The Green War on the Poor

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Alternative energy had a lot to do with post-oil age problem solving, but there are other dimensions of post-oil scenario that batteries will fail to address.

I did not say or imply that batteries are a good alternative. I said that they can be improved on. I dont even like batteries so quit trying to pin me to your battery argument.

There is no straw man. You called someone a pessimist and said batteries can be improved. I simply pointed out some key limitations to even the most magical theoretical battery's ability to solve some of the problems we'd have sans oil. That does not qualify as any sort of a straw man.

Again the poster asserted that batteries were a stagnant technology that could be be improved on. Clearly batteries can be improved on and I have proven that point.

Oil will still exist after we've killed each other. The problems will set in well before the oil is "gone." EROEI, global demand, production declines and price increases are all things we are already witnessing.

I am not going to argue something that I do not really care that much about. I mean your the one with the big concerns not me.

There is always a "way out." I'm only trying to tell you I believe the way out will necessarily be more painful than you or most people believe.

I am guess that you have a bunker for of left over y2k supplies?

I have. Alternative concepts come down to either weak EROEI or the fact that we convert oil calories into food calories where they otherwise would not grow, which has led to cheap food and a population that has used a finite resource to outgrow the natural carrying capacity of its ecosystem. Consider the line in my signature.



There ISN'T any solution to save the world's 8 billion people. There simply isn't. We're talking blood from a stone. Technology is great, but it can't create energy from nothing. We've been on a binge and become desperately reliant so I'm saying the adjustment to scarce expensive energy won't be pretty.

So basically you are a doomsdayer with nothing to add but your own fears to the mix?

Don't play dumb to the existence of petrochemical fertilizer.

Well you got me there buddy. But does it really matter? Since there are methods of making fertilizer without fossil fuels I really do not see what point you are trying to make?

And we can (and eventually must) go back to subsistence and permaculture, except it just won't feed 7 plus billion people and keep any semblance of the modern global economy running. Remember, there weren't this many mouths to feed before the age of oil. And there won't be after, either, if you get my drift.

Yes I get your drift, you are going on about an ideology. The mention of permaculture clued me into why you are going on about this doomsday idea that you are peddling. You believe that hopefully things will get bad sooner than later while there is still a planet to live on. You have a fantasy that things will become in reality the way you want the world to be. And you have accepted that modern society first must destroy itself to deliver us to eden a world void of everything that you despise. mainly Capitalism and American society.

David Holmgren studied the work of Peter Kropotkin and years later we have the green movement. Or what is known as Eco-socialism.


Which explains the strawman arguments.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Well said. The first time the US Department of the Interior warned us that we would run out of oil in ten years at our presernt rate of consumption was in 1866, long before Henry Ford even thought about building a horseless carriage.

It's rare to find anyone on the Internet who doesn't take the required wisdom as gospel. We tend to ignore all the self-appointed experts' predictive failures in the past. "No oil if it didn't seep to the surface" (1900, just before it was discovered underground in Texas). "No oil in Saudi Arabia" (1925). "No recoverable offshore oil" (1940). "We have to start importing oil before ours runs out. Shut down the smaller companies' wells! Besides, Saudi oil costs 10% less and they'll be glad to keep it that way just to participate in our market" (1960)

 

[Neomalthusian]

I am guess that you have a bunker for of left over y2k supplies?

I was quite young in 1999.

So basically you are a doomsdayer with nothing to add but your own fears to the mix?

A "doomsdayer?"

Well you got me there buddy. But does it really matter? Since there are methods of making fertilizer without fossil fuels I really do not see what point you are trying to make?

Perhaps your calling of the other poster a "pessimist" and following it up with the statement that batteries can be improved led me to think you are relatively unconcerned about the end of the oil age, and rebuke those who have negative outlook on that topic. I was wrong in that interpretation?

The mention of permaculture clued me into why you are going on about this doomsday idea that you are peddling. You believe that hopefully things will get bad...

Careful with your own straw men. Assessing something and predicting a bad outcome does not mean you "hope" for that outcome. You can believe something bad will happen without WANTING it to happen.

sooner than later while there is still a planet to live on. You have a fantasy that things will become in reality the way you want the world to be. And you have accepted that modern society first must destroy itself to deliver us to eden a world void of everything that you despise. mainly Capitalism and American society.

And again... diagnosing something as unsustainable does not mean I "despise" it. This society and its capitalism are all I know. I much enjoy single malt scotch but I understand that if I drink a fifth of it I am setting myself up for pain. I much enjoy a lot of things that cost money but know that if I don't budget my money I'm going to eventually hit a financial dead end.

I predict tough times ahead and you say I WANT or HOPE for tough times. I say something is unsustainable and you say I despise it. That's the straw man here. Not anything I've said. Maybe I've taken a short comment from you and launched into something else, and if so, point taken. But I do feel that my tangent is not actually very unrelated, and my posts were not so directed at you in particular as toward the general faith-based opinion (held by many) that technology of some sort will save us from the pain of oil withdrawals.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Most of the things in the OP are basically correct.

There will be no way to force a transition to a green economy under capitalism. You can't force something into capitalism without negative repercussions if its value can't be measured directly in terms of profit. Whenever there are negative repercussions they must be forced onto the poor because to force them onto the rich will only slow down the economy more and create even more negative consequences. The rich are also too powerful politically to indefinitely allow something to hurt them exclusively. Liberals willfully ignore the facts of how the capitalist system works if they think a transition to a green economy can be anything but massively detrimental to the economy itself.

