I don't think peak is necessarily relevant because global warming will be a more pressing consideration.
On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 05:05:06PM -0700, Jim Devine wrote: > 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. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
