Only real solution is to produce more and use less.

 

That is exactly correct. If I get one more goofy e-mail with a scam to lower gas prices I'm going to flip out. There are several levels to this as well, besides producing more, we need to lighten the overregulated processing: excessive envirnomental controls, make uniform state environmental regulations, expand petroleum processing supply chain (more refineries), demand better, more fuel efficient vehicles, conservation of fuels (use less), and expand exploration of oil supplies and extraction in the United States.

1. Change driving age to 18

 

2. If you go to school, you ride a bus.

 

3. 100% tax on fuel used for recreation.

1. Change driving age to 18

 

2. If you go to school, you ride a bus.

 

3. 100% tax on fuel used for recreation.

 

By recreation do you mean like RVs and boats.

1. Change driving age to 18

 

2. If you go to school, you ride a bus.

 

3. 100% tax on fuel used for recreation.

More rules, less freedom! :dancingpa

 

I'll pay my dues to get to have free choices that I can make.

Simple way to reduce demand, reduce the speed limit to 60.

We should consume energy responsibly but we also need to understand that the availability and utilization of affordable energy is the foundation of great civilizations. For all practical purposes, our universe contains an infinite amount of energy waiting to be harnessed.

 

Mankind should be looking for new ways to increase our energy consumption. Conservation is not a long term solution because economic supplies of petroleum are finite. Conservation will postpone the depletion of supplies but the supplies, at least on this planet, will be depleted within a few generations with or without conservation efforts.

 

I'm assuming you meant "increase production" as opposed to increase consumption?

I'm assuming you meant "increase production" as opposed to increase consumption?

 

I think what he is saying is that we do not need to worry about decreasing consumption because the petroleum will run out regardless of whether or not we conserve energy within the next few generations, and I assume what he means is that the quicker we deplete the source, the quicker alternative energy sources will be developed and ready for the market.

I think what he is saying is that we do not need to worry about decreasing consumption because the petroleum will run out regardless of whether or not we conserve energy within the next few generations, and I assume what he means is that the quicker we deplete the source, the quicker alternative energy sources will be developed and ready for the market.

 

If we don't conserve then the oil will run out quicker and all the other things we make from it (basically everything we use) will be gone before we find an alternative source. If we conserve and switch to alternate fuel/energy then we can use the remaining time to find other ways of producing all the other stuff we make from oil.

I'm assuming you meant "increase production" as opposed to increase consumption?

No, I said what I meant. Civilization and quality of life have advanced in proportion to man's ability to harness increasing amounts of energy. In the long term, that trend must continue if our civilization is to survive. In the short term, we may have no choice to conserve until new technology again makes cheap energy available for our use.

 

If, as a species, we sharply curtail our consumption of energy, our civilization will stop advancing and may eventually even collapse. Wars will be fought over dwindling resources because energy, quality of life, and survival are intertwined.

 

Before we domesticated animals, we were limited to about 1/3 horsepower of energy per capita. Once horses and oxen were put to work, our productivity essentially tripled and agriculture fluorished. The wind was harnessed to allow expanded trade and migration across greater distances.

 

Then the invention of the steam engine provided another large leap in productivity and quality of life.

 

Hopefully, harnessing the energy of fossil fuels is still an early stage of our civilization and increasing our consumption of other forms of energy will propel us to new heights and enable us to colonize space. Otherwise, the days of civilization are numbered because fossil fuels, wind power, fission, and every other conventional form of earthbound energy is finite.

I think what he is saying is that we do not need to worry about decreasing consumption because the petroleum will run out regardless of whether or not we conserve energy within the next few generations, and I assume what he means is that the quicker we deplete the source, the quicker alternative energy sources will be developed and ready for the market.

I am in no hurry to deplete our oil supplies because rapid price increases make wars (big ones) over oil much more likely. Slow, steady increases in prices will give us the best opportunity for peaceful development and migration to other sources of energy. Increasing production and conservation are both needed as stopgap measures to buy time for scientists to develop the next generation of energy sources.

If we don't conserve then the oil will run out quicker and all the other things we make from it (basically everything we use) will be gone before we find an alternative source. If we conserve and switch to alternate fuel/energy then we can use the remaining time to find other ways of producing all the other stuff we make from oil.

We have plentiful substitutes for most oil-based products. There is no reason that the container industry cannot go back to using more glass, steel, and aluminum. There are no currently viable alternative sources of energy suitable for widespread use, except nuclear and other fossil fuels such as coal.

 

I favor avoiding the nuclear option as long as possible. I am in favor of continuing to develop nuclear technology in case we run out of other alternatives.

No, I said what I meant. Civilization and quality of life have advanced in proportion to man's ability to harness increasing amounts of energy. In the long term, that trend must continue if our civilization is to survive. In the short term, we may have no choice to conserve until new technology again makes cheap energy available for our use.

 

If, as a species, we sharply curtail our consumption of energy, our civilization will stop advancing and may eventually even collapse. Wars will be fought over dwindling resources because energy, quality of life, and survival are intertwined.

 

Before we domesticated animals, we were limited to about 1/3 horsepower of energy per capita. Once horses and oxen were put to work, our productivity essentially tripled and agriculture fluorished. The wind was harnessed to allow expanded trade and migration across greater distances.

 

Then the invention of the steam engine provided another large leap in productivity and quality of life.

 

Hopefully, harnessing the energy of fossil fuels is still an early stage of our civilization and increasing our consumption of other forms of energy will propel us to new heights and enable us to colonize space. Otherwise, the days of civilization are numbered because fossil fuels, wind power, fission, and every other conventional form of earthbound energy is finite.

 

Gotcha. Very interesting take.

If we don't conserve then the oil will run out quicker and all the other things we make from it (basically everything we use) will be gone before we find an alternative source. If we conserve and switch to alternate fuel/energy then we can use the remaining time to find other ways of producing all the other stuff we make from oil.

 

IMO alternative fuels are an option now, but they are so expensive that the price of oil is much cheaper. If the supply dwindles, prices will go up and make the alternative sources become a more practical economically-efficient option, if ya get what I am saying.

 

But I am not encouraging increasing our production. Just saying that is supply does get so low, other options will become available.

IMO alternative fuels are an option now, but they are so expensive that the price of oil is much cheaper. If the supply dwindles, prices will go up and make the alternative sources become a more practical economically-efficient option, if ya get what I am saying.

 

But I am not encouraging increasing our production. Just saying that is supply does get so low, other options will become available.

 

Gotcha. I agree that as supply dwindles the alternatives will be more practical. But, in the present I firmly believe that people want to switch to alternatives quickly. Look at how well Toyota has done with their hybrids and they're on the verge of introducing plug-ins that will get double the mileage. American auto makers, for some reason, aren't catching on. I am just concerned about running out of things like medicine, fertilizer, plastics, and everything else. Getting off of oil for energy purposes needs to be priority #1 for security and environmental reasons.

Gotcha. I agree that as supply dwindles the alternatives will be more practical. But, in the present I firmly believe that people want to switch to alternatives quickly. Look at how well Toyota has done with their hybrids and they're on the verge of introducing plug-ins that will get double the mileage. American auto makers, for some reason, aren't catching on. I am just concerned about running out of things like medicine, fertilizer, plastics, and everything else. Getting off of oil for energy purposes needs to be priority #1 for security and environmental reasons.

I think I'm agreeing with you!

 

Agreed, people want to switch, and with the high prices, I don't blame them. I am a big fan of environmentalism and energy conservation/switching to alternative fuels, just not when it is government mandated.

 

And don't worry about running out of medicine, fertilized, and plastics and such. Say it with me- the free market will come through, the free market will come through.....