting the rest. From this vantage, the race between declining oil and advancing technology determines the size of a reserve—not the number of hydrocarbon molecules in the ground. [. . .]

    [N]atural resources cannot be used up. If one deposit gets too expensive to drill, social scientists (most of them economists) say, people will either find cheaper deposits or shift to a different energy source altogether. Because the costliest stuff is left in the ground, there will always be petroleum to mine later. “When will the world’s supply of oil be exhausted?” asked the MIT economist Morris Adelman, perhaps the most important exponent of this view. “The best one-word answer: never.” Effectively, energy supplies are infinite.

    Any talk of reserves has to be thought of in terms of what can be reached with modern technology rather than thinking of it as an estimate of how much there is. It's an estimate of how much we can extract.

  • marxist slayer||

    People need to rethink the origins of oil. Oil is not decayed plants and dinosaurs but rather a product of the earths core constantly being renewed. Link follows-http://viewzone.com/abioticoilx.html

  • Independent||

    As long as people use wishful thinking over logic, then they will continue to believe in infinite growth in population and consumption.

  • Independent||

    "Well there probably is a hypothetical limit to how much oil there is"

    Well, I will give you credit for at least raising the possiblity that it is a finite depletable resource.

    "the problem with the oil drum is nearly every bit of evidence available has been telling us carbon fuel is currently no where near that limit."

    Spot price of oil is currently over $100. Ten years ago we were down around $30. We are at over $100 and Europe and the US still have economic problems.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Shirley there's another cause they can drum up to make money or fame or whatever this was all about.

  • Paul.||

    Yes, too much oil. See: Ehrlich's prior complaints about the dangers of endless, low-cost energy.

    And quit calling me Shirley.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Bingo. And despite fully admitting that the US will be on the receiving end of a global economic boom, Charles Mann at The Atlantic goes by the theory that it will mean DOOM to the planet because lots of cheap hydrocarbons will undermine the economic incentive to use renewables.

    It's an incredibly lucid article for the most part (there is lots of great information that takes actual, real economics in to account), but in the end resorts to the idea that CC will win in the end.

  • Sevo||

    "Charles Mann at The Atlantic goes by the theory that it will mean DOOM to the planet because lots of cheap hydrocarbons will undermine the economic incentive to use renewables."

    He's right! If we have a lot of something, we probably won't spend a lot of money trying to find a replacement for that thing!
    Why didn't I think of that?

  • Warrren||

    We haven't started looking for another source of retard yet so that puts the lie to all y'all's peak retard theories.

  • Sevo||

    Warrren| 7.12.13 @ 7:21PM |#
    "We haven't started looking for another source of retard yet..."

    Don't have to. Shithead, murkin and shreek show up with no effort on anyone's part.

  • Independent||

    Doesn't FoxNews have a mailing list we could use?

  • Ralfy||

    The point is wrong due to lower energy returns and steeper decline curves.

    The IEA has a much better assessment of the situation, i.e., a small increase in energy produced even at maximum depletion rates while facing increasing demand.

  • Agammamon||

    Contrary to what Shirly says in her comment, I was completely surprised that my mother's boyfriend's ex-college roommate's son's latin teacher's gay daughter's straight lover could make $umpteen billion dollars per hour working on the internet. Check out www.gofethyourself.com for more details.

  • Warrren||

    Ha ha!

  • Invisible Finger||

    Peak oil is a physical certainty - if trends do not change. A mighty big if.

    The more important point is the ECONOMIC PANIC!!!! that is predicted if trends don't change. Simply put: it doesn't follow that economic catastrophe occurs after the peak is crossed. If that were true, it wouldn't be "peak" oil, it would be "cliff" oil. Since they weren't going to convince anyone of "cliff" oil, rational thinking slowly but surely caused contributors to see the reality rather than the fantasy.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Most economic models tend to assume that no alternatives exist and that people won't change their behavior in response to price signals. Which is why predictive economics is barely distinguishable from bullshit.

  • Warrren||

    There are no substitutes for anything Hugh.

  • Paul.||

    There are substitutes for Retard, why not Oil?

  • ||

    It's time to switch from Retard to Derp.

  • Paul.||

    It's time to switch from Retard to Derp.

    This statement is profound. But will Derp be subsidized?

  • Agammamon||

    Coupled with peak oil proponents inability to understand the difference between proved reserves and how much oil is actually inexistence.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Wait, what? Plenty of economic models do just that, and more besides. Besides, many basic models are meant to be illustrative rather than descriptive (holding other factors constant to concentrate on relevant economic analysis and not get bogged down in priors).

    That's an inaccurate characterization of the field (though it is an accurate characterization of Erlich's way of thinking).

  • Ralfy||

    Actually, economic models assume the opposite, which is why most are skeptical of peak oil.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    With news of record-breaking North American oil and gas production seemingly every day

    And this is with incredibly high levels of burdensome regulation, taxation, and constant floating of more of the same for producers in this field. Look at Russia: they had a terrible economy and still mismanage it, but they did quite well by simply using the energy resources they had at hand. North Dakota's economy grew five times faster than the rest of the nation doing the same. With out economy tanking now is the time to get some common sense and allow producers to tap into our resources.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/0.....index.html

    President Obama says the economy and jobs are his first priority. We can look internationally and within our own nation like places like North Dakota and see what supplies jobs and makes economies boom. And President Obama floats imposing 'windfall taxes' on these people, increases regulation on them and denies them projects like Keystone. This is reason enough no one should ever believe what that man says about anything.

  • Ralfy||

    Unconventional production has high productions at the start, but are affected by low energy returns and steep decline curves.

  • BladdyK||

    This is too bad. I thought it was an informative site about the energy industry.

  • Tony||

    Malthusians are wrong until they're right. Resources get depleted. People fail to plan for it, and people die--and sometimes entire civilizations collapse. In fact, petro cheerleaders specifically advocate not planning for it. I guess believing in the magical market means never having to ask the question "what if there is no magic?"

  • #||

    I know economics isn't your strong point tony, but oil isn't just going to suddenly stop flowing one day.

    As the world approaches the limit, the cost of producing additional marginal oil will gradually increase over time as new sources become harder to get. This will in turn gradually drive the price up, which will then gradually induce better extraction techniques, conservation, completely new technologies and energy types and so forth.

    People fearing sudden end of oil catastrophies are worrying about the sky falling.

  • Tony||

    Sudden is a relative term. As resources deplete, problems will increase. There is absolutely nothing wrong with planning for something that is inevitable.

  • Paul.||

    You can't plan without a market. When you don't know what things cost, you don't know what the most efficient alternative is.

    When you believe that Wind is 'cheaper' than oil, you deplete resources pursuing things like Wind because some politician somewhere tricked you into believing it's cheaper by writing you a check on the back end to cover the price difference.

  • Tony||

    There is no "market" in oil! It is an absolutely controlled cartel.

    This isn't even planning as you would for sustaining a resource like water. It's a resource that is finite. Peak oil is something that will happen. Waiting for the market to tell you when it's happening is probably to ensure a lot of preventable problems happen.

    Apart from all this, we know we need to stop burning fossil fuels anyway, even if there were 1,000 years' supply left, because it's damaging the planet.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 5:58PM |#
    "There is no "market" in oil! It is an absolutely controlled cartel."

    "Oil prices surge above $106,..."
    http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/1.....index.html
    Is it possible for you to post something without lying, shithead?

  • Tony||

    On energy libertarians are the biggest hypocrites in the world.

    The types of energy you favor are ones whose supply is controlled by totalitarian states organized in a cartel, or whose existence entirely depends on government grants of special limited liability.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 6:05PM |#
    "On energy libertarians are the biggest hypocrites in the world."

    When you have no evidence, why, make up lies!

  • #||

    The ironic thing is that one could argue to global warming people that OPEC through manipulating the oil price is already inadvertently correcting for the negative externality by driving the price up above cost.

  • Sevo||

    You could also argue that they reduce overpopulation by committing suicide!
    But somehow, they want others to die.

  • Paul.||

    There is no "market" in oil! It is an absolutely controlled cartel.

    Yes there is, there is a global market for oil. The Red Staters who talk about 'oil or energy independence' are equally bamboozled by this. There is no discreet U.S. market for oil. It is a global market, end of discussion.

    Like healthcare, it's a heavily regulated and subsidized market, so we aren't sure what the real price for oil is, but we see it go up and down, so one can reasonably know what's going on with supplies.

    Peak oil is something that will happen. Waiting for the market to tell you when it's happening is probably to ensure a lot of preventable problems happen.

    Sudden is a relative term. Oil won't run out suddenly, supplies will begin to trim, and if the price of oil is left unsubsized (relatively), its price will creep up.

