Michael Perelman wrote: > I don't have any problem with that. In my original comment, I suggested that > it > would be difficult or possibly even impossible to predict the time in > advance. Nor > could we rule out the possiblity that new productivity would allow us to get > extraordinary efficiencies in the future -- only that at some point a peak > would be > reached.
so why is the peak relevant? if demand can be reduced via substitution and more efficient use, and if supply can be increased via more efficient extraction and the use of currently "uneconomical" fields, why is the peak empirically relevant? or is it the abstract threat of scarcity that's important for us to keep in mind? -- Jim Devine / "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -- Aristotle.
