----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen A. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Oil shale research in Israel
Speaking as a CO2phobe and bonafide tree-hugger I object to being called
an "envirofascist".
I notice you quoted but did not reply to or perhaps notice what I wrote
towards the end. I will repeat it here.
"(this does not include all those who are environmentalists, just the
whackjobs)"
If you would prefer me to explain that further, I will do so. Reading your
response, I don't believe that you are what I would call an "envirofascist,"
I was mainly referring to those who stand in the way of every single slab of
concrete that someone tries to pour, etc. Incidentally, I have objected to
being called many things on this list, and my complaints fell on deaf ears.
Try to understand my hearing loss.
I just question the whole global warming business, as the way some
environmentalists and groups thereof have handled the supposed problem makes
it seem more a nice way to make a money and power grab than a real concern.
In the 70's it was the impending ice age. Sorry, but I don't know what data
to believe, who has doctored what to make it look the way they want it to
look, etc. Case in point: last year, everyone screamed that we would have an
even worse hurricane season this year because of global warming. This year,
we had almost no hurricane season because of....global warming...triggering
El Nino....gotta love the unfalsifiable. Maybe it's real, maybe it isn't.
Who can tell with the buffoons who are running the show, on both sides of
the issue.
Some concerns I do have are the destruction of rain forests. That is stupid,
they are being sawed down for no good reason, losing who knows what new
potential pharmaceuticals. Pointless destruction of a natural laboratory is
ridiculous, but we never hear about that anymore, no, its all the great big
evil CO2.
To go a bit more out on a limb here, I have a big problem with destruction
of other species which may very well be near our level of intelligence
capacity. I would not mind watching a Coast Guard cutter open fire on a
whaling ship. But we don't hear about these things anymore. The real
environmental issues have been pushed aside by the bleeding hearts who
really just want to make money and justify their existence.
"Hitting the wall" without any breathing space when the oil runs out seems
like a recipe for a world catastrophe, and as you point out, oil shale
could give the United States the breathing room it needs to get long-term
solutions in place.
Look at it this way: if we burn oil shale derived fuels for a while longer,
to give us the time and free resources to do the 'solar thing' (which I am
strongly in support of, as it has almost limitless potential) we will of
course add some more CO2 to the air. So fine.
If we do not do this, and just let things run out and have a big crash,
there will be a lot more CO2 than anyone can imagine. And NO2, various other
NOx's, and a nice big cloud of radioactive iodine, polonium, uranium,
plutonium, beryllium, ad nauseam ad tedium. If we have a worldwide energy
collapse, it will not be a slide back into medieval times like so many
scream. It will in all likelyhood be a nuclear war. But of course, we are
all good enlightened 21st century people, and we've got the noble
blue-helmets of the UN to keep us civilized. Take away those civilized
people's lights, and see how quickly the barbarism returns.
One nit I would pick with your post is that, looking at overall process
costs, including the strip-mining and subsequent enviro repair which is
likely to be involved in getting the stuff out of the ground, I'm not sure
it's really going to be "cheap" energy. But at this stage in the game,
anything that qualifies as "available" energy is probably just fine --
after all, we've been living pretty well with $65/bbl oil (give or take a
ten-spot), which doesn't exactly qualify as "cheap energy", either.
It is also interesting, I think, that no one seems to have pointed out that
there is a large available workforce for manual labor to construct solar
power collectors in the desert, which we do not have to pay anything at all:
convicts. That kind of paying debt to society I think is better than letting
them lounge around all day doing nothing, watching TV, etc. Make them work
it off. If they work extra hard, reduce their time. When they get out, give
them certification in whatever they worked on during prison labor, job
references, etc. Then they can get a decent job and not have to go back to a
life of crime. But who would do this? The liberals won't, because you can't
force those poor darlings to work! Nor will the republicans do it either,
because they wouldn't make enough money off of it.
Hmmm. This is becoming a vicious circle. If we have prices that are so
outrageous for energy that people are finally motivated to do something
serious about it, then we are already at the point where our resources are
strained to the point of ineffectiveness. If prices and resources are not
strained, and we have a great surplus to solve the problem once and for all,
then no one is motivated. This is about like two people walking in opposite
directions in a hallway and both stepping from side to side in unison.
Something has to give or we get nowhere. But what?
You have to love economics: the entire future of the human race may be
limited by something that doesn't even exist, except on paper.
--Kyle
