It's true that as demand goes up, we make more profit. Now, let me ask you something else... If my motivations are so suspect, why would I advocate using less to drop the price. And why do we work so hard to increase production? And why do we advocate more domestic production? Because both of those things will just increase supply and effectively lower prices.
If you were planning on leaving some in the ground, you'd have credibility. Debating how fast to get it out of the ground doesn't change the fact that getting it out is advantageous for you. Why would you want to get out more now, even though supply would increase? Time value of money, booking revenue now instead of later, deep analysis of total value of the oil at various production rates, or other possibilities.
Quote, originally posted by Seabird »
Stubborn Ass is stubborn. *shrug*
Stubborn, wanting actual evidence to have my mind changed, whatever. I note that not getting bullied gets me frequently accused of stubbornness.
Quote, originally posted by Seabird »
I agree that many people have those debates. I disagree that there is only "one" debate that is fluid.
You would.
Quote, originally posted by Seabird »
And you're convinced that's all there is to it despite my best efforts to convince you otherwise. You have accused me of everything from being unable to communicate effectively, to being dishonest. Nowhere is your failure to comprehend acknowledged and that's why I'm convinced that you are as intellectually dishonest as you could possibly be.
Please feel free to wallow in it. I don't know what else to say to you.
You made a baseless accusation instead of simply asking for clarification, and I'm the one who's supposed make the mea culpas?
Let's see, you make a comment that I interpret in a perfectly reasonable way, as evidenced by other people getting the same impression from it, and you want me to request clarification before responding? If I'm to assume you're incapable of communicating clearly at an adult level, taking into account implicit meanings of your words, I'm certainly not going to pay any attention to your opinions.
Quote, originally posted by Seabird »
**** you.
I don't think you actually get the concept of a convincing argument. Your instant offense tells me you're lying, and this makes me even more certain of it.
Proud member of the Colorado Elitist Know-it-all D-bag club, Boulder chapter.
Oh by the time Afghanistan and Iraq are conquered I fear we will all be slaves to some Chinese ruler and the best we can do is bicker over what flavor of rice is best. Interesting topic, sad to see like always it evolves into dribble but the history is ripe with topics like this and certain forum members.
Chris
Well all is said and done... usually more is said than done.
You know what I did before I got married? Anything I wanted to
Oh by the time Afghanistan and Iraq are conquered I fear we will all be slaves to some Chinese ruler and the best we can do is bicker over what flavor of rice is best. Interesting topic, sad to see like always it evolves into dribble but the history is ripe with topics like this and certain forum members.
Chris
How much of the history of Afghanistan do you know?
Proud member of the Colorado Elitist Know-it-all D-bag club, Boulder chapter.
Enough to know that what is going on today hasn't changed much since people first began living there. I just finished a good book on Ghengis Khan and was more intrigued about his 'ventures' into the Middle East (Afghanistan / Pakistan in particular) than his experiences in China. Despite the oppression the Chinese had on Mongols for generations. Sadly, I fear there are very few easy answers to changing the will of fanaticals who have taken thousands of years to develop their fanatical ways. Western patience is too thin in comparison. Containment is, I believe, our only option and recent events highlight how difficult that is to do.
Chris
ps. next time i will im you as this is straying.
Well all is said and done... usually more is said than done.
You know what I did before I got married? Anything I wanted to
If you were planning on leaving some in the ground, you'd have credibility. Debating how fast to get it out of the ground doesn't change the fact that getting it out is advantageous for you. Why would you want to get out more now, even though supply would increase? Time value of money, booking revenue now instead of later, deep analysis of total value of the oil at various production rates, or other possibilities.
Congratulations. You've just stated basic petroleum economics. Except that you left out a few factors. Namely, that there is far more recoverable product out there than we are allowed to exploit, as evidenced by the report I linked to in my very first post. And we're certainly not going to drill more than we think we can sell, because that would be cost-prohibitive.
Quote »
Stubborn, wanting actual evidence to have my mind changed, whatever. I note that not getting bullied gets me frequently accused of stubbornness.
