tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post1446819535772457577..comments2024-02-24T19:10:00.395+02:00Comments on Sudden Debt: The Real Cost Of BlackHellasioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03564511281240682625noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-34908216768255634672008-05-04T04:27:00.000+03:002008-05-04T04:27:00.000+03:00not having read all the posts, i'll guess that I'm...not having read all the posts, i'll guess that I'm not repeating<BR/><BR/>'permagrowth' has not been a consequence of energy availability but a particular set of dominant social relations of production, e.g. the combining of: production not for use by the direct producer but for sale; the seperating of direct producers from their means of production and transformation into free wage workers with nothing to sell but their labor-power; reciprocally related to this, the progressive concentration of ownership of means of production into the hands of those who had accumulated means to purchase such and to pay for the required labor-power with its ability to create greater value than cost of its means of subsistence, to create a surplus value for the owners of capital, and a surplus that when realized through sale of product became profit; all within and determining a legal political structure of private property hence the historical necessity for a then revolutionary class of capitalists able to overthrow ancien regimes and take state power.<BR/><BR/>This set of relations, hundreds of years in the making, was also the birth of a system driven on not by EROEI but a competitive interacting of profit maximizing, accumulation driven, individual enterprises. Competition though is never for competition's sake but to increase mass and rate of gain and when the latter declines to offset via increasing the former, whether through market share or acquisition or both but ceasely seeking to expand.<BR/><BR/>From the very moments of its birth, this system's 'genetic code' contained a globe covering destiny as well as the need to drive forces of production to ever higher levels.<BR/><BR/>Yet these same forces episodically come into contradiction with the relations they flow from, something evident during every crisis. IOW, the capital system must destroy to survive and on occassion is forced to destroy more or less of itself. Rentier capitalism has been nothing more than the system's struggle to overcome its own global limits that have less to do with nature as such than the nature of the system.<BR/><BR/>What prevents generalization of new green technologies? The relatively insufficient rate and mass of return, which is not directly related to energy efficiency. An energy theory of value fails to take account of that which is systemic but does allow some to unconsciously make excuses for the same system of relations which has damaged the natural and social environments.<BR/><BR/>Yes, capitalism is 'society as we know it' and yes, it cannot solve itself or the tralectory it has been on since moreless 1909.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-5068510134027933342008-05-03T20:55:00.000+03:002008-05-03T20:55:00.000+03:00Greenie-"and who will feed these small group of la...Greenie-<BR/><BR/>"and who will feed these small group of lazy @sses? Companies surviving in the jungle and making some profit for a change."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps I'm not painting a clear enough picture to get my point across. It would be a self-sufficient tribe hidden from the rest of humanity because (this is the important part, Greenie) the rest of human civilazation will be going Mad Max. No NYSE, no 911, no supermarkets, no antibiotics.<BR/><BR/>Yoyomo-<BR/><BR/>Nice synopsis on global warming! Interesting comment on it benefiting Russia...<BR/><BR/>M3anon-<BR/><BR/>The prions have already gotten to your brain. You're hallucinating that you're the Illinois Nero.<BR/><BR/>Greenie again-<BR/><BR/>So how do you think this all turns out? The various hoaxes are revealed and the economy acts likes it 1998 for the next few decades? I'm not being an a-hole here, I'm genuinely curious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-12352277393815395932008-05-03T19:51:00.000+03:002008-05-03T19:51:00.000+03:00Greenie,Your charm simply leaps from the page, ple...Greenie,<BR/>Your charm simply leaps from the page, please don't ever contemplate depriving the rest of us of its healing benefits.yoyomohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06357340275250708990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-38256442918444419032008-05-03T19:47:00.000+03:002008-05-03T19:47:00.000+03:00M3ANON I will stay out of the global warming debat...M3ANON I will stay out of the global warming debate as I have not read any of the primary science so I really can't intelligently comment (the extent of my knowledge comes from articles in popular magazines, etc...).