    Witness the rise of oil and gas prices over the last decade, and compare that with sales of alternative and high-mileage vehicles. That's planning, right in your face.

    Apart from all this, we know we need to stop burning fossil fuels anyway, even if there were 1,000 years' supply left, because it's damaging the planet.

    This is a different discussion. It's like moving the goalposts.

    "We're at PEAK OILZ! We must find an alternative"

    "Actually, we may have about 6800 years left."

    "Who cares! It's destroying the planet"

    "So you admit this really isn't about Peak Oil"

    "Your shoe's untied!" *runs away*

  • Irish||

    Shouldn't liberals love peak oil? If it's true, it solves the problem for them.

  • Agammamon||

    "There is no "market" in oil! It is an absolutely controlled cartel."

    Wow, you *are* a complete idiot. Where's Tulpa, he's only a half-idiot.

    Who controls this cartel of yours? Last I checked oil was a fungible commodity. Meaning that your cartel would have to control oil production in countries as politically diverse as the United States, Russia, Venezula, and the Middle East.

  • Generic Stranger||

    OPEC does dick with the market, but they're not the only players, so they can only mess with it so much before shooting themselves in the foot.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 5:51PM |#
    "Sudden is a relative term. As resources deplete, problems will increase"

    Yep, why when rocks became scarce, we had to start throwing spears at each other!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    And by planning you mean restricting, right? Restricting production efforts and the jobs and economic benefits that come from it. Thanks a lot.

  • Tony||

    Personally, I mean spending billions or trillions of dollars if necessary to find alternatives that will make the burning of fossil fuels for energy go the way of horse-drawn buggies. It has to happen apart from considerations of how much is left. The market is not the only thing that can innovate, and in this case especially, it can resist innovation tooth and nail if innovation leads to fewer profits for the beneficiaries of the status quo.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "I mean spending billions or trillions of dollars if necessary to find alternatives that will make the burning of fossil fuels for energy go the way of horse-drawn buggies"

    Anyone is free to spend in that fashion, but you mean spend other people's money, right?

  • Tony||

    Since it's in every human being's interest, I suggest simple old taxation is in order.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 6:06PM |#
    "Since it's in every human being's interest, I suggest simple old taxation is in order."

    Peddle your religion elsewhere, shithead.

  • Paul.||

    Since it's in every human being's interest, I suggest simple old taxation is in order.

    One wonders how I would know what's in my interest without you providing the guiding hand.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Since it's in every human being's interest"

    Prove it - with unequivocal and absolute definitiveness

  • JamesR||

    What? So um who's interest is this not in? Because if I ran Exon Mobile, and Peak Oil means long term irrelevancy for my company and my children who will inherent part of it wealth, I might take an interest in it.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 6:04PM |#
    "Personally, I mean spending billions or trillions of dollars if necessary to find alternatives that will make the burning of fossil fuels for energy go the way of horse-drawn buggies."

    Personally, I think you should spend as much of your money as you wish.

  • R C Dean||

    You know what oil resource was economically important, and was depleted, without any particular dislocation outside the industry that produced it?

    Whale oil. As it depleted, substitutes were found.

    Huh. And you know what? That's the only plan we need for oil depletion: an economy that can bring substitutes to market when it makes sense to do so.

    There. Crisis planned for. You're welcome.

  • Tony||

    So what's the substitute? More magical market thinking.

    Nothing ever goes wrong in your world except when the government does anything.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 6:07PM |#
    "Nothing ever goes wrong in your world except when the government does anything."

    Not too far off, shithead.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Did you even read RC Dean's post?

    What was the "substitute" that needed government managing when whale oil became depleted? I guess we should have started putting job killing restrictions all over the place and initiating big government R&D programs to prepare for the end of Big Whale Oil, because without that surely we would have reverted to living in caves or something.

  • Paul.||

    So what's the substitute? More magical market thinking.

    What's the substitute for reading comprehension?

  • Irish||

    So what's the substitute? More magical market thinking.

    What did people think the substitute was when we were using whale oil? It's not magical thinking, it's a basic understanding that no one can know what the substitute would be until it is developed.

    You're the one with magical thinking, since you apparently believe that our admission that we aren't precogs capable of accurately predicting future energy needs is some sort of flaw in our argument.

    It's not a flaw. The flaw is in your thinking that human beings can accurately predict future energy needs well enough to plan decades in advance.

  • Jordan||

    It's hilarious that he thinks the fact that humans can't predict the future is evidence in favor of central planning.

  • #||

    It is rather ironic. Government officials are apparently super human.

  • AlexInCT||

    No he is not hilarious, he is hoping enough people are stupid enough to allow people that believe like him to take control of every aspect of our lives and turn us into serfs of the state. Fuck people that think like Tony.

  • Sam Grove||

    So what's the substitute? More magical market thinking.

    Your magical thinking is that politicians (mostly lawyers) understand economics better than you, that we can plan ahead in a chaotic world, that value is automatically created whenever politicians control the distribution of resources.

    Your big problem is that you believe you understand economics and markets.

    You don't.

  • Ralfy||

    Actually, this will be critical for the next two decades, as explained by the IEA in its 2010 report.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well said.

    With whale oil depletion we didn't stop needing or using sources of illumination, making soap, etc.

    Now in the context of whales you might say it's sad to use them to extinction.

    But even if oil were totally depleted, should we shed tears for that?

  • ||

    But even if oil were totally depleted, should we shed tears for that?

    When an alien race comes calling for whales it's going to be problematic. Clearly Kirk will be able to fix it, but we'll be inconveniencing him.

  • Ralfy||

    Oil is critical compared to whale oil because much of manufacturing and food production is dependent on it, and we are in a global economy that has much higher resource requirements and greater complexity.

  • Independent||

    "As the world approaches the limit, the cost of producing additional marginal oil will gradually increase over time as new sources become harder to get. "

    Did you notice oil more than triple in price from 2003 to 2013?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Well let's see.

    Not only is there plenty of actual oil, there are plenty of fossil fuel resources that can be converted into synthetic gasoline - such as coal.

    The Germans were doing that back in WW2.

    Natural gas can be converted into synthetic gasoline as well in addition to being burned directly as a fuel source. Fracking technology is producing lots of it.

    And then there is the truly enormous amounts of frozen methane locked up on the ocean floors all around the world.

    Deep sea drilling companies are already looking at ways to tap into that.

  • Ralfy||

    The problem isn't oil no longer flowing but demand exceeding production, production not catching up even with better techniques due to the physical limitations of the resource, the lag time involved in using other sources of energy as well as energy traps, and even coordination and cooperation between businesses and governments to ensure a smooth transition.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Malthusians are wrong until they're right.

    IOW they're always wrong.

    People fail to plan for it, and people die--and sometimes entire civilizations collapse.

    CITATION NEEDED

  • ||

    Don't Maltoosians claim or predict we're bound to run out of food?

  • Zeb||

    I think that was supposed to happen some time ago. Woops.

  • Agammamon||

    Erlich, the grand prophet of the current malthusians predicted exactly that in his first book 'the Population Bomb' in 1968. When did he predict widespread death and the collapse of civilization?

    the 1970's

    'The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate. . .'

  • Swiss Servator - past LTC(ret)||

    Norm Borlaug, FTW!

  • CE||

    Some of us believe in the magic of free markets and human creativity. Others believe in mythical beings. Others believe in things like AGW, despite the evidence.

  • Sevo||

    Yep, shithead, the stone age ended when we ran out of rocks.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You don't think that as a resource becomes more scarce that the resource becomes more valuable which spurs producers to find more of it and come up with more efficient ways to use it or develop alternatives? There's nothing "magical" about that, just logical.

  • Hopfiend||

    seems there are folks with the concern and significant resources that could put $$ to soup coolers and fund some research. I believe there is money to be made on the next revolution in energy sources...

  • Tony||

    And there are hundreds of species that would be extinct due to poaching and other human activities that aren't because legal protections are in place. Plenty of species didn't make it. Markets are not so magical that they absolutely always head off resource depletion and the harm that causes.

    Not to mention burning fossil fuels is destroying the environment.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 5:53PM |#
    "And there are hundreds of species that would be extinct due to poaching and other human activities that aren't because legal protections are in place."

    Like cows, shithead?

  • Sevo||

    "Not to mention burning fossil fuels is destroying the environment."

    Yes, brother tell it! When is the rapture?!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I'm not sure you can equate animal species with other natural resources. I like animal species, but what happens with them is that when one goes extinct we found other species or synthetic alternatives to what they offered. Now, like I said I like animals so I guess it is sad if this or that species goes extinct. But if we depleted oil to the point where our economy hummed on natural gas or some alternative not predicted yet would that be some tragedy?