What other evidence do you want??? I posted a link to a non-partisan gov report. You want me to defend against a negative?
You: "All Big Awl wants to do is use up all the oil, stifle competition, and prohibit our move into a sustainable energy model. Now prove me wrong."
Gee, you got me there.
Quote »
You would.
You really think that it all just boils down to one issue? Really?
Quote »
Let's see, you make a comment that I interpret in a perfectly reasonable way, as evidenced by other people getting the same impression from it, and you want me to request clarification before responding? If I'm to assume you're incapable of communicating clearly at an adult level, taking into account implicit meanings of your words, I'm certainly not going to pay any attention to your opinions.
One person (jderpak) said he got the same impression from my initial statement. He later said that he changed his impression of that statement. So no, I don't think you're being reasonable.
Quote »
I don't think you actually get the concept of a convincing argument. Your instant offense tells me you're lying, and this makes me even more certain of it.
I don't give a damn what you think and I gave up trying to convince you of anything 2 pages back. Really, wallow in your own ignorance. Some people just can't or won't be reached.
My offense is nothing more than me thinking you're a jackass. Again, a simple rational that you try to make far more complex than necessary.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
I have been involved in various PAC initiatives as an employee volunteer. I don't know if that establishes my bonafides well enough for you. I would say that, dealing with the people that I deal with on a regular basis, and being rather familiar with the day to day business of the oil business, it seems rather far-fetched to me that we could secretly and effectively collude with our partners and competitors to keep the door shut to more non-traditional competitors.
I don't believe I said anything about collusion (not that I would rule it out). The energy industry pushed back in the time-honored fashion- by applying pressure to lawmakers in order to repeal unfavorable legislation and push through the favorable kind. Everyone's special interest group does it, but the energy (isn't that just a euphemism for oil?) industry has so much money to spread around, its effect is enormous.
"The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn't deliver the goods." -John Maynard Keynes
I don't really expect this to last long. Either the debate will get way too heated, or the usual suspects will ignore it because it doesn't fit their agenda. Either way, I thought I'd toss it out there...
While I don't expect many here to actually -read- the report, check out the table on P.17 for an interesting perspective.
Modified by Seabird at 6:08 PM 11-2-2009
Hi Seabird,
I'm pretty skeptical about the 146 billion barrels of yet-to-be-discovered oil. The geology of the NA continent is well explored. There may or may not be oil in the outer continental shelf. We won't know until test wells have been drilled.
There's still some left in the Gulf but the cost of lifting the deep water stuff is very high and without stable (and high) oil prices, we won't be seeing it soon.
If there has been a "plot" to keep all these fields from being developed... well it's been going on since 1970:
That bump you see just to the right of the peak is north slope production. Even that couldn't prevent declining production.
Last year's oil price shock got a lot of folks blaming the evil speculators. The price trend that we've been riding for the last 10 years or so suggests that the fundamentals of supply and demand have been setting the price with speculators causing short term price swings above and below the median. Obviously the swings we saw (from $147 and then back down to $30 all within a few months) didn't pass the sniff test.
If Asian demand for oil kicks up... and that looks likely... we will see just how much reserve production capacity the world has. I'm guessing that there might be around 5 million barrels per day of reserve capacity, virtually all of which is in Saudi Arabia (our best buds).
----
Nat gas supplies look promising but the current market price is too low to allow development of the shale formations. High pressure frac drilling is expensive. Because of this the rig count is low and we can expect much higher nat gas prices down the road.. but hopefully not this winter.
Actually, jderpak said he accepted your statement of what you meant, not that he later read your statement correctly (and he's usually the last guy to agree with me). You also made the leap of logic for me from "people in coal country are opposed to renewables" to "oh noes they will send black helicopters after me!", which illustrates the level of "reasonable discourse" you are capable of having with people who disagree with you. The bottom line is, you're an oilman, and your living depends on oil. This gives you zero objective credibility in any discussion of energy policy, and your opinion on what we should do has the value of the dump I just took, because I can't see you under any circumstances proposing anything that would harm your industry. However, I'm going to go on a bike ride, since it's a gorgeous afternoon and work just got out.