<BR/> <BR/>As for opening national oil reserves now to prevent a recession now-- this seems as absurd a view as some of the 'peak' extremists-- the oil still takes years to come on line. <BR/><BR/>If a recession is in the near future (from poor monetary policy, etc...) it is coming whether we release the oil or not. <BR/><BR/>In the end the piper always wants his money.Thaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-37339653671339288332008-05-03T18:24:00.000+03:002008-05-03T18:24:00.000+03:00"My main concern is resource depletion; peak oil, ..."My main concern is resource depletion; peak oil, peak soil, peak ground water, peak potash, peak phosphorus, post-peak nickel, post-peak tin, etc."<BR/><BR/>peak rough rice, peak soybean, peak wheat, peak coffee, peak obesity, peak Mcdonald, peak Starbucks, peak shopping malls.....Greeniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16723475560144858107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-39392772344643128612008-05-03T18:17:00.000+03:002008-05-03T18:17:00.000+03:00Mitchell, $35 is 2000-02 low adjusted for decline ...Mitchell, $35 is 2000-02 low adjusted for decline in the price of dollar.<BR/><BR/>"the real argument that peak oil is now comes from national production curves"<BR/><BR/>I have been through many 'peak' arguments. One that was popular in 2000 around silicon valley was peak in Moore's law. Looking into future, people projected that they would not be able to pack more transistors into a computer chip, and that was seen as the biggest threat to silicon valley industries. Peak in Moore's law keeps getting shifted from 1984 to 1990 to 2000 to 20XX...you know the drill.<BR/><BR/>Another one said that they do not make land any more in hot places around the world. You know how that ended too.<BR/><BR/>Regarding oil, it is supply versus demand. Peak oilers argue that demand will keep going up very fast, because of rising India and China. Unfortunately, the current boom in India/China is linked to monetary inflation in US. Pension funds of baby boomer generation are trying to go into any place with higher yield, be it Chinese stock market, Pakistani bonds and mortgage-backed SIVs. Everything else is derived effect.<BR/><BR/>When inflation runs out of steam, all the 'peak' believers change topic or go into hiding. Seen it many times.Greeniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16723475560144858107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-49217944156387994632008-05-03T18:14:00.000+03:002008-05-03T18:14:00.000+03:00M3ANON,I would not want to sincerely disappoint yo...M3ANON,<BR/>I would not want to sincerely disappoint you so I'll give it my best shot so please bear with me. It will never be possible to prove with absolute certianty what the cause of global warming is (is it natural or man made?), all we can do is observe how fast it is happenning and try to correlate it with other variables like CO2 levels in the atmosphere, among other things. From there we can speculate as to causality with some theories being more plausible than others. <BR/><BR/>By taking ice cores from ancient glaciers and analysing the air bubbles trapped in different layers of ice we can measure the amount of CO2 in the air over the last 500,000years or more. It is also possible to get an idea of the temperature in different eras of the distant past by examining the proportions of different types of pollen trapped in the layers of ancient ice; when the earth was warm there would be a higher proportion of pollen from warm weather plants, when the earth was cooler there would be a higher proportion of pollen from cold weather plants. <BR/><BR/>When comparing the levels of ancient CO2 to ancient tempertures, higher levels of CO2 correlate very tightly (after adjusting for volcanic dust which also shows up in the ice cores) with higher temperatures. Now I realise that it may be hard for you to believe but Chicago is not the world and local variability can easily camouflage global trends and global average temperatures have been trending gradually higher along with the rising CO2 levels. <BR/><BR/>In any case, the biggest impact of global warming is felt near the poles especially during spring and autumn. Eskimo villages are reporting spring temperatures 20-30F above normal which is causing more of the permanent ice to melt each summer. <BR/><BR/>A much bigger worry is the melting of the permafrost because that would release the huge quantities of methane trapped in the frozen ground and methane is far more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO2 (that is why methane from oil wells is flared, producing lesser-heat-trapping CO2, instead of simply being vented). There exists a very real possibility of a self re-inforcing cycle arising beyond the control of humans if the methane in the permafrost and frozen on the ocean floor starts to escape into the atmosphere.<BR/><BR/>The main concern is not that Earth would resemble Venus but that the change in rainfall patterns would destroy the world's ability to feed itself. Obviously there will be winners and losers which explains Russia's refusal to abide any curbs on emmissions. A warmer globe would benefit them.