  • Tony||

    So because a particular natural resource is useful, that means it won't run out?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That's not at all what I'm saying. The animal species we depleted were useful to us too. When they ran out we didn't stop or want for the uses we put them to did we? We just found other ways to meet those uses. The same will happen with any fossil fuel, but we won't have an extinct life form to even be a little sad about.

  • Tony||

    So why can't we work on finding other ways now? The market doesn't innovate, people do.

  • Jordan||

    The market - like soylent green - is people, dipshit. Your question would be more appropriately rewritten as: "Why can't we put a gun to peoples' head to force them to work on other ways that I approve of?"

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 6:08PM |#
    ..."The market doesn't innovate, people do."

    Oh, LOOK! Braindead non-sequitur!

  • ||

    There you go. In the flesh. "Market doesn't innovate, people do.." A progressives - not a true liberal - a progressives irrational take on things.

    The market is made up of...anyone? Bueller? Willis? White Goodman?

    That's right...

    PEOPLE!

    When you go to a, say, fruit market. Who's there selling fruit? Carrots? Marketinians? Ogres?

    No! People!

    People grow fruits, not markets!

    Wait. Markets grow produce in Progressiveville.

    God.

    It never ends.

  • Agammamon||

    The market, idiot, is what give people the information they need to know *where* to put the resources needed to innovate.

    Right now the market is telling us that we're not in any danger of losing our current main energy sources - that spending resources on solar, wind, whatever alternative *now* is taking resources away from innovation in areas that we need more immediately.

  • Greg F||

    that spending resources on solar, wind, whatever alternative *now* is taking resources away from innovation in areas that we need more immediately.

    The real sad part is the "alternatives" are not really alternatives. A real alternative would be something that is stored energy. Wind or solar can only supplement a stored energy source, they cannot replace them.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 6:00PM |#
    "So because a particular natural resource is useful, that means it won't run out?"

    So because you're an ignoramus you can't post without lying?

  • R C Dean||

    I would say that, yes, if a particular natural resource is renewable, and it is useful and therefor has economic value, its survival is assured.

    http://www.wildlifeextra.com/g.....ng.html#cr

  • Zeb||

    Yep. Hunting preserves are what is going to save the large mammals of Africa. And hunters are pretty much the best conservationists in the US too.

  • Independent||

    And what if it is a finite depletable resource? Should we still think of it as an infinite resource?

  • Paul.||

    It's the market that helps us plan for Peak Oil. As prices rise, those things are called 'price signals' which alert the world that something with Oil is amiss, and then lets us pursue alternatives.

    Unfortunately, Obama/Gore types immediately swing into action and create price controls because hey, good, hard working people are getting gouged at the pump.

    If you paid any attention to the Soviet Union, you know what happens next.

  • Tony||

    We do not get price signals on oil because the price of oil is absolutely controlled. When the day comes that the price is out of control of the states and entities that currently control it, then it will probably be too late to head off problems that could have been prevented for by planning.

  • Paul.||

    We do not get price signals on oil because the price of oil is absolutely controlled.

    You're getting there, Tony. You're so close. You're so close. It's like seeing your kid walk for the first time!

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 5:54PM |#
    "We do not get price signals on oil because the price of oil is absolutely controlled."

    So, of course, shitheads propose more control!

  • Jordan||

    We do not get price signals on oil because the price of oil is absolutely controlled.

    Complete bullshit.

  • Hyperion||

    Notice how the trollusk keeps repeating the phrase 'plan for it'? He means the big centralized sort of planning, of course. The kind that always destroys everything that it touches.

    Yes, let's plan to make the situation way more fucked up than could occur naturally. Great idea. Why didn't Congress think of that?

  • Irish||

    You think the price of oil is absolutely controlled? Were that the case, why are there oil price fluctuations? Wouldn't this magic cartel deciding what oil prices are keep those prices as high as possible at all times?

    The fact that oil prices change as a result of things like unrest in the Middle East, increased demand, and the discovery of new oil sources pretty much proves that your argument for oil price fixing is a blatant lie.

  • Tony||

    Yes prices are set by supply and demand. Thing is, OPEC controls the supply, and there isn't significant competition (it being a cartel) to make such a thing as "price signals" mean anything. A Saudi prince's fart is a more relevant signal to someone down the food chain from oil producers. You can't read the price with respect to natural supply--which is the only thing we're talking about.

  • Irish||

    The United States is producing more Oil than several OPEC countries, as is Canada. Texas alone produces more oil now than a number of OPEC countries, and hasn't even reached the top of its potential production.

    The increase in the price of oil in the last decade is almost entirely the result of an increase in demand in industrializing third world nations. Meanwhile, the discovery of oil in Texas has resulted in an oil drop. I've seen predictions that oil prices might eventually fall as low as $80 a barrel.

    It seems to me that the above paragraph looks almost exactly like what you'd expect in a market ruled by supply and demand. Demand in the third world increases, so does oil price. New oil discovered, price drops. Textbook supply and demand and highly indicative of a normal market.

  • Tony||

    It's all supply and demand but a normal market is not dominated by anticompetitive agreements (though a "free market" probably would be).

    In a normal anticompetitive system this would mean the prices are artificially high. But not every product is entailed with geopolitics. That fact that oil is suggests that it's well past time to consider it a problem to deal with.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 6:57PM |#
    "It's all supply and demand but a normal market is not dominated by anticompetitive agreements (though a "free market" probably would be)."
    Which "agreements" are ignored the instant some producer needs more dough. As for your parenthetical comment, are you familiar with the phrase 'internal contradiction', shithead?

    "In a normal anticompetitive system"...
    What is this, another of your fantasies?

    ..."this would mean the prices are artificially high. But not every product is entailed with geopolitics. That fact that oil is suggests that it's well past time to consider it a problem to deal with."
    So if anyone believes your fantasies, they should follow your prescriptions? Oh, good, shithead. I'll keep that in mind.

  • Irish||

    I don't understand what his argument is. Were the prices fixed there would be very minimal fluctuations. In particular, prices would NEVER drop.

    Why would someone working under a price fixing agreement allow the prices of the good to fall, thus harming their bottom line?

  • Tony||

    Sometimes you have to lower prices to increase profit. WTF? I didn't say OPEC was immune to outside factors, just that the prices aren't directly related to actual supply.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 7:41PM |#
    ..."I didn't say OPEC was immune to outside factors, just that the prices aren't directly related to actual supply."

    Which makes you a liar, shithead. The price is directly related to supply.
    How stupid are you?

  • #||

    Tony, if prices are already artificially high then OPEC is already doing the job of cap and trade.

  • ||

    Yup. Increased demand in natural resources in the East is what kept the Canadian economy (mostly) shielded from the global meltdown. China sure loved their wood and oil.

  • Independent||

    Oil was well below $80 per barrel for most of history, and that is after adjusting for inflation. In 2003 it was under $30 per barrel. So why should going under $80 per barrel be considered a sign of abundance?

  • Agammamon||

    OPEC doesn't control shit. They barely control the production of oil in the middle east and have absolutely no control over the other oil producing nations, including the US.

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    "We do not get price signals on oil because the price of oil is absolutely controlled."

    There are enough players in the market, governments and corporations all selling oil independently that it is a big stretch to say it is "totally controlled." Why do prices fluctuate, then?

  • Tony||

    Prices fluctuate because OPEC adjusts the supply for various reasons. There are other players, but they aren't significant. Among those various reasons, by the way, have been geopolitics. If you haven't noticed, oil has been somewhat of a source of international tension for some time now. Think continuing to burn it will decrease that?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 6:50PM |#
    'Prices fluctuate because things affect supply and demand'

    Fixed, shithead.

  • Rob||

    Tony, are you aware that almost 40% of the world's oil production comes from these non-OPEC countries: Russia, USA, China, Canada, Mexico and Brazil? Russia and the USA are estimated to be the #1 and #3 oil producers in the world.

  • Irish||

    That's not even taking alternate sources of energy into consideration. If oil prices rise too high, people can substitute coal and other sorts of energy for some things.

    That means that oil producing nations aren't just competing with each other, they're competing with every currently available type of energy.

    The idea that the OPEC countries can control oil prices is ridiculous.

  • Rob||

    Tony, can you explain what you actually mean when you say, "the price of oil is absolutely controlled."

    In other words:
    1) Who is absolutely controlling the price of oil?
    2) What mechanism is being used to absolutely control the price of oil?
    3) Why do the prices of WTI and BRENT crude oil fluctuate if they are being absolutely controlled?

    "The price of oil is absolutely controlled" is a nice soundbite, but I don't believe you have any evidence to back up that statement.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Malthusians are wrong until they're right."

    Which has yet to happen.

  • Tony||

    Uh, all but a tiny percentage of species to have existed are extinct. Human communities up to civilizations die out all the time in history. Each no doubt had its Malthusians who were proven right.