Proud member of the Colorado Elitist Know-it-all D-bag club, Boulder chapter.
Okay, thanks for the reply. I see that the sources you're offering are heavy on the global warming debate. I -think- I understand how you might relate oil industry efforts to block some climate legislation to efforts to produce renewables, but alas, the links you provided aren't explicit.
One of the problems (and this is probably another debate and one I don't actually want to have) is that both articles assume that the climate legislation being argued against is good legislation. Some might be, but I bet some wouldn't be. We'd almost have to argue each bill, point by point. And I just don't have the energy to do it.
But ultimately, I was asking for something a little more direct. Like have there been efforts by Exxon or Chevron to keep Bob Smith Farmer from putting up windmill generators on his land? Or have they managed to block funding to algae productions farms?
Anyway... I am getting out of here a little early today to go vote, then it's off to dinner and chess with my wife. I'll check back in tomorrow.
I appreciate the civil response, MileZ.
EDIT TO ADD: Humbug, you can EAD.
Modified by Seabird at 4:33 PM 11-3-2009
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Byron... Look at the date where the steepest decline occurred on that graph (1985-86). Then cross-reference it where prices went during that same period. There's more to the story than simple availability.
But I appreciate your skepticism w/re to the report.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Byron... Look at the date where the steepest decline occurred on that graph (1985-86). Then cross-reference it where prices went during that same period. There's more to the story than simple availability.
But I appreciate your skepticism w/re to the report.
Sorry, but you may have to help me out with that one. I do know that USSR production hit some pretty high levels during 1986 and thereafter (until the collapse of the USSR) and the world market was well supplied and global prices fell significantly.
Okay, thanks for the reply. I see that the sources you're offering are heavy on the global warming debate. I -think- I understand how you might relate oil industry efforts to block some climate legislation to efforts to produce renewables, but alas, the links you provided aren't explicit.
The unifying theme is pricing carbon emissions. The legislation referred to will end up requiring oil companies to pay for the right to extract carbon and spew it into the atmosphere (California's atmosphere, in this case). If oil companies have to pay to pollute, renewables will be cost competitive. Therefore, oil companies are going out of their way to prevent such legislation from being passed.
Quote, originally posted by some random new source »
Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, who co-wrote the bill with then-assembly member Fran Pavley, says Big Oil exerted heavy pressure on legislators, encouraging them to water down or bury AB 32. The industry mounted “fierce opposition,” recalls Núñez, a Democrat. “They had a well thought-out, very intense campaign to kill the bill every step of the way. They concentrated their resources on the legislature. ...They were trying to get at people from as many different angles as possible.”
Quote, originally posted by Seabird »
One of the problems (and this is probably another debate and one I don't actually want to have) is that both articles assume that the climate legislation being argued against is good legislation. Some might be, but I bet some wouldn't be. We'd almost have to argue each bill, point by point. And I just don't have the energy to do it.
I'd rather not do it here either, but that's fine, because the inherent goodness or badness of the legislation isn't germane to our discussion. The oil industry lobby doesn't care about good or bad legislation- their focus is on whether legislation is good or bad for their bottom line. If you'll excuse a bit of hyperbole, the oil industry would support death panels for Grandma if a rider was attached that let them drill in ANWR, or release refinery waste into San Francisco Bay.
Quote, originally posted by Seabird »
But ultimately, I was asking for something a little more direct. Like have there been efforts by Exxon or Chevron to keep Bob Smith Farmer from putting up windmill generators on his land? Or have they managed to block funding to algae productions farms?
You likely know almost as well as I do about the recent oil money flowing into algae, so I won't go into that. I'll admit I don't have any examples I'd be comfortable citing of big oil going after the little man, but that's mostly because, unlike agriculture, where a giant like Monsato controls a lot of independent growers, the oil industry is a vertically integrated behemoth, and there aren't a lot of little players left to kick around. Big oil does its work in places like Washington, Sacramento, and Austin, and I have a hard time believing that you don't see that.