Of course Libertarians and Conservatives willfully ignore the facts of climate science when they deny that global warming is a massive threat to civilization as we know it. They don't seem to understand that the value of scientific research can't always be measured in economic terms. The environmental havoc wrecked upon humanity by global warming transcends any relationship to long term or short term profits. At the same time capitalism as we know it is unlikely to survive any global environmental catastrophe.

If the Libertarians and Conservatives are right about the economics of climate change and Liberals are correct about the hard science something will have to give. Only the socialists understand that capitalism isn't flexible enough to handle everything and that you can't measure the importance of everything in only the terms of capitalist economics. We are the only ones who can offer a solution that saves the planet without putting the negative consequences on the backs of the poor. You can argue it isn't fair to solve the problem by taking all the wealth of the rich but it is the only practical option to help the vast majority of humanity.

Around a hundred years ago, Woodrow Wilson warned his capitalist owners that driving an automobile would turn the American workingman into a socialist. What he meant was that it would give the formerly humiliated and emasculated worker a sense of individual power, which would also give him the guts to stand up to his bosses. That was back before socialists realized that they couldn't control such people either. Since then, socialists have been taken over by manliness-hating weakling snobs who are afraid of and offended by macho drivers. This whole Green movement is motivated by hatred of muscle cars, sweaty lumberjacks, coalminers, and all old-fashioned Teamster types who would dare to have independent unions instead of government ownership of their workplace. If it's Green, it's yellow.

 

[Diogenes]

It's rare to find anyone on the Internet who doesn't take the required wisdom as gospel. We tend to ignore all the self-appointed experts' predictive failures in the past. "No oil if it didn't seep to the surface" (1900, just before it was discovered underground in Texas). "No oil in Saudi Arabia" (1925). "No recoverable offshore oil" (1940). "We have to start importing oil before ours runs out. Shut down the smaller companies' wells! Besides, Saudi oil costs 10% less and they'll be glad to keep it that way just to participate in our market" (1960)

True. The doomsayers have a very poor prognostication record, and I find it very difficult to take them seriously...

 

[Diogenes]

If it's Green, it's yellow.

I love it! Mind if I borrow it? :mrgreen:

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Maybe I've taken a short comment from you and launched into something else, and if so, point taken. But I do feel that my tangent is not actually very unrelated, and my posts were not so directed at you in particular as toward the general faith-based opinion (held by many) that technology of some sort will save us from the pain of oil withdrawals.

Take that argument to someone who is making that argument that you are targeting, not to me.


And for the last time it is pessimistic to claim that batteries will never get better despite the reality that they are. In no way does that mean that batteries will be perfect or any other asinine assumption like that. But also you need to realize that that everyone behind the permacuture nuttiness are pessimistic about modern society and in fact blame modern society for everything. And if you are not aware that eco-Socialism is anti-Capitalist perhaps you should learn more about permaculture before throwing that word around in a conversation?

 

[ecofarm]

years later we have the green movement. Or what is known as Eco-socialism.

Hey, I'm a wheeling free-marketeer. Not every green is a watermelon.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

People will adapt.

If we increase gas prices, there will be a demand for greater public transportation infrastructure. So they can still get around, they just won't need their own car to do it.

And public transportation will also lead to more conservation of fuel, as highways won't be nearly so congested with traffic during rush hour. And because of the lack of congestion there will be fewer emissions.

http://mobility.tamu.edu/files/2011/09/national-table_1.pdf

So, no, no green war on the poor. If anything, green policies promote better conditions for the poor, as public transportation will be built up and, with less pollution, they will be healthier.

Who will pay for all this public transportation infrastructure being built after the economy has been destroyed by the greens policies? Interesting how dem's are singing obama's praises for saving the US auto industry as they methodically attempt to legislate it out of business.

 

[EagleAye]

Who will pay for all this public transportation infrastructure being built after the economy has been destroyed by the greens policies? Interesting how dem's are singing obama's praises for saving the US auto industry as they methodically attempt to legislate it out of business.

Professor Frank is an idiot. The main point of Energy Security is to reduce oil dependence in order to prevent organizations like OPEC from crippling us, in exactly the same manner that Frank suggests! Frank acts just like the enemy we seek to defend against.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I love it! Mind if I borrow it? :mrgreen:

I've always wondered what individual originates these new words and phrases, such as "treehugger, Limousine Liberal, gay, clueless, oxymoron, give a man a fish, etc." Word experts only trace them to their first appearance in print. I wish people would use my "Nature is a pretty sight only to those sitting pretty," but we are all in denial (another new phrase) about the spoiled and sheltered origins of all contemporary Liberal fantasies.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Professor Frank is an idiot. The main point of Energy Security is to reduce oil dependence in order to prevent organizations like OPEC from crippling us, in exactly the same manner that Frank suggests! Frank acts just like the enemy we seek to defend against.

Once again we hear surrender and retreat trumpeted in our leaders' tired and decadent cowardice in dealing with our jihadist OPEC enemies. The way to prevent the OPECkers from crippling us is to cripple them instead through annexation of their oilfields. Western technology created all the Muslims' economic power, those backward nations created no wealth on their own. We can definitely say to them, "You didn't build that!"