    And before we start talking about the virtues of the Darwinian process, let's remember that we're talking about preserving our species as it is and not sacrificing ourselves for the sake of biodiversity.

  • Irish||

    1. Non-human species are not the same as humans. Humans are able to break the 'Malthusian trap' through innovation in ways that no other species can hope.

    2. Most species that have gone extinct did so by being out-competed by other species. There is no species that can out-compete humanity.

    3. Some of those human communities died out through something resembling a Malthusian trap, but the vast majority of human communities that were destroyed were destroyed by war, natural disasters or some such thing. Not Malthusian traps. Those few that were destroyed by something that could be considered a Malthusian trap were all autocratic and therefore unable to adapt effectively to change.

    Point me to a single society that valued liberty and individual rights that was destroyed by a Malthusian trap. I'll wait.

  • Irish||

    I'd also like to point out that Thomas Malthus himself, contrary to the view of him as a doomsday environmentalist, actually argued that the Malthusian Trap could be avoided by a free society that is capable of innovation. Even Malthus himself didn't believe that free societies were subject to the apocalypse that latter-day leftists have tried to read into his work.

  • Tony||

    A free society that is capable of innovating in the 21st century is one that requires high levels of centralized planning. Much of the basic research in this world is funded by governments, and the more money thrown at it the better. Scientists know what they're doing, and mostly just need the funds to do it. The problems we're talking about are global in nature and so won't be solved by the libertarian old-timey Wright Brothers conception of innovation. We need something like and beyond the means used to build the nuclear bomb, go to space, and build the Internet. There are absolutely necessary ends in this discussion! So we must take advantage of the best means available to reach them. We don't need the market to tell us what the problems are through price signals. People are capable of thinking outside of price signals, especially when the phenomena in question are problems external to the market.

  • ||

    Tony, congrats. In one gigantic paragraph you managed to rework the facts of history.

    In no time in world history did fucking centralized planning do what you just spewed.

    Incidentally, what does your mother think of that poster in your room where you're kneeling before Marx and Obama?

  • Tony||

    You're much more likely to be kneeling before a poster of Ayn Rand than I am one of Marx, and as a political philosopher she's not equal to a pimple on Marx's ass.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 7:47PM |#
    "You're much more likely to be kneeling before a poster of Ayn Rand than I am one of Marx,"
    Doubtful, shithead.

    "and as a political philosopher she's not equal to a pimple on Marx's ass."
    If you actually read anything she wrote (which from your comments, I doubt), you'd find that regardless of your ignorant opinions regarding 'political philosopher', her novels are far more predictive than Marx ever achieved.
    How about ONE, just ONE Marxian prediction that proved. Just ONE.

  • ||

    Ah, another character trait of progressives on display: Presumptuousness.

    Aside from the fact I've never invoked Rand, I've never actually read her nor am I especially attracted to objectivism.

    However, I do know enough about objectivism and libertarian thought to know they are not the same things. I'm not ready to be as disingenuous as you seem to carelessly be in grouping the two together.

    That I hold libertarian/classical liberal sympathies and enjoy Bastiat and Galliani doesn't make me a Rand supporter - and quite frankly, you equating as much is nothing more than a patent lie.

    Shoot, you keep repeating the same, lame left-wing talking points about the libertarian crowd here despite constantly being reminded and explained about your intellectual indiscretions.

    It's a marvel to behold such stubbornness.

    You on the other hand have made clear where your sympathies lie so my humorous charge that you have a poster of Marx and Obama is based on quite a bit of evidence. You have built quite a bibliography.

    For some reason, though, despite all this, I can't bring myself to hate you.

    I have a soft spot for sock puppets.

  • Tony||

    And I never invoked Marx.

  • Jordan||

    There are absolutely necessary ends in this discussion!

    Let me guess: Top Men with guns get to decide what's necessary.

    People are capable of thinking outside of price signals

    Which happens all the time in markets.

    especially when the phenomena in question are problems external to the market.

    There's no such thing.

  • Tony||

    Let me guess: Top Men with guns get to decide what's necessary.

    Better than nobody worrying about it, or bottom men(?) with guns deciding. This is why democracy is good. So that those who think that catastrophic environmental disruption is no big deal are safely marginalized.

  • Tony||

    There's no such thing.

    ? I think we can safely say that the Andromeda Galaxy is external to the market. Same tends to be true for environmental harm on earth, unless a the market is required to include it.

    You want government to require a market in real estate with your artificial property rights. That you don't think the same is in order for pollutants is because you are in a political cult that fetishizes oil--not because of principle.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Tony, you are a complete moron if you think that coming up with an alternative form of energy is the same sort of conceptual problem as spaceflight or nukes.

    Spaceflight was a very simple engineering problem with a defined goal and only a few considerations. Basically, we were trying to build a better rocket and cope with some other issues with what that rocket would have and what it would do once in space. Very discrete, well-defined problem. Ditto nukes, by the time governments started funding such efforts in WWII.

    "Different energy sources", in contrast, is very broad and requires many information inputs -- information which is highly distributed. There is not enough information to formulate a single discrete question for research without excluding possibilities.

    In point of fact, coming up with different forms of energy is very similar to "old timey Wright Brothers conception of innovation". If you really want a government response to the problem, you would offer up a cash prize for anyone who can conclusively demonstrate a working prototype for renewable source that can produce X units of energy at Y cost with additional parameters Z_1, Z_2, and Z_3 -- which is basically what the government did for aviation and (in part) for some industrialization efforts.

    What Obama and you want is government control and strangulation of energy markets, in order to price Americans out of cheap energy and reward cronies. Don't be surprised when we tell you to fuck off.

  • Tony||

    Okay so one argument is that innovation will inevitably happen because of market pressure. The other is that government directly investing in innovation will never be able to do anything. Is innovation possible or isn't it? I don't know, but I hope so. What I do know is that honest, real researchers charged with doing it and given sufficient funding will do the best they can regardless of the source of funding.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 11:10PM |#
    "Okay so one argument is that innovation will inevitably happen because of market pressure."
    No, you ignorant asshole, there is no inevitability to it. That's just one more of your lies.

    "The other is that government directly investing in innovation will never be able to do anything."
    No, shithead, you've again beat on a strawman.
    Yes, government might do it, more slowly and 'way more expensively than can be accomplished otherwise.
    Now, let's make this clear. All of this has been pointed out to you many times, you lying slimy turd.
    Is that clear?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 11:10PM |#
    "Okay so one argument is that innovation will inevitably happen because of market pressure. The other is that government directly investing in innovation will never be able to do anything. Is innovation possible or isn't it?"

    Well, you should really consider that, shouldn't you, shithead?
    But I'm sure that was just rhetoric, given your stupidity.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 7:49PM |#
    "Better than nobody worrying about it,..."

    No, ignorant shitheads like you with guns are a very poor second to, oh, roaches worrying about anything.
    You are an evil person and there is no possible gain for humanity if you have any power whatsoever.
    Is that clear, shithead?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 7:22PM |#
    "A free society that is capable of innovating in the 21st century is one that requires high levels of centralized planning"

    You are full of shit.

  • Agammamon||

    You know what killed those human communities? The tragedy of the commons.

    Easter Island for example.

  • Sevo||

    Agammamon| 7.12.13 @ 8:14PM |#
    "You know what killed those human communities? The tragedy of the commons.
    Easter Island for example."

    Shithead never bothered to defend his claim of 'civilizations disappearing'.
    Shithead gets that 'information' about collapse from folks who are at least equally stupid, so a nuance such as you mention is far beyond shithead's conceptions.
    Shithead is not smart; shithead is best qualified to be bagging groceries.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Markets are both allocatively and adaptively efficiently. When confronted with a known, fixed quantity (usable land, for instance), market values in equilibrium reflect the value that individuals participating in the market accord to the good in question. This is allocative efficiency.

    When circumstances change, innovators will be more likely to be able to move towards a different model at precisely the time when it becomes economical -- see, for example, the industrial revolution in the US and the UK, as well as parts of continental Europe, and compare to the bloody and inefficient industrialization of the USSR. This is adaptive efficiency.

    Combined, they present a compelling case for the prudence of allowing market mechanisms to work in pricing energy markets and innovating in those markets.

  • CE||

    Despite our best efforts to fill this gap we have not been able to significantly improve the flow of high quality articles.

    So, peak peak oil?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Peak retard IS possible!

  • Wind Rider||

    The spice is the worm the worm is the spice.

    It's absolutely ridiculous to state that something will either run out soon, and likewise to claim it is endless, especially with petroleum. For the simple reasons that a) nobody really has a firm grasp of exactly how much of it there is, and, b) in my mind the fundamental question of whether or not it is a static or dynamic resource has been even close to being fully answered.

