Hi Jay,
You continue to ignore the points I made or asked you about, even
though I
looked at the writings you referred me to, and discussed certain aspects of
them. But that probably just indicates that this thread of discussion has
come to a natural end. Thanks for the references, anyway. It was interesting
seeing the technocratic approach.
Joseph
> >I asked what you thought would be accomplished if "someone could
> >convince people that the government will do this [seizure of the oil
> >fields] several years from now". What I was trying to get at was: why
> >do you concentrate only on one speculative possibility, when we are
> >faced with many burning crises?
>
> I have explained this before, but let's take it one step at a time. (Do you
> follow the "oil drum?" http://www.theoildrum.com/ )
>
> #1. All economic activity (in the physical sense) requires energy (physics).
> See http://jayhanson.us/oil.html Central banks can print money but they
> can't print energy. Instead, energy must be spent to obtain more energy.
> The difference between the amount spent and the amount recovered is the "net
> energy." See http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/6545
>
> #2. "Peak oil" is not a speculative possibility. It's just a matter of time
> and it's probably here now.
>
> #3. No combination of alternative energies can replace oil. After peak oil,
> net energy will fall for many decades. Thus, economic activity (in the
> physical sense) will fall for many decades. http://jayhanson.us/l3.html
>
> #4. Historically, a shortage of natural resources has led one country to
> attack another and grab its resources. War doesn't have to make any more
> sense than the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941.
>
> Please be concise. Do you understand my points above?
>
> Jay
>
> ===========
>
> DECLINING PRODUCTIVITY OF MONEY
> <http://tinyurl.com/y9kc42r>
> <http://tinyurl.com/2berho5>
> <http://tinyurl.com/2369c22>
>
> PEAK OIL
> <http://tinyurl.com/33qz6rh>
>
> RENEWABLES
> New renewables paper by Ted Trainer
> <http://jayhanson.us/_Energy/TrainerRenewables.pdf>
> a b s t r a c t
> Virtually all current discussion of climate change and energy problems
> proceeds on the assumption that technical solutions are possible within
> basically affluent-consumer societies. There is however a substantial case
> that this assumption is mistaken. This case derives from a consideration of
> the scale of the tasks and of the limits of non-carbon energy sources,
> focusing especially on the need for redundant capacity in winter. The first
> line of argument is to do with the extremely high capital cost of the supply
> system that would be required, and the second is to do with the problems set
> by the intermittency of renewable sources. It is concluded that the general
> climate change and energy problem cannot be solved without large scale
> reductions in rates of economic production and consumption, and therefore
> without transition to fundamentally different social structures and systems.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