Quote, originally posted by Seabird »
Anyway... I am getting out of here a little early today to go vote, then it's off to dinner and chess with my wife. I'll check back in tomorrow.
I appreciate the civil response, MileZ.
Any time. A civilized debate beats the alternative.
"The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn't deliver the goods." -John Maynard Keynes
This is where the environmental economics discussion begins.
One reason renewables aren't price-competitive is that a great deal of the cost of fossil fuel energy isn't represented in the price consumers pay at the pump/meter. Fossil fuel prices start at the cost of extraction, then add shipping and refining, leaving room for some profit. The price does not include health impacts or environmental impacts, or indeed consider the fact that a true accounting would show the oil extraction process as a liquidation of valuable assets rather than crediting it as a result of productive behavior.
I would argue that the energy industry is going out of its way to preserve its ability to externalize a great deal of its cost, and by doing so, is ensuring that renewables remain uncompetitive..............................
Bolded important points.
Quote, originally posted by Seabird »
Well, you're certainly correct that the cost of fossil fuel energy isn't represented in the costs people pay, but we're on different ends of the spectrum on just what that means. Do you know what our margins are vs our costs? Now consider that as publicly traded companies, all of our finances are disclosed fully by law.
Back in 2008 we were pulling all-time high profits. That's no secret. The industry baseline average was just under 10%. Pretty good and a little better than the S&P average of 8.5%. Since the fall in prices late last year though, those margins have decreased significantly. For all the years from 86 through about 04, they were razor-thin. http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/2...x.htm.............
IMO, profit margins are not anything like a good reason to not have to pay up.
Something else to consider as to why oil is cheap compared to cleaner alternatives. You won't see it at the gas pump but our military spent tens of billions of dollars yearly to protect the worlds oil and oil routes even before the trillion dollars or so we are going to spend on "Iraq War II--Still Protecting the Oil".
Sorry, but you may have to help me out with that one. I do know that USSR production hit some pretty high levels during 1986 and thereafter (until the collapse of the USSR) and the world market was well supplied and global prices fell significantly.
Declining production isn't necessarily indicative of declining availability. In 1986, the price for a barrel of oil fell by half, and by the end of the decade (excluding the temporary upward blip resulting from Desert Storm in 1990-91), it was a third the price from it's early to mid 80s peak. The reason for this was because OPEC loosened up their production quotas and Saudi Arabia in particular opened their taps up.
What -was- declining in the US was conventional resources, but our ability to recover non-conventional was beginning to make up for those declines. That's why you see that temporary upward blip in the early 80s.
However, it was much, much cheaper to import conventional stuff from the ME (namely SA) than it was to develop unconventionally at home. That's reflected in the graph. Domestic production fell, imports rose concurrently, and the price remained historically low.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
MileZ - It sounds like what you're referring to is cap and trade. Am I correct? I have a whole host of reasons why I don't like that legislation. Even if I didn't work for an oil company I wouldn't like it. Again, that might be a discussion for another time.
Absolutely Big Oil is active politically. I won't deny that at all. And I agree that we seek legislation that it is our best interest. Where I take exception is the assumption from some people that Big Oil's interests are diametrically opposed to everyone else's interests.
Again, a debatable point.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
IMO, profit margins are not anything like a good reason to not have to pay up.
From what I recall, federal and state taxes are about 6 times higher than the profit margin on a gallon of gas. That's not "paying up"? And any new taxes that might be imposed on us, will just get passed down to the consumer.
That's certainly not unique to the oil industry.
Modified by Seabird at 9:04 AM 11-4-2009
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
I haven't posted in here yet because I was sort of afraid that it would turn into what it turned into - but it seems to be on a bit of an upswing, and it hasn't devolved into a global warming debate, both of which are promising.
Milez has said most of what I'd say, but let me ponder constructive additions.
Where I take exception is the assumption from some people that Big Oil's interests are diametrically opposed to everyone else's interests.
Again, a debatable point.
Not everyone else's interests, just the next couple of generations of humans.
A couple of points.
A - There is NO QUESTION that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Eventually the supply WILL tighten, and no one can reasonably deny that.
B - There is also no question that burning fossil fuel in the quantities we do today isn't good for our environment, even if we completely dicount climate change.
Given those two facts, I can see no good reason for holding off on serious efforts toward renewables, particularly solar as I see it as the end game and would just as soon skip the cost of messing with all the other stop-gap technologies.
The fact that we're sitting on a 50 or 100 year supply of energy isn't a good reason to delay alternatives any longer than we already have. Our current energy plan IS unsustainable, and needs to change as quickly as possible.
A - There is NO QUESTION that fossil fuels are a finite resource. Eventually the supply WILL tighten, and no one can reasonably deny that.
Finite? Yes, no question. You won't find anyone within the walls of my office who will deny it. A better question is, "Just how finite and how long will it take us to go through it, and is it worth the cost to convert our entire energy economy now?". I understand that you feel the answer to that question is yes. I don't agree with you at this time.
Quote »
B - There is also no question that burning fossil fuel in the quantities we do today isn't good for our environment, even if we completely dicount climate change.
I'm more concerned with being able to -reasonably- heat my home in the winter, cool it in the summer, and light it year-round. Oh, and eat. Maybe even get from point A to point B in a reasonably efficient and convenient manner. When alternative energies are available to provide for those needs, I will embrace them fully.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
I'm more concerned with being able to -reasonably- heat my home in the winter, cool it in the summer, and light it year-round. Oh, and eat. Maybe even get from point A to point B in a reasonably efficient and convenient manner. When alternative energies are available to provide for those needs, I will embrace them fully.
And this is why people think you're a whackjob or a shill. NO ONE is suggesting you should be forzen to death, or starved, or chained to your home.
Alternatives will NEVER be available if we don't dedicate money and resources to them, and that's what most of us here are pushing for.
And this is why people think you're a whackjob or a shill. NO ONE is suggesting you should be forzen to death, or starved, or chained to your home.
This from the guy who rejects an actual reference to legal precedent and case law because there's no free interenet link. Whatever...
Quote »
Alternatives will NEVER be available if we don't dedicate money and resources to them, and that's what most of us here are pushing for.
All I'm asking for is for it to be done in a reasonable manner. You think I'm some kind of extreme minded nutjob for that. Okay, I can live with that. Odds are, most Americans feel the same way.
How do you suggest funding and managing such an enormous undertaking? And under what time frame? You seem so sure of what needs to be done, let's see your plan. With specifics.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
I'm more concerned with being able to -reasonably- heat my home in the winter, cool it in the summer, and light it year-round. Oh, and eat. Maybe even get from point A to point B in a reasonably efficient and convenient manner. When alternative energies are available to provide for those needs, I will embrace them fully.
Alternatives are available, and despite an unfavorable cost structure, they're starting to make up more of the market. Where you and I differ is in how far we will go to seek out those alternatives.
I pay for 100% renewable electricity in my home, in addition to purchasing carbon offsets for the same. If I could do something about the NG used for heat, I would. I buy food from local farmers markets, walk or take public transportation 5 days out of 7, and enjoy myself tremendously. I'm able to do all of this on a strangled civil servant paycheck while supporting my four wheeled money pit, so it can't be that hard.
It really doesn't require an extreme lifestyle to cut back on fossil fuel use and provide support to renewables, and ff you think the IPCC and the majority of the world's science community is correct, then the alternative to taking action is scary as sh*t.
"The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn't deliver the goods." -John Maynard Keynes
Alternatives are available, and despite an unfavorable cost structure, they're starting to make up more of the market. Where you and I differ is in how far we will go to seek out those alternatives.
I pay for 100% renewable electricity in my home, in addition to purchasing carbon offsets for the same. If I could do something about the NG used for heat, I would. I buy food from local farmers markets, walk or take public transportation 5 days out of 7, and enjoy myself tremendously. I'm able to do all of this on a strangled civil servant paycheck while supporting my four wheeled money pit, so it can't be that hard.