    The best and brightest can really only very confidently espouse their best wild assed guesses at this point, from what I've seen - and I've been paying attention since I was a kid and realized the whole Dino the Dinosaur concept was about 10 pounds of shit stuffed in a five pound sack.

    How did the stuff come to be, it seems, virtually all over the place? Is it part of an ongoing process (it seems to be), and what does that cycle involve? If it is 'renewable' (i.e. wait for the planet to make more), what is the turnover rate on that? How much and how fast?

    Know this, and things get a lot simpler. Not that there's any reason at all that there may be an advantage to keep just about everyone in the dark about the whole thing. . .

  • Hyperion||

    How did the stuff come to be, it seems, virtually all over the place? Is it part of an ongoing process (it seems to be), and what does that cycle involve? If it is 'renewable' (i.e. wait for the planet to make more), what is the turnover rate on that? How much and how fast?

    None of that matters, it's destroying the planet.

    /peak retard

  • Paul.||

    Your shoe's untied!

    *runs away*

  • Hyperion||

    Come back here! So that I may brain thee!

  • Generic Stranger||

    Brave Sir Tony ran away.
    Bravely ran away away.
    When truth reared it's ugly head,
    He bravely turned his tail and fled.
    Yes, brave Sir Tony turned about
    And gallantly he chickened out.
    Bravely taking to his feet,
    He beat a very brave retreat.
    Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Tony!

  • Hyperion||

    Fusion will become a reality. It may be a while, but it's going to happen before oil runs out. The only thing that can really stop that, is bureaucracy. Without bureaucracy, all problems are solvable.

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    Malthus, in reality, didn't see a "Malthusian catastrophe" as inevitable. In fact, he advised technological and agricultural advancement as a way to prevent it. But that wouldn't fit the strawman. There is no reason to assume that the "market" will always advance technology to counteract these problems. Why is my gasoline 3$ a gallon and not .05 $ a gallon, as I would prefer? So why is it so unreasonable that it might rise above 3$ a gallon?

    There may be physical limits to how much oil we could get out of the ground. Plus, how's technology supposed to advance if there aren't many smart people left because the national IQ decline thanks to certain people/ideologies? And the magic of the market can only occur in an actual market. Anyone who has knows high school levels of math will tell you that this country is on the road to communism.

  • Hyperion||

    There is no reason to assume that the "market" will always advance technology

    There is however, reason to always assume that overly intrusive and burdensome government will impede it.

    this country is on the road to communism

    More like a fascist police state.

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    There is however, reason to always assume that overly intrusive and burdensome government will impede it.

    What about scientific research that has been funded by the government?

    More like a fascist police state.

    They can't be fascist if they have the Blacks behind them.

  • Hyperion||

    What about scientific research that has been funded by the government?

    I think that this has to assume that this research would not be funded and not occur if it were not for government. I have a hard time believing that.

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    The only other options are philanthropic research and corporate research. Corporate research is only feasible if it makes a profit for the corporation. I find it hard to assume that there would be enough money behind philanthropic research to cover everything the government does. And why would we assume that philanthropic research would be better at allocation resources than the government?

  • Jordan||

    And why would we assume that philanthropic research would be better at allocation resources than the government?

    The same reason we assume that private markets are better at food production and distribution.

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    Philanthropy isn't the same as a market.

  • Jordan||

    Yes it is.

  • Tony||

    This "rely on private charity" bit is not even thinly veiled aristocracy worship. Yes, let's let a few elites with their various motivations and whims and unaccountability decide what social priorities should be. Much better than democratic government.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 7:16PM |#
    "This "rely on private charity" bit is not even thinly veiled aristocracy worship."

    Shithead, if you didn't lie every time you hit the keyboard, people might consider what you post.
    Instead, you just keep piling lie on lie.

  • Jordan||

    Yes, let's let a few elites with their various motivations and whims and unaccountability decide what social priorities should be.

    That describes your philosophy to a fucking T.

  • Irish||

    Holy fuck. Did Tony really just argue that we shouldn't let unaccountable elites decide what we do as a nation?

    So Tony. If there is a bureaucracy filled with unaccountable paper pushers which is overseen by a gang of politicians whose only goal is to pay off their friends, what would you call that? Because it seems like an unaccountable elite to me.

  • Tony||

    Maybe, but certainly more accountable than private interests. I'm all for more democratic oversight in government. But you realize there is no such thing at all in the private sector?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 7:58PM |#
    "Maybe, but certainly more accountable than private interests."

    Lie, shithead.
    Tell us how even, oh, teachers might be fired. Or, ay, cops. Let's hear it, shithead.

  • Irish||

    Maybe, but certainly more accountable than private interests.

    When a cop shoots an innocent person or an IRS agent audits political opponents, they tend to get away with it. If a company were to dump waste on my property, I could sue them and possibly have their executives jailed if they did it on purpose.

    Tell me again, which is less accountable?

  • Tony||

    Sue them in government courts and put them in government jails? Why on earth would you trust that system to work?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 11:05PM |#
    "Sue them in government courts and put them in government jails? Why on earth would you trust that system to work?"

    Shithead, your stupidity is ever more obvious when you post blind replies. Can we just presume you're drunk? Or are you incapable of referencing the post to which you are replying?
    And what is it you do for a living?

  • Irish||

    Does he think I'm an anarchist? The administration of justice based on the rule of law and the protection of property rights is a legitimate government action, Tony. No economic system can exist without such protections.

    Government stealing to give money to cronies and keep people in a cycle of poverty in the hope that they'll continue voting Democrat is not a legitimate government duty. Not only can an economic system and a nation survive just fine without such shenanigans, it will actually be better off.

    Do you see the difference?

  • Tony||

    How very interesting that government works well when practicing its "legitimate" functions but not otherwise. What a happy coincidence!

  • Sevo||

    "They can't be fascist if they have the Blacks behind them."

    Sniff, sniff....
    Has that foul stench of Murkin, wouldn't you say?

  • Hyperion||

    Funny, I thought the same thing when I read that comment...

  • ||

    When someone new comes on with a bullshit screen name and starts opining how technology is the only things that matter for progress and markets are inadequate while crying about strawmen, there's a good chance it's Merkin. He's absolutely a malthusian fascist.

  • Irish||

    When someone new comes on with a bullshit screen name and starts opining how technology is the only things that matter for progress and markets are inadequate while crying about strawblack men, there's a good chance it's Merkin. He's absolutely a malthusian fascist.
  • Calidissident||

    I knew it was him as soon as I saw the "IQ" comment

  • Jordan||

    Why is my gasoline 3$ a gallon and not .05 $ a gallon, as I would prefer?

    Why is my gasoline $3 a gallon and not $9 a gallon?

    So why is it so unreasonable that it might rise above 3$ a gallon?

    Who asserted that it wouldn't?

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    Why is my gasoline $3 a gallon and not $9 a gallon?

    The laws of supply and demand.

  • Calidissident||

    Why are you asking questions that you already know the answers to?

  • Swiss Servator - past LTC(ret)||

    Can God make a rock so heavy, even He cannot lift it?

    What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

  • Invisible Finger||

    didn't see a "Malthusian catastrophe" as inevitable. In fact, he advised technological and agricultural advancement as a way to prevent it.

    But that in itself is stupid. There's no reason to ADVISE technological and agricultural advancement, economics is going to change the trends.

  • robc||

    Malthus wasnt a malthusian.
    Keynes wasnt a keynesian.
    Pigou wasnt a pigovian.

    There seems to be a pattern.

  • Tony||

    [Climate change] is a different discussion. It's like moving the goalposts.

    Actually, climate change is the real problem. It makes peak oil entirely beside the point. All else being equal, in light of climate change we'd have been better off if peak oil happened sooner rather than later. 1950 rather 2150. The more we cheer for the abundant supply of oil the more pain we face as we continue to burn it as if the only costs associated with it were due to its supply.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Nope.

    AGW is the response from the green community once most people realized that peak oil was bullshit. "If we can't convince people that we're almost out of oil, we'll convince them that continuing to use it will irreparably harm the planet." It's a lie covering up a lie.

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    It's a fact science denier.

  • Irish||

    It's also a fact that there's no scientific evidence for the inferiority of blacks and Hispanics, yet that never stops you, does it American?

  • Hyperion||

    Are any Negros allowed into the Cult of Global Warming?

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    There is actually considerable evidence but you people won't ever accept anything that contradicts your fantasy version of reality. You people are worse than creationists, because at least creationists admit they are blindly following a man in the clouds.

  • Irish||

    We're worse than creationists because we don't believe in the latent inferiority of the black man?

    I think it's hilarious that you're not only a racist but are smug and believe that it is non-racists who are inferior.