<BR/><BR/>All that said, global warming is not my first worry. It will be gradual and with strict birth control population levels can ratchet down to adjust to it. <BR/><BR/>My main concern is resource depletion; peak oil, peak soil, peak ground water, peak potash, peak phosphorus, post-peak nickel, post-peak tin, etc., etc... These constraints will hit with full force, sudden impact. There is only so much substitution possible and there will not be enough to go around for 6-7billion people. <BR/><BR/>I'm not a climatologist but I hope this sheds some light on the subject.<BR/><BR/>Final note; we all have to eat but if I were a cow I wouldn't appreciate the callous insouciance of your final remark. Their central nervous system for feeling pain and fear is every bit as highly developed as yours is; my turn to be sincerely disappointed.yoyomohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06357340275250708990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-1856598222473747312008-05-03T12:57:00.000+03:002008-05-03T12:57:00.000+03:00Greenie, I am interested in your contention that h...Greenie, I am interested in your contention that high prices for all commodities might be basically due to global monetary inflation. But first, let me just state the peak oil orthodoxy. Though peak-oil advocates certainly treat the high prices as a confirmatory sign, the real argument that peak oil is now comes from national production curves, exhaustion of known fields vs discovery of new ones, and so forth. <BR/><BR/>That argument can be had in many places, I don't know if you want to go over it here. Anyway, what I'd like to know, to begin with, is where you get your $35/barrel figure from - a forecast of recession plus deflation, perhaps?Mitchellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768655514143252049noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-46617578733141136052008-05-03T07:50:00.000+03:002008-05-03T07:50:00.000+03:00M3ANON said: The Chicago Tribune has not updated t...M3ANON said:<BR/><BR/> The Chicago Tribune has not updated their site for May 3 yet but the MSN weather page says that the record high temp for Chicago was 88 degrees set back in ... 1949. 70 years - Global Warming has been chasin' us with the frying pan for 70 years but it hasn't gotten over 88 degrees yet. This manmade Global Warming is a killah - yup!<BR/><BR/>RJ -<BR/>That was funny.<BR/><BR/>Thai -<BR/>You are attempting to change the issue and it will not work. As you know these discussion of the last few days has centered around the assertion that we need to switch out of fossil fuels NOW NOT because of national security concerns but because we are all about to kill ourselves off due to polluting Mother Earth and causing her to crank up the burners on us. Yes there are national security concerns - but forcing a recession on ourselves so we adopt alt energy methods quicker is a matter of maintaining U.S. national security?<BR/><BR/>Yoyo -<BR/>Aye, this lad is sincere. And he is also sincerely disappointed that no factual evidence can be provided to substantiate your claims - you didn't even attempt to sneak a Goreism past me! GEEZ!<BR/><BR/>Dink -<BR/>I think we should off more cows too. They are too cumbersome and go great with cheddar - slice'em and grill'em, <B>Yeah-Buddy</B>!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-77257234532135863782008-05-03T01:02:00.000+03:002008-05-03T01:02:00.000+03:00"small group of dedicated people are going to have..."small group of dedicated people are going to have to volunteer to dedicate their lives to researching energy solutions without profit incentive"<BR/><BR/>and who will feed these small group of lazy @sses? Companies surviving in the jungle and making some profit for a change.Greeniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16723475560144858107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-64544976406231191392008-05-03T00:54:00.000+03:002008-05-03T00:54:00.000+03:00Forgot to add - NAS is just the representative of ...Forgot to add - NAS is just the representative of status quo. If government increases funding for agencies, they reap disproportionate share of it. Is there any surprise that they always ask for government to increase science budget? The Science journal publishes editorials month after month about why Washington should raise science budget. Have you seen a single editorial opposing a raise?