1. Every year oil gets more expensive,
Well, the price is dependent mainly on 'supply and demand'... by supply I mean REFINED supply. When was the last time a refinery was built in north america? So, the price has ONLY gone up because of an increased DEMAND on a stable supply. The most recent increases since the prices bottomed out around 60$ / barrel, well, it STILL COSTS 60$ / barrel for oil... I know you're going to tell me "no, Bman, it's over 80$ / barrel." Which is correct, it now costs 89$ to get 60$ worth of oil... aka, the reason the price has been rising has more to do with dollar devaluation then it does in an increase in cost.
we are spending approx. $6 per gallon presently when you add in the cost of the ME wars necessary keep our addiction satisfied in the future.
If you're talking about Iraq, that war actually SHUT OFF the majority of oil production in that country, and was a factor in why the price jumped to nearly 150$ / barrel.
Don't forget; oil is run by a CARTEL... and the reality is because they control the supply (ie refineries) they can effectively demand the price that they want. Oh, and we could stop those wars in the middle east over control of oil TODAY, reopen Alaska to drilling and effectively replace that oil.
We spend hundreds of billions in the ME annually that could be invested in this country.
Again, I gotta point you to what the movers and shakers of the world are saying... the problem is NOT that we don't have the money to food, clothe and shelter every human on earth, it's that these humanitarian ventures do NOT COST ENOUGH to be viable. There's vastly more PROFITS to be made through war then there EVER will be through peace.
Though, I do agree with you.
And that doesn't even count the failures our economy will experience from the future affects of AGW.
The economy is ALREADY on the verge of failure... and that's a side issue, but...
Job Losses From Obama Green Stimulus Foreseen in Spanish Study - Bloomberg
2. We need, as quickly as possible, to transition to renewable energy, increase efficiency including the CAFE standards, provide tax credits for R&D and building with alternative energy. Basically, pick up where we left off before Reagan scrapped these programs and said to party like it was 1954.
Individually, yes, it's nothing but a good thing to :
- INstall solar panelling
- use energy efficient appliances
- Drive a hybrid
- install geothermal heating
- etc...
BUT : because these artificially created 'green jobs' actually COST JOBS that just proves that this switch over is still not economically viable, and that's why every green venture ever proposed (beyond tax breaks for investing in energy efficiency) has been abject failure. Just look at the untold deaths from starvation caused by ethanols.
3. Yes, we've faced the same situation every year since 1971 when we passed peak oil in this country. We have just been too ignorant to act on it for almost 40 years and counting now.
Umm... I think you misunderstood the question...
I was asking if you could offer a precedence where acting on 'green initiatives' has generated economic growth, since that seems to be a premise you're working on...
4. All jobs that rely on fossil fuels are in jeopardy in the future due to the ever increasing cost of a diminishing resource. If there is to be a future economy, transitioning to renewables is not an option.
It'd be a bit more accurate to say 'all jobs' are in jeopardy if we ran out of oil... though I haven't specifically sourced this, you could add that because of robotics and automation among other similar advancements, those same elites have discussions that have been published (not publicized) as to whether in the future, since there isn't the NEED for a fraction of the people to have work, there have been debates as to whether it's preferable to have a society that is just 'entertained' to death, or whether its preferable to reduce human numbers so that everyone alive could have a job and be productive in society... the results, as it's been written is to "get rid of those useless eaters".
That said... you'll brush this off because it's my 'theory' that there are people like Bill Gates and Ted Turner getting together with other leaders of industry, politics and academia that might be able to create change in society, and are actively making plans for society that stretch out sometimes as far as 50 years into the future.
5. I haven't heard of anyone suggesting we maintain the temperature using only CO2. What the scientists have advocated is to lower our CO2 output by burning less fossil fuels and stop cutting down rainforests that can sequester some of the CO2, in hopes of averting the Global warming tipping point, at which point it is too late to act and we have condemned future generation to a grim existence.
You said 'stable climate'... and since you also claim that "Co2 drives climate" I was hoping that you'd have something concrete where you could say "ok, if we keep CO2 at X ppm we can maintain the climate at a stable temperature indefinately."
I was hoping you'd realize how asinine it is to claim that CO2 drives climate when you really think about this, but you've clearly fallen prey to this propaganda.a
Of course none of this will matter to you because you have chosen to keep your mind closed regarding the scientific consensus of both AGW and Peak oil.[/QUOTE]