  • Hyperion||

    Are White Hispanics inferior also, or just the darker skinned ones?

    What if I get a really good tan, even though I am technically white, does that make me then more inferior until the tan wears off?

  • Purple Drank||

    "If race is only about skin color, why do Albinos still have a fat lip and a bad attitude?"

  • Tony||

    How convenient for you that basically all of science is wrong in this instance.

    How you figured that out is truly a curiosity. Have you submitted to the Nobel people yet?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Being that reality refuses to conform to the models set out as the final word in global warming (The Science is Settled!) shows that your "all of science" is NOT science, but an opinion masquerading as science.

    Not a single one of the "scientific" predictions have come to pass. Not. One.

    I have no issue with seeing that the earth is warming. But it takes quite a stretch of the imagination to then conclude that the end is nigh, especially when ALL OF THE MODELS ARE WRONG.

    So shut the fuck up about science. You don't talk of science, you talk of "science" derived from models that refuse to comply with the edicts of the learned.

  • Tony||

    You don't know what you're talking about and, being that there's an Internet, it's entirely you're fault.

    You know just enough of the talking points to spit out the word "models" and thus CLAIM that you are better informed than the entire scientific community. You can't possibly be that arrogant, so the only conclusion is you're just very very stupid.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 10:58PM

    "You can't possibly be that arrogant,"
    You can, shithead.

  • Jordan||

    Let us know when the climate models line up with reality.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 6:36PM |#
    ..."Actually, climate change is the real problem"...

    No, shithead, the same rules apply; humanity is more than capable of adapting to change.
    Far better than is a government.

  • Tony||

    Look who's the communitarian. And so much more ruthless than a simple liberal! Because surely you understand that "adaptation" in the face of drastic environmental change usually takes the Darwinian form. Because obviously you're not making the claim that all humans everywhere will positively adapt. That would be idiotic.

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    Environmentalism would probably have won by now, had it not been for "environmentalists" like Tony, with their stupid, straw-man arguments. Not every environmentalist is also a communist.

  • Tony||

    No environmentalist I have ever met is a communist.

    Sevo either means adaptation coupled with lots of death or he means something magical. I'm not making a straw man argument.

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    He's obviously talking about technological adaption. But liberals LOVE accusing people of being "Darwinists."

  • Irish||

    Watching American and Tony fight is like watching Hitler and Stalin go at it.

  • Warrren||

    Activia!

  • Tony||

    Technological adaptation to mitigate the problem? Or to find ways to adapt to the changing environment?

    Pretty sure he shoots down any and all efforts to adapt to mitigate the problem.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 7:14PM |#
    "No environmentalist I have ever met is a communist."
    You're a liar, shithead.

    "Sevo either means adaptation coupled with lots of death or he means something magical. I'm not making a straw man argument."
    No, shithead, Sevo means adaptation sort of like the green revolution.
    Shithead, you really ought to consider posting something that isn't a lie.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 7:14PM |#
    "No environmentalist I have ever met is a communist."
    You're a liar, shithead.

    To be totally honest, I don't know every e-vist that shithead has met. I'm working the odds here in that easily 90+% of those who self-identify as 'e-vist' are communist in political views, even if the deny it.
    So, shithead, I apologize if you happened to meet the one who isn't and never met any others.

  • Tony||

    You're . . . stupid.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 8:03PM |#
    "You're . . . stupid."

    You're . . . stupid and a liar, shithead.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 7:01PM |#
    "Look who's the communitarian"

    Look who's ignorant of definitions!

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    Libertarianism is all just a misplaced opposition to liberalism. It really doesn't make any sense when you think about it. Think of scientific research. It built much of America, imagine where we'd be without it. A lot of the opposition to "the government" and "socialism" is just an opposition to what liberals do with the government, racial redistribution, forced integration, and welfare programs that encourage laziness and the destruction of the family, neo-con wars, ect. Many republicans still support some "socialism."

    Liberalism =/= Socialism

  • Irish||

    How much government funded science was there in one of the greatest periods of scientific advancement, the industrial revolution? Moreover, America gives less of its GDP to 'scientific advancement' than the Soviets did or the Chinese do. Tell me which is more innovative, us or the Soviets and the Chinese? It's not even close.

    Stop talking out of your ass, American.

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    "How much government funded science was there in one of the greatest periods of scientific advancement, the industrial revolution?"

    Apples and oranges. The Wright brothers themselves built their airplane themselves, with comparatively little capital. Try designing a nuclear reactor yourself.

    The soviets were communists and were in the service of a destructive communist ideology. Just like liberals are.

  • Irish||

    Try designing a nuclear reactor yourself.

    I could easily raise enough money to build a nuclear reactor if I were going to sell the energy produced by the reactor. Which is true of any market or industry.

    Are you really arguing that the production of private nuclear devices is impossible? Because people have produced nuclear devices themselves.

  • Tony||

    But can they get insured? And can I get a share of the profit for my tax dollars that invented the technology?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 7:09PM |#
    ..."And can I get a share of the profit for my tax dollars that invented the technology?"

    The "invention" was done totally without tax dollars, and absent the war application, the development could have been done the same way, shithead.

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    The "invention" was done totally without tax dollars

    Complete bullshit lie.

  • Sevo||

    Malthusian Fascist| 7.12.13 @ 7:29PM |#
    "Complete bullshit lie."
    Tell that to Szilard.

  • Irish||

    Yeah, I don't know what Sevo is arguing there, since tax dollars definitely funded the Manhattan Project.

    That said 'it was produced by the government' is not proof that the only way to produce it was the government. Since the vast majority of human advancements throughout history were NOT government financed, there's no reason to argue that government financing was necessary for the creation of atomic energy.

  • Tony||

    Without question, the only way to produce it *first* was via government.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 8:03PM |#
    "Without question, the only way to produce it *first* was via government."

    Yes, you and shitheads like you can throw other peoples' money at something and sometimes do something sooner than someone with brains! Sometimes:
    "John Craig Venter (born October 14, 1946) is an American biologist and entrepreneur. He is known for being one of the first to sequence the human genome[1] and for creating the first cell with a synthetic genome"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter
    Shithead, your lies are tiresome.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Without question, the only way to produce it *first* was via government.

    Mostly because government would never have allowed one to produce it without their explicit permission, and by following all manner of rules that are designed to benefit those in government.

  • Tony||

    Blah blah blah blah excuses blah blah.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 10:56PM |#
    "Blah blah blah blah excuses blah blah."

    Your most intelligent post yet, shithead!

  • Sevo||

    Irish| 7.12.13 @ 7:33PM |#
    "Yeah, I don't know what Sevo is arguing there, since tax dollars definitely funded the Manhattan Project."

    Irish, the MP was concerned with a bomb, not a reactor.
    The reactor was visualized and patented by Szilard in England in, oh, '35 or so.
    The development of the bomb (fast reactor) was funded by the government and it was successful. And it is pretty doubtful that private investment would be interested in developing a bomb.

  • Irish||

    And can I get a share of the profit for my tax dollars that invented the technology?

    I was unaware that you were 90 years old and paid taxes on behalf of the Manhattan Project.

    More importantly, the splitting of the atom had been theorized for years and could have been accomplished with private funding, just like many major advances are financed.

    Can you imagine how much money someone would make if they were one of the people who bought a share of the project to produce nuclear energy? You would be unbelievably rich as a result of your share of that patent. Pretending that the splitting of the atom could not possibly have been accomplished without the government is absurd.

  • Sevo||

    "I was unaware that you were 90 years old and paid taxes on behalf of the Manhattan Project."

    More importantly, shithead and murkin are conflating fast reaction (bombs) with slow reaction (reactors).
    I'll presume this is a result of just plain ignorance and the desire to 'prove a point' when facts and evidence suggest otherwise.
    IOWs, shithead and murkin are, well, ignoramuses.

  • Tony||

    I didn't say it couldn't possibly be done by the private sector. Government just did it first, which sort of contradicts the vision of government as always an incompetent bumbling innovation stifler.

    Government is better than the private sector at funding research for social ends rather than mere profit because it's built to respond to social concerns and the market is built to respond to profit motive. Science is science. It just takes funding.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 8:07PM |#
    "I didn't say it couldn't possibly be done by the private sector."
    You tried, shithead, but no one was buying beef that thin.

    "Government just did it first, which sort of contradicts the vision of government as always an incompetent bumbling innovation stifler."
    It does nothing of the sort. It got done, but it got done at horrendously high costs.
    At best, it proves government isn't 100% incompetent.

  • Calidissident||

    "Government is better than the private sector at funding research for social ends rather than mere profit because it's built to respond to social concerns and the market is built to respond to profit motive. Science is science. It just takes funding."

