Absolutely, the design of cars, the construction of housing, the location of
housing, and a multitude of other factors affect the rate of depletion.
I believe that the point that Mark is making is that even if we were to make
enormous improvements in such areas, even if we find a way to drive down the
marginal cost of extraction, shortages are looming in the long run.
I doubt that he or any of us here could actually pin point the timing of this
long run. To put it off requires an enormous massing of will -- although price
increases will increase conservation, conservation alone will not suffice. It
will require substantial changes in lifestyles, which brings up the sort of
point that Doug makes -- who decides, how do you get people to comply ....?
The problem is that the immediate decisions on such things have important long
run consequences.
Stephen E Philion wrote:
> Michael,
> Here's another issue for possible consideration. Is the problem one of
> oil shortages given the stubborness of US car companies to not design
> autombiles that conserve greater amounts of gas? In fact, perhaps the
> argument could be made that we have way more than enough petrochemicals,
> but the organization of key manufacturing sectors (i.e. auto) around high
> gas consuming commodities invariably creates the impression of crisis in
> terms of 'oil shortage.'
> There is one thing rather apparent in this discussion, namely that the
> appeal to the existence of an 'oil shortage' is not necessarily any less
> potentially radical in content than the argument that there is no shortage
> aside from the one that has been socially constructed and which could be
> just as easily socially undone if profit weren't the #1 guidepost for
> energy policy.
>
> Steve
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Michael Perelman wrote:
>
> > We have a few facts that we can agree upon. Despite Gold's fantasies --
> > after all he is promoted on the WSJ's editorial page, we are running out
> > of petrochemicals.
> >
> > New technologies allow for better extraction of deposits that would
> > otherwise be economical.
> >
> > Better technologies can economize on energy.
> >
> > I mention these obvious points because they have been repeated many times
> > here as if they were some sort of revelation.
> >
> > Nobody can quantify any of the above statements with precision. We should
> > not expect anyone here to be able to do so.
> >
> > Also, despite the fantasies of W. and his boss from Wyoming, the
> > extraction of fossil fuels is a messy process, threating water supplies
> > and other scarce resources.
> >
> > Nobody can say for sure if oil will be the first binding point. It could
> > be water, it could be public health -- although all the looming problems
> > are bound together.
> >
> > None of us has the expertise to speak with great authority on the subject;
> > nor can we demand others on the list to do so.
> >
> > The fact remains that looming petroleum shortages are a serious problem
> > that has many dimensions. Ask the people from Columbia who are in the
> > process of trading herbicides for oil.
> >
> > ---
> > Michael Perelman
> > Economics Department
> > California State University
> > Chico, CA 95929
> >
> > Tel. 530-898-5321
> > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
