| Subject: | [socialcredit] Malthusian Pessimism | | Date: | Thursday, March 3, 2005 07:39:26 (-0800) | | From: | William B. Ryan <w_b_ryan @.....com>
|
| In reply to: | Message 603 (written by W. Curtiss Priest) |
As Hubbert's curve:
http:/www.hubbertpeak.com
clearly shows, we are on the downward slope of fossil
fuel availability.
----------------------------------
--------------------------------
[REPLY] What particularly irked me about this most
recent post from Curtiss Priest was not so much the
Malthusian pessimism that he frequently expresses,
which I am accustomed to, but this so firmly stated
assertion: "As Hubbert's curve clearly shows..."
What it "clearly" shows is what it is intended to
show. The matter is currently the subject of intense
debate between specialists. There is definitely
another side to the discussion. The conclusions
reached will have profound economic and political
consequences.
I direct your attention to some materials I have
gathered at
http://www.geocities.com/new_economics/replenishment/
I also refer you to a recent paper at my friend J. F.
Kenney's site: http://www.gasresources.net/
"In the pages containing articles connected with
petroleum economics, there are several papers by
Professor Michael C. Lynch of the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology which address directly the
myth of 'oil exhaustion'..."
I ask Dr. Priest to note that Professor Lynch is
associated with MIT, as is he. Perhaps Dr. Priest
will ring him up. This is Professor Lynch's recent
paper that directly addresses the Hubbert curve:
http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Hubbert-Deffeyes).htm
The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources:
Debunking the Hubbert Model (and Hubbert Modelers)
Michael C. Lynch[1]
Abstract:
Recently, numerous publications have appeared warning
that oil production is near an unavoidable,
geologically-determined peak that could have
consequences up to and including "war, starvation,
economic recession, possibly even the extinction of
homo sapiens" (Campbell in Ruppert 2002) The current
series of alarmist articles could be said to be
merely reincarnations of earlier work which proved
fallacious, but the authors insist that they have
made significant advances in their analyses,
overcoming earlier errors. For a number of reasons,
this work has been nearly impenetrable to many
observers, which seems to have lent it an added
cachet. However, careful examination of the data and
methods, as well as extensive perusal of the
writings, suggests that the opacity of the work is at
best obscuring the inconclusive nature of their
research.
Some of the arguments about resource scarcity
resemble those made in the 1970s. They have noted
that discoveries are low (as did Wilson (1977) and
that most estimates of ultimately recoverable
resources (URR)[2] are in the range of 2 trillion
barrels, approximately twice production to date. But
beyond that, Campbell and Laherrere in particular
claim that they have developed accurate estimates of
URR, and thus, unlike earlier work, theirs is more
scientific and reliable. In other words, this time
the wolf is really here. But careful examination of
their work reveals instead a pattern of errors and
mistaken assumptions presented as conclusive research
results.
-
--- "W. Curtiss Priest" <bmslib@mit.edu> wrote:
> **
> **
> W. Curtiss Priest, Ph.D.
> Center for Information, Technology &
> Society
> 466 Pleasant Street Melrose, MA 02176
> E-mail: BMSLIB@MIT.EDU, Voice: 781-662-4044, FAX:
> 781-662-6882
>
> March 2, 2005
>
> Public Issue #:120
>
> CITS Debt/Capital Watch
>
> "Chinese appetite for oil/gas
> energy"
>
> Commentary by Dr. W. Curtiss Priest,
> Director:
>
> I refer to an article, "China fuels energy cold
> war." This
> can be read at:
>
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GC02Ad07.html
>
> As I find that web articles come and go, I paste in
> a text
> copy of the article (below).
>
> Last night I watched a Christian broadcast about why
> we are
> in Iraq. This broadcast did not mention oil, but,
> rather,
> it saw "the West" in a struggle with the values
> associated
> with many middle-east countries.
>
> Yes, I have read materials that suggest that
> Christianity
> is more advanced, and a better set of values.
>
> This editor would like everyone to sit down "at a
> table" and
> discuss why and how their values are better suited
> to a more
> modern, civilized set of cultures. Am I mesmerized
> by the
> magic of "democracies?" No. Why? I sincerely
> believe that
> every religion has something to impart to each
> member of each
> culture. And, depending on the differences between
> cultures,
> I do not believe that "democracy" 'fits all.' Yet,
> I enjoy
> the freedoms that the US democracy has afforded me,
> and so
> I will speak out in favor of it.
>
> We do not have to turn to "hot spots" such as Iraq.
> Indeed,
> our own country is harbor to dozens of different
> religions.
> For example, Judiasm differs from Christianity. We
> know that,
> we accept that. So when I hear that our US
> administration
> wishes to imbue all countries that we have trouble
> with, with
> democracy, I see a hidden agenda -- we only wish to
> do this,
> primarily, with places that provide us natural
> resources --
> yes, mainly oil and gas.
>
> That we do this selectively, based on our needs for
> feeding
> our needs for fuel, is quite selfserving. Europe
> has coped
> with fuel supply by taxing oil and gas at high
> levels. As
> a result, the occupants run small, energy-efficient
> cars.
>
> When the US National Highway Traffic Safety
> Administration (NHTSA)
> asked MIT why was it that Europe and Japan were so
> quick to
> provide the US with fuel economic cars in the 70's,
> the answer
> was quite simple. Much higher gasoline taxes
> encouraged the
> production of efficient cars and bolstered the use
> of public
> transportation. Now we hear that the US may not
> even be able
> to afford their subsidy to AMTRAK. And over half
> the vehicle
> sales in the US are for cars or trucks that get
> around 15 mpg. --
> far, far less than what NHTSA instituted for
> "passenger cars"
> and the "CAFE" standard.
>
> So, yes, not only do some families protect
> themselves with
> a mass of steel 2-3 times heavier than a car they
> may hit, they
> do so by causing the US to gobble up oil and gas.
> Believe
> me. No one in 1974 imagined that the CAFE standard
> could be
> so completely and utterly circumvented. Now
> vehicles get
> fewer miles per gallon than most vehicles on the
> road in 1972 --
> prior to the energy crisis.
>
> More recently, because these are "hulking" vehicles,
> we hear
> that parents are tired of running over their
> children, when
> backing up, and want further technology to make up
> for the
> fact that they vehicles are simply too large for
> anyone to
> see around or through.
>
> But, while many eyes of America are focussed on this
> tinsy
> little country called Iraq, we have a much larger
> looming
> problem, not with N. Korean armaments, but with the
> fact that
> China now is the second largest consumer of oil,
> behind the
> US. And, yes, you can ask yourself, how can a tinsy
> little
> country like ours at 280 million folk, be
> outconsuming China
> with nearly 2 billion folk, and when China is
> providing ever
> increasing manufactured goods to the US and others.
>
> So, as China is clearly on the road to full
> industralization,
> it is struggling to maintain a flow of oil and gas.
>
> The Asian Times describes the many territorial
> conflicts that
> this demand has created, and the increased tensions
> between
> China and Japan. It describes how China taps into
> many oil
> sources that are to the detriment of flows to the US
> -- from
> Iraq to Russia.
>
> So while I and others have been impressed with
> China's ability
> to vastly undersell products to the US (despite the
> shipping
> costs), we are not impressed that to do so pushes
> China into
> oil gulping.
>
> As Hubbert's curve:
>
> http:/www.hubbertpeak.com
>
> clearly shows, we are on the downward slope of
> fossil fuel
> availability.
>
> Hydrogen? Well, many folk just make that out of a
> fossil
> fuel. Many more nuclear plants? Currently,
> electricity is
> considered a "high class" source of energy. It cost
> more, and
> generation costs either creat acid rain in New
> England, or
> problems disposing of "spent fuel rods."
>
> A colleague said, just to heat his home in Maine, he
> needs
> 10 acres of land to grow the trees, to turn into
> logs.
>
> Where is "steady-state?" I don't know but I know it
> has
> nothing to do with oil tankers and LNG tankers.
>
> Regards,
>
> W. Curtiss Priest, Ph.D.
> Editor, CITS Debt Watch
> Director, Center for Information, Technology &
> Society
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
|
Malthusian Pessimi
Reply to this message