    Because there is never, ever, any profit involved in responding to social concerns? And government is the only nonprofit in existence? And I love how the "social end" in this example is dropping an A-bomb on people in a foreign country. The history of this country and the world shows that scientific progress is more than capable of being driven by the private sector. The fact that government funding was involved at some point to some extent in the creation of some things doesn't negate that.

  • Tony||

    Dropping the A-bomb was technically a social end, possibly a horrifically bad idea of one.

    There are few major innovations of the last century that didn't involve heavy involvement of governments--often the US government. Sure, let's take away our public funding of science while other countries don't, and we'll just see if we maintain the edge.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 10:55PM |#
    "Dropping the A-bomb was technically a social end, possibly a horrifically bad idea of one."
    No, you lying piece of shit, it saved millions of lives. You are truly stupid and evil.

    "There are few major innovations of the last century that didn't involve heavy involvement of governments--often the US government. Sure, let's take away our public funding of science while other countries don't, and we'll just see if we maintain the edge."
    And there are few that needed to be funded, asshole.

  • Calidissident||

    As if technology these days is a nationally-constrained thing?

    "There are few major innovations of the last century that didn't involve heavy involvement of governments--often the US government."

    Define "few," "major," and "heavy." And in any case, if the government increasingly entangles itself in various sectors of the economy, is it not surprising that many products will have some sort of connection to government at some point? That doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened without government. That's called a fallacy Tony. It's not like there was a lack of scientific advancement in the US (and the world) in the late 1800s and early 1900s

  • Jordan||

    Government is better than the private sector at funding research for social ends rather than mere profit because it's built to respond to social concerns and the market is built to respond to profit motive.

    Wrong. The government responds to political concerns. And "social ends" is just bullshit-speak for Tony's preferences.

  • Irish||

    'Profit motive' is also code for 'something people want.'

    In other words, government is necessary to provide that which people don't want, whereas evil private enterprise is bad because it is only capable of providing things that the public actually wants to have.

    This is your brain on progressivism.

  • Tony||

    Who actually cares about profit? Not the vast majority of people in the economy, who we call workers. Luckily they have some minor say in the way their society works via democracy, even though they spend most of their waking lives in workplaces where they have no such voice.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.13.13 @ 1:17PM |#
    "Who actually cares about profit? Not the vast majority of people in the economy, who we call workers."

    It's possible that someone is this stupid, but it's hard to believe.

  • crashland||

    Sure you could build a new nuke reactor but will government allow you to do so? Eh... no. sorry.

    Tony wants all to be poor, live in mud huts, cold, miserable, hungry because we have to save the planet!

    Coal bad.
    Oil bad.
    Nukes bad.
    Fracking bad.

    Anything that can actually keep the lights on bad. non-rational alternatives to cheap fuel however, can be rational if government can only make the non-rational rational.

  • Hyperion||

    Hey, denier! Da Vinci, Franklin, Tesla, Edison, all of those great inventors throughout history were funded and directed by the federal government!... oh wait...

  • Hyperion||

    Libertarianism is all just a misplaced opposition to liberalism

    That's about the most retarded thing I have ever read. Most Libertarians are very socially liberal. Do you mean progressivism?

    And again, you seem to be saying that no scientific research would occur and that no scientific and technological progress would be made, without government.

    Totally baseless and Ridiculous.

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    "That's about the most retarded thing I have ever read. Most Libertarians are very socially liberal. Do you mean progressivism?"

    A lot of what motivates people to become libertarian is not opposition to government itself as it is to what governments do, "socially liberal" things like forced integration or welfare programs that destroy the family. A lot of libertarians are American patriots at heart.

  • Warrren||

    I have the heart of an American "patriot".

  • Generic Stranger||

    In a jar, on your desk?

  • Warrren||

    In a plug in a butt.

  • Hyperion||

    "A lot of what motivates people to become libertarian is not opposition to government itself as it is to what governments do"

    Well, no duh. We wouldn't be opposed to government if it were an inanimate object, not doing things that affect us adversely, now would we? Durr.

  • Sevo||

    Hyperion| 7.12.13 @ 6:43PM |#
    "That's about the most retarded thing I have ever read. Most Libertarians are very socially liberal. Do you mean progressivism?"

    This is Murkin; racist through and through.

  • Hyperion||

    You see what happened here, Sev? Someone uttered the words 'peak retard' and it summoned Tony and Murikin at the same time.

    Those words should now be sealed up and never spoken again. Next time, Shreek could show up as well.

  • Tony||

    You're kinda right. Libertarians hate subsidizing food for poor Americans but have no problem subsidizing the high standards of living in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    lolwut

  • Hyperion||

    It's out of meds again, me thinks.

  • Irish||

    What on earth are you talking about. Please show me one time anyone on this site has argued in favor of oil subsidies.

    I keep saying this, since you never offer evidence for any of your arguments, but I await your answer with bated breath.

  • Tony||

    By supporting the "drill baby drill" perspective, you are advocating for more money going to petrostates (a situation not resembling an ideal market in any way), which, if they're smart, use that income to give handouts to the people. Totalitarian theocracies giving welfare to everyone, that's what you are supporting.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 8:10PM |#
    "By supporting the "drill baby drill" perspective, you are advocating for more money going to petrostates (a situation not resembling an ideal market in any way), which, if they're smart, use that income to give handouts to the people."

    Jeeze, shithead, you're offering an obviously false innuendo, followed by a hypothetical, and claiming it as evidence!
    How stupid are you, shithead?

  • Irish||

    By supporting the "drill baby drill" perspective, you are advocating for more money going to petrostates

    Tony, if we drill, that means that the price of oil will drop. If the price of oil drops, then those petrostates get less money.

    Drilling in America results in less money going to petrostates. Given that you've just been claiming (falsely I might add) that OPEC has total control over the pricing of oil, you should want us to drill in order to break up the cartel. Your arguments on this issue consistently contradict each other.

    You also didn't answer my question about how we are in favor of subsidies, since drilling for oil is not the same as subsidizing oil companies.

    Then again, arguing beside the point and offering contradictory arguments is pretty much par for the course with you, isn't it?

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah, does Tony realize that OPEC doesn't control the entire oil supply of the world? It's 12 countries, and yes they do have a very disproportionate share of the world's oil, but there are many oil-producing countries that are not a part of OPEC

  • crashland||

    HAHAH you Irish and your logic. Tony is invulnerable to logic. He scoffs at your rational analysis and clings forever to his state of Peak Tard. Don't confuse him with facts, it only drives it to the Tard Cliff.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Petrostates... like Texas.

    Hey idiot, explain to me how *domestic* drilling benefits places like Saudi Arabia in any way.

  • Sevo||

    The Immaculate Trouser| 7.12.13 @ 8:54PM |#
    "Petrostates... like Texas...."

    I'm pretty sure that shithead is not being 'clever' and hoping to slip some mendacity by the others here. He is simply stupid enough to believe the lies he posts.
    I could be wrong. Shithead, are you a fool or a knave?

  • Tony||

    It's not "American oil" being drilled in Texas.

  • Agammamon||

    Wow, then whose oil is it?

  • ||

    It's obviously "OPEC" oil. Duh, they control THE ENTIRE SUPPLY!

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 10:52PM |#
    "It's not "American oil" being drilled in Texas."

    I see. Fool *and* knave. Got it.

  • ||

    If you're against wind and solar payments subsidies, that means you are for oil tax breaks subsidies.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.12.13 @ 7:13PM |#
    "You're kinda right. Libertarians hate subsidizing food for poor Americans but have no problem subsidizing the high standards of living in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia."

    Shithead, that's great! Wine or hard liquor?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    China was undoubtedly the most powerful, most prosperous, and most technologically advanced nation in the world in the 1400s. According to folks like American, it also contains the most genetically well-equipped world citizens.

    Please explain to me how the most advanced nation in the world came to be a colonial plaything in the space of 300 years without relying on "libertarian bullshit".

  • Malthusian Fascist||

    There will probably be a Malthusian catastrophe in Africa. It can't even feed itself now, how's it going to feed the 3 billion people it will have in 2050? And don't even say the "free market" will fix it. A market is only as good as the people who participate in it. The only solution if forced donations from the first world.

  • Sevo||

    Malthusian Fascist| 7.12.13 @ 7:49PM |#
    'There will probably be a Malthusian catastrophe in India. And London is dead'

    Ehrlich beat ya to it, idiot, and he was wrong, too.

  • Calidissident||

    Most of the problem with food shortages in Africa and elsewhere isn't that there isn't enough food in the world, but the inability (due to corruption and other factors) to get it to people who need it. That isn't a "Malthusian catastrophe" because the problem isn't a lack of resources

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Ethiopia and Egypt were both net food exporters for many years; this changed in modern times due to pernicious governments being in place.

