It seems to me that the major problem will be the increase in
consumption.
If you consider China - from where I just came back - in 10 years
bicycles
have disappeared from the road and there many traffic jams and car
market is booming. Same thing I have seen in India.
I am glad for them, because they deserve their share of
oil-based-industrialization
but of course this shortens the remaining-oil window.
I don't think we will have time to destroy the environment with oil,
because
we will not be able to do much in 30 or 40 years.
The problem is if we will destroy it fighting for the remaining oil.
Massimo
On 17/ago/05, at 18:32, Michael Perelman wrote:
I was just thinking this morning about the disentanglement of the
rising energy prices, so
Max's graph was very welcome. I hear experts sometimes explaining how
$.75 in oil futures
is due to uncertainty in Nigeria and the dollar $1.15 because of
problems in Venezuela and
the like. I recall Doug talking about the impossibility of changes in
supply and demand
explaining the huge swings in oil prices from the late 60s till today.
The long-term fall in oil prices would not be inconsistent with the
Hubbert's peak story.
How much credibility to do to the idea that recent oil discoveries to
not seem sufficient
to cover the existing drawdowns of established oilfields?
And then the question about whether we'll just destroy the environment
before we have time
to run into major oil scarcity problems?
Well, that's what the Internet is for -- whistling in the dark.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 12:10:08PM -0400, Max Sawicky wrote:
Check this out, sports fans:
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/08/chart_of_the_we_3.html
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