<BR/><BR/>When the establishment is biased, you can get any result that you like to see. If that 30% number looks too bad, let me know. I will discuss with few NAS members to adopt a different statistical measure.Greeniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16723475560144858107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-70631076121595773512008-05-03T00:50:00.000+03:002008-05-03T00:50:00.000+03:00"As for the NAS 'cooking their books'"It is a ques..."As for the NAS 'cooking their books'"<BR/><BR/>It is a question of opportunity cost. <BR/><BR/>Every month NSF or NIH websites declare that government funding made this big discovery possible - such as NIH funding made sequencing of a genome available to people. How can anyone find out, whether the sequence would not have been available to the public, if NIH did not suck away money from public? You hear all kinds of arguments like "companies will not give it out for free", "large projects such as human genome sequencing cannot be done without the government". Yet, in a different space, we find google creating world's largest database of online information and giving it out for free.<BR/><BR/>NIH, NSF, DOE, NASA etc. are all big bloated government agencies. I do not know, why anybody in his right mind will like to expand them.Greeniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16723475560144858107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-66305469361970301482008-05-03T00:29:00.000+03:002008-05-03T00:29:00.000+03:00Thai/Yoyomo,Party people do make up a greater perc...Thai/Yoyomo,<BR/><BR/>Party people do make up a greater percentage of the population. And their behavior will cause a capsize. In fact, I believe the tipping slowly started a few decades ago and the angle is getting steeper day by day (overpopulation/resource depletion).<BR/><BR/>And this stresses me because 1) I'd like to live as long as possible and as well as possible, and 2) the suffering of others truly upsets me (even when it is brought about by unintended consequences of their own behavior).<BR/><BR/>So the 1st order of business is my own survival (spouse too). I'm a clever bastard and think I can manage this under most circumstances. The 2nd order of business is gathering up all my science/engineeing buddies into the Clever Bastard Survival Club. This will aid in survival and pleasant social contact. The 3rd order is more recruiting of the willing and like-minded for farming and physics research. Once we discover sustainable energy we check in on the rest of the world. If capitalism is still viable, we distribute the technology in a way that generates some cash while saving humanity. If capitalism has crashed, we give the technology to the global survivors on the condition that they don't make the same mistakes as previous generations (overpopulation, violence, CDS swaps, etc.). <BR/><BR/>To any readers who think this is bleak vison of the future: Sorry, but this is as optimistic as I get!<BR/><BR/>P.S. To those who believe biofuel crops are leading to global starvation I just read that over half of US corn goes to feeding cows. We gotta get rid of cows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-70071831543093231672008-05-02T23:39:00.000+03:002008-05-02T23:39:00.000+03:00Dink,There isn't going to be another step in evolu...Dink,<BR/>There isn't going to be another step in evolution, if the sober types can't stop the party people from all rushing to one side of the boat (the convenience-at-all-costs side) at the same time then its going to capsize and we're all going down together. Judging by the relative numbers of each type, who do you think is going to prevail?<BR/><BR/>Hi Thai,<BR/>Hope you have better success enticing M3ANON towards the light, I gave it my best shot to no avail but the lad is obviously sincere.yoyomohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06357340275250708990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-19633810059139541662008-05-02T23:29:00.000+03:002008-05-02T23:29:00.000+03:00Dink said... " small group of dedicated people are...Dink said... " small group of dedicated people are going to have to volunteer to dedicate their lives to researching energy solutions without profit incentive"<BR/><BR/>Usually we agree but not on this-- Who will do this in large enough numbers to 'save society' for free? <BR/><BR/>Its absolutely fine with me if profit is their main goal-- if they come up with new energy solutions why should I grudge them a nickle? Expecting someone to do it for free is absurd-- everyone benefits from their actions, why does society need to dump on them?Thaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-5854631413573832592008-05-02T21:47:00.000+03:002008-05-02T21:47:00.000+03:00Greenie said... "Thai said... "for the simple reas...Greenie said... "<BR/><BR/>Thai said... "for the simple reason the 'payback' on basic science research investments often run greater than 30+ year-- probably beyond the patience of even the most patient private investors."<BR/><BR/>I am all ears if you see the flaw in this logic... you of all people should know I am not a proponent of big government.<BR/><BR/>Think on your own geneticist background, most of the 'practical' applications in your field came out of very esoteric origins.<BR/><BR/>As for the NAS 'cooking their books'-- I won't challenge your point, the accruacy of the numbers in either direction are highly questionable-- but a quick 'back of the napkin' calculation using ballpark numbers from your own experience might also conclude the numbers are plausible-- I did it myself out of curiosity.Thaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-12124030960987686412008-05-02T21:29:00.000+03:002008-05-02T21:29:00.000+03:00"The National Academy of sciences has quantified A..."The National Academy of sciences has quantified America's basic science research investment at >30% annualized over the entire 20th century"<BR/><BR/>Seems like they are not different from NAR or NAHB in talking their books.<BR/><BR/>I do not see, why government needs to fund research. However, given the options between defense spending, farmer subsidy and scientific research, I would go for National Association of Scientors.Greeniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16723475560144858107noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-20349198432865382022008-05-02T21:24:00.000+03:002008-05-02T21:24:00.000+03:00Americans have the right to self-destruct. The pur...Americans have the right to self-destruct. The pursuit of happiness is not necessarily correlated to the pursuit of sustainable longevity of the individual, humankind, or the biosphere. Those these phrases are loosely based from the US Bill of Rights, philosophically they apply to all humans.<BR/><BR/>Optimistic news is more pleasant to listen to than troublesome news so more people watch the Pravda-esque Fox News than any other channel. So Fox has more $ and the lesser news sources die off. Is Fox, capitalism, or human nature to blame? I'm going with human nature.<BR/><BR/>But that's not fair since there is more than one "human nature". This division of personality types could be the next step in evolution. Gotta stop this tangent and get back to my intended point...<BR/><BR/>So if humans have the right to engage in behavior that will lead to their suffering and/or death, is the humanitarian thing to do 1)limit their freedom and prevent their inevitable pain or 2) let them have complete freedom and watch helplessly as they cry later? Tough call, yes?<BR/><BR/>The various governments and their resource philosophers (economists)will try lots of options, but I can't see any of them being effective because of their size/complexity. I think a small group of dedicated people are going to have to volunteer to dedicate their lives to researching energy solutions without profit incentive (not that I'm against it, its just that profit can't be their main goal or expectation or they'll have to waste time with patents, insider trading, etc.). Science monks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-12388226206828646362008-05-02T19:43:00.000+03:002008-05-02T19:43:00.000+03:00M3ANON... forgetting the issue of global warming f...M3ANON... forgetting the issue of global warming for the moment, I doubt you disagree with the validity of the national energy security issue.<BR/><BR/>Or do you take issue with the view that the military costs of protecting foreign oil reserves and supply lanes are large and real? For if you were to add these additional military/social costs into the price of oil (paid from things like income taxes) renewable energy would look a lot more attractive. And it is dishonest accounting if you do not add these costs. Further, even if many of these costs are paid by the people we 'protect' (e.g the Saudi Arabias of the world, etc...) in the form of things like US debt/treasury purchases at absurdly low rates, etc…. Still, our (the U.S.) portion of this bill is considerable. <BR/><BR/>So knowing all you know, do you really believe paying for oil/energy the way we do now (low costs at the pump, high costs in income taxes, military spending, etc…) that America has really put the proverbial lego's together in the best possible way? It is reasonable to periodically look at how we spend our money as a society to see if it can be ‘done better’ (usually means getting bad government policy/spending out of the way).<BR/><BR/>Who will do this: government? The Private Sector? Either is fine with me. I think Hell’s point is that until we put our collective minds on this endeavor, it probably won’t happen. Even if we do spend lots of time and money, there is obviously no guarantee it will happen (would be one hell of a bad high risk investment), yet his hunch (I think), and certainly my own hunch, is that the ingenious talented people of this planet will solve the technical issues and the cost/benefit will work without any accounting gimmickry (perhaps we can all pay less in income taxes? Yah right! :-) )<BR/><BR/>And while I don't think our government need fund basic science energy research any more than it fund any other type of basic science research, I do support government funding of basic science research as a general rule (and energy can certainly be part of this) for the simple reason the 'payback' on basic science research investments often run greater than 30+ year-- probably beyond the patience of even the most patient private investors. The National Academy of sciences has quantified America's basic science research investment at >30% annualized over the entire 20th century, so if history is any guide of the past, (granted this is flawed inductive reasoning), still it seems like a pretty good ‘bet’ with taxpayer money.<BR/><BR/>Certainly this is not controversial.<BR/><BR/>rj-LOL!!!!Thaihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00700253024420397221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-82918073184205517342008-05-02T18:39:00.000+03:002008-05-02T18:39:00.000+03:00"Can anyone please provide me a rock-hard objectiv..."Can anyone please provide me a rock-hard objective scientific Fact-source that can tell me EXACTLY how much of Global Warming is UNDENIABLY attributable to Man ?<BR/><BR/>50%. The other half comes from women. Animals don't have thermometers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-53158971639654241892008-05-02T17:31:00.000+03:002008-05-02T17:31:00.000+03:00M3ANON said: Correction - it is currently 65 degre...M3ANON said:<BR/><BR/> Correction - it is currently 65 degrees and it is before noon.<BR/> Wouldn't want to be a fibber.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-12776969709129710192008-05-02T17:09:00.000+03:002008-05-02T17:09:00.000+03:00M3ANON said:** Please, will someone educate me fur...M3ANON said:<BR/><BR/><B>**</B> Please, will someone educate me further on this by providing an answer to the following question - I'm serious. I need to know the Truth.<B>**</B> <BR/><BR/>By the way, today's record high temp in Chicago is 91 degrees set back in 1959. Ah yes, 1959 was a sweaty yet informative year. It was in 1959 that we <B>really</B> knew man-made Global Warming was cranking up the fry and soon we would all be doomed. Of course then we decided in the 1970's that there was Global Cooling going on - but now we are back on topic. Yup. 1959 was the beginning of manmade Global Warming - why it's almost 50 degrees now and it's not even noon! Oh why won't the People believe?<BR/><BR/> Might someone please provide me a GENUINE OBJECTIVE URL that tells me FOR FACT what percentage of Global Warming is attributable to Man?<BR/> I'm not asking for "Nature Joe's We are On the Eve of Destruction"-type subjective stuff - everyone has an opinion. Can anyone please provide me a rock-hard objective scientific Fact-source that can tell me EXACTLY how much of Global Warming is UNDENIABLY attributable to Man ?<BR/><BR/> Thanks in advance. Have a jolly day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-88268614864862621772008-05-02T15:57:00.000+03:002008-05-02T15:57:00.000+03:00Here's a clip from the venerable Financial Times a...Here's a clip from the venerable Financial Times about ExxonMobil:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2af6218e-1784-11dd-b98a-0000779fd2ac.html" REL="nofollow">Exxon Oil Production Struggles for Growth</A><BR/><BR/>What's even more interesting are the related remarks by the Rockefeller family, who own much of ExxonMobil's stock. They are exhorting the hidebound company to make the leap to alternative fuels.<BR/><BR/>It's not a question of "if", or really, even "when". The question is "how are we going change our energy production and consumption profile". <BR/><BR/>And working from yesterday's theme, if you're waiting around for some "leader" to show you the way, you'll probably be waiting quite a while. <BR/><BR/>Bottom-up is where the change comes from. There are many lists on the Internet describing simple, cheap, incremental ways to re-cast your energy consumption profile. <BR/><BR/>Remember, the doom-and-gloom crowd and the flat-earth-deniers often have one thing in common: they make lots of noise while doing nothing.<BR/><BR/><I>"It's not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change"<BR/><BR/>-- Charles Darwin</I><BR/><BR/>How are you doing at responding to change? Still talking?<BR/><BR/>O.B.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-75903299556709014492008-05-02T15:01:00.000+03:002008-05-02T15:01:00.000+03:00Once paid for renewable energy sources may be much...<I>Once paid for renewable energy sources may be much cheaper than fossil fuels.</I><BR/><BR/>That there is the rub. The cost of switching to sustainable energy sources is capital intensive (like building railroads or highways were). But long term, the solar technologies will more than pay for themselves. The problem is that Americans want to maintain the tax rates we have now (even if it means we run out of energy quicker).OkieLawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071917464425173379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4102429195693595750.post-60887371989917604562008-05-02T14:18:00.000+03:002008-05-02T14:18:00.000+03:00Remember, Nature is everything." You cannot go aga...Remember, Nature is everything.<BR/><BR/>" You cannot go against nature<BR/>Because when you do<BR/>Go against nature<BR/>It's part of nature too."<BR/><BR/>Love and Rockets<BR/>No New Tale To Tell<BR/><BR/>Jason BAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com