    There is no reason why African agriculture could not be greatly improved from where it is now.

  • Sevo||

    The Immaculate Trouser| 7.12.13 @ 8:56PM |#
    "Ethiopia and Egypt were both net food exporters for many years;..."

    As was Russia prior to the Bolshies

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Definitely. Poland was called the Granary of Europe prior to the partitions and the Ukraine is incredibly fertile.

  • Sevo||

    ..."the Ukraine is incredibly fertile."

    Which didn't stop Stalin from starving millions of them to death.

  • Swiss Servator - past LTC(ret)||

    And Argentina, and Romania...gah! Fucking slavers can starve people in the Ukraine of all places! chernozom soil meters deep, and they have famines because of the totalitarian central planning that Tony wishes on us all.

  • Agammamon||

    Its been said that there hasn't been a famine from the latter half of the 20th century on that wasn't caused by government intervention.

  • robc||

    History.

    Some say nearly every famine in history was caused by government intervention.

  • Sevo||

    I'd bet shithead and his ilk would claim some of the earlier Chinese famines were not the result of government, but they certainly were.
    Fir instance, the government (pressed labor) dug the grand canal, enticing people to move to locations that could only be nourished by that method and then allowed it to silt-up to the point where shipments stopped.

  • Lane||

    "Ethiopia and Egypt were both net food exporters for many years; this changed in modern times due to pernicious governments being in place."

    And this has nooothing to do with those two countries' population explosions. It's not like there has ever been a shortage of arable land or water in Egypt.

  • ||

    A discussion we have had several times in the last year, due to scarcity of new content caused by a dwindling number of contributors. Despite our best efforts to fill this gap we have not been able to significantly improve the flow of high quality articles.

    I wonder when they reached Peak Oil Drum (measured in "contributors")?

  • Spokanite||

    Peak Oil = Baseless Hysteria
    Climate Change = Actually Happening

    Kind of makes you wish that peak oil had turned out to be true!

  • Sevo||

    "Climate Change = Actually Happening"
    Yeah, sort of .05*C change for the last 15 years. I'll get worried about that some day.

    "Kind of makes you wish that peak oil had turned out to be true!"
    Nope.

  • crashland||

    Personally I freaking hate winter and would welcome a nice rise in temps. It would be wonderful for there to be no more snow in Pennsylvania and if the rising seas swept away New Jersey.

  • Agammamon||

    I'm cool with it. I live almost 200 feet above sea level and far enough from the coasts to not have to worry about storms. Plus there's not enough vegetation here to catch fire even if it get's hotter.

    As a matter of fact, we'd probably get *more* (meaning 'it *would* rain') rain and then this wasteland would bloom.

  • Ralfy||

    The problem isn't a small increase but the positive feedback factors that can result from that.

  • Independent||

    How do we know Peak Oil has turned out to be false? Is oil at a spot price of over $100 on Brent and WTI our proof that we aren't near a peak in oil production? Or is there a proof of Infinite Oil that I didn't hear about?

  • Sevo||

    Independent| 7.13.13 @ 7:02AM |#
    "How do we know Peak Oil has turned out to be false?"
    Because it hasn't proven to be true. You aren't really asking for a proof of a negative, are you?

  • Ralfy||

    Actually, both are happening. In fact, for oil production per capita (which is more logical compared to just production), that peaked back in 1979.

    Also, the IEA warns of both problems in its 2010 report.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't know about Peak Oil, but Tony and American are currently teaming up to bring Peak Retard to a website near you.

  • crashland||

    Retard and Retardeder?
    Retard and Racist Tard?
    Peak Tard squared?

  • ||

    Don't worry, I'm sure Obama's Buttfuck and Lyle will show up to prove, once again, that Peak Retard is a myth.

  • Independent||

    Tony and America can never top Sevo, so the peak will never be broached.

  • Sevo||

    Independent| 7.13.13 @ 9:06AM |#
    "Tony and America can never top Sevo, so the peak will never be broached."

    Awww, poor ignoramus, called on bullshit! What a shame!

  • Fluffy||

    Independent -

    It's really not very impressive that the price of oil tripled in ten years...when it essentially had not moved at all for twenty-five years before that.

    Gasoline was over a dollar a gallon when I was in elementary school...in the 70's. It was still a dollar and some change in...2003. Two thousand and fucking three. It briefly dropped back down to a dollar and change in 2008. Five years ago.

    Oil is really not that expensive relative to other commodities - not when you graph its price in real dollars back to 1973.

    Maybe the market hasn't found an alternative for oil yet because it's just not a fucking crisis when the price of a commodity makes a price move that barely accounts for the price stagnation it experienced for decades even in the face of monetary inflation.

  • Independent||

    With all the guys here braying about "market forces" the fact that it was cheap for decades, and then tripled should signal that we went from having plenty, to having less than plenty.

    If you graph it's price in inflation adjusted dollars (and someone has done that on the web) oil prices now are the highest they have ever been with the exception of the spike that took place around 1980 and the spike that took place before the financial collapse in 2008. Certainly the time for this board to crow about plenty of oil would not be now when it is so high. The time for crowing was 1986 through 2000. But you guys had to know that your crowing was limited - we are talking about a finite depletable resource being used by an ever growing population. And on top of that we gave a massive amount of jobs to China and India so they could raise the amount they use per-capita in addition to their population growth.

  • Irish||

    And on top of that we gave a massive amount of jobs to China and India so they could raise the amount they use per-capita in addition to their population growth.

    Who 'gave' jobs to China and India? I was unaware that jobs are just gifts that are thrown around willy nilly.

  • Irish||

    With all the guys here braying about "market forces" the fact that it was cheap for decades, and then tripled should signal that we went from having plenty, to having less than plenty.

    The price of oil went up. Because the price of oil went up, shale oil became more valuable and the collection of that oil became more likely to turn a profit. Therefore, people started getting shale oil.

    That is a market force at work. Prices increased, ratio of cost to profit for shale oil got more favorable, people drilled. That's how market forces work.

  • Tony||

    That you think oil is a free market commodity is ludicrous.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.13.13 @ 1:20PM |#
    "That you think oil is a free market commodity is ludicrous."
    Shithead, just once: Try to post without lying.

  • ||

    Or you know, it could be due to the government artificially keeping the price of gas low. Or the fact that there wasn't that shitty fucking additive called Ethanol back in the 80's. Or maybe it's the $0.45/gallon we now pay.

    Nope, you're totally right American, it's because we're running out of oil and giving jobs away to dirty foreigners.

  • Sevo||

    "If you graph it's price in inflation adjusted dollars (and someone has done that on the web) oil prices now are the highest they have ever been with the exception of the spike that took place around 1980 and the spike that took place before the financial collapse in 2008"

    Brain-dead lefty alert!
    'If you graph, and ignore half the data, it sort of proves my point!'

  • Fluffy||

    Also, finding an alternative fuel is not the only way "the market" can react to the price change.

    It could also react by dramatically changing land use patterns to reduce transportation fuel costs.

    It will only do that if the state refrains from interfering and fucking everything up, true. So I guess we do have that to worry about.

    "The market" is not promising you that you'll be able to drive 90 minutes to work every day just because that's your lifestyle preference. Sometimes the way "the market" does its magic is by smacking you in the face and imposing costs on you until you stop doing whatever it is you're doing.

  • robc||

    Sometimes the invisible hand is a bitch slap.

    I think I came up with that during the housing crisis.

  • Tony||

    Only children are supposed to have invisible friends.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 7.13.13 @ 1:21PM |#
    "Only children are supposed to have invisible friends."

    Only shitheads purposely miss the message.

  • squarooticus||

    Chris Martenson seems like a smart guy, too, but he was still peddling this nonsense last I heard. It's too bad, too, because he's right on the fundamentals but wrong on the timescale and imminence of some of his predictions.

  • Ralfy||

    Actually, the IEA confirmed in its 2010 report points raised by various proponents.

  • Ralfy||

    If you look at oil production per capita, the it is too late for peak oil to peter out, as oil production per capita peaked back in 1979.

    Also, non-conventional production is driven by low energy returns and steep decline curves:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/.....dance.html

    not to mention other problems:

    http://shalebubble.org/

  • Ralfy||

    Peak oil is not part of a "cult" or even Malthusianism but a geologic reality. That's why U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, discoveries peaked in 1964, and even oil production per capita peaked in 1979.

    Also, resorting to shale, etc., confirms peak oil. Otherwise, there would be no need to use unconventional oil.

    Finally, even the IEA has confirmed peak oil, and warns about it and global warming in its 2010 report. One can also find dozens of reports on the issue from various organizations, including the U.S. and German military forces as well as international banks and insurance companies.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement