At 20:58 21-6-01 -0400, John Giorgis wrote:
>At 10:55 PM 6/21/01 +0200 J. van Baardwijk wrote:
> >We need to invest in renewable energy production now, because sooner or
> >later we're going to run out of alternatives (those oil wells *will* dry up
> >eventually). If we don't invest in it, because "we still have enough fossil
> >fuels to last us a century", future generations will pay the price for our
> >ignorance.
>
>But this is based upon a bizarre understanding of oil wells drying up at a
>single moment in time.
Personally, I have never heard anyone claim that the drying up of oil wells
will happen at "a single moment in time". I wonder what your statement
about "a bizarre understanding" is based upon.
I know that Big Oil does it best to make environmentalists look like
tree-hugging idiots who don't know what they're talking about. In reality
though, environmentalists aren't stupid; it's just that they think further
ahead than next quarter's net profits.
>The truth of the matter is that the oil wells will dry up slowly over the
>course of years. As the wells dry up, oil will become more scarce,
>causing the price to go up. This increase in prices will cause investment
>in other energy sources all by themselves, without any need for government
>interference.
But why wait till then? The sooner this is researched, the sooner we get
results, and the sooner we (and the environment!) will benefit from it.
Come to think of it, the only reason I can come up with for not investing
in research is the Sacred Quarterly Profits. Heaven forbid that we spend
money (and accept lower profits) now for something that's really only our
grandchildrens' problem... :(
And what is wrong with some government interference? This is not about
making profits, this is about the future of the next generations. IMO, that
*makes* it something the government must be involved in.
> >The missile shield is a bad idea, because (1) the taxpayers will have to
> >pay billions of dollars for a system that doesn't come with a 100%
> >effectiveness garantuee, and (2) it might very well lead to another arms
>race.
>
>Goodness, if only I could get rid of all the government programs that:
>1) Cost billions of dollars
>2) Do not have a 100% effectiveness guarantee
>and
>3) Might exacerbate the problem
Do other expensive not-100%-effective government programs (such as Public
Health Care and Social Security) lead to another (nuclear and/or
conventional) arms race, another Cold War, and perhaps even (worst case
scenario) to nuclear war?
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