It really doesn't require an extreme lifestyle to cut back on fossil fuel use and provide support to renewables, and ff you think the IPCC and the majority of the world's science community is correct, then the alternative to taking action is scary as sh*t.
Believe it or not, I probably had a smaller carbon footprint that you do during my first marriage. I commuted into town with my ex-wife to a lightrail depot next to their school. From there I railed it into work. At the end of the day, I'd rail it back to their school where I had my bike locked up, and then I rode the rest of the way home; about 6 miles. That was only during bad or extremely hot (100 degrees+ heat index) weather. Other times, I would ride both ways from home to the train stop.
But then I divorced, got transfered to a different office, and went through a few other lifestyle changes and I'm not able to do some of those same things. Life is dynamic and requires some adaptation. What works for some, doesn't always work for others.
I believe that I stated earlier that my new wife and I hope to build or convert a much more energy efficient home in the future, when finances allow for it. She's a LEED certified architect, so this is again, a reasonable goal for us. But I also understand that it might not be as reasonable for others.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
No, stupid, he's suggesting that others are intent on starving or freezing him with energy legislation.
All I asked is that alternative energy solutions be economically reasonable. I'm not convinced that they are, and I am concerned that a lot of energy legislation (such as cap and trade) merely makes current solutions far too expensive, and doesn't do enough to make renewables affordable at an equivalent level.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
All I asked is that alternative energy solutions be economically reasonable. I'm not convinced that they are, and I am concerned that a lot of energy legislation (such as cap and trade) merely makes current solutions far too expensive, and doesn't do enough to make renewables affordable at an equivalent level.
And I have yet to see anyone suggesting anything otherwise, and that's my point for calling you out on the previous statement. NO ONE is attempting to starve you or freeze you or prevent you from moving around. They're trying to get you to wake the hell up and realize that the path we're on isn't sustainable, and then eventually force you to move toward one that is, if you're not willing to, because that's what it's going to take for the race to survive over the long haul.
You seem to be more of the opinion that there's enough left to last through your lifetime, so "**** it", rather than accepting the reality that the change needs to start now, and it's not going to be entirely free.
And I have yet to see anyone suggesting anything otherwise, and that's my point for calling you out on the previous statement. NO ONE is attempting to starve you or freeze you or prevent you from moving around. They're trying to get you to wake the hell up and realize that the path we're on isn't sustainable, and then eventually force you to move toward one that is, if you're not willing to, because that's what it's going to take for the race to survive over the long haul.
You seem to be more of the opinion that there's enough left to last through your lifetime, so "**** it", rather than accepting the reality that the change needs to start now, and it's not going to be entirely free.
No. What I'm saying is that people will NOT embrace a change in our energy use until it becomes reasonably affordable. IOW, close to or about the same as what we're paying now.
I do think that change will occur, gradually and in a mixed use formula. I've already stated earlier in this thread that I think we will see a hybridized approach.
As popularity for renewable energy grows, costs should fall. This in turn will lead to greater usage -over time-.
I don't advocate or agree with what I think current legislation will accomplish; namely artificially forcing a rise in the costs of traditional fossil-based fuels so that they meet the costs of more expensive renewables.
"People just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
All I asked is that alternative energy solutions be economically reasonable. I'm not convinced that they are, and I am concerned that a lot of energy legislation (such as cap and trade) merely makes current solutions far too expensive, and doesn't do enough to make renewables affordable at an equivalent level.
Cap and trade can be done well, but by the time it made its way through the legislative groping and raping process (in both CA and Federal levels), it was not as clean and effective as it could have been.
It's unreasonable to expect we can re-make our energy structure quickly enough and drastically enough to avoid the worst of climate change without it costing an arm and a leg. Everyone is going to have to pay, but I'd argue that the cost of inaction is far greater.
I appreciate the value of playing devil's advocate, but if you're being truthful about your desire for clean energy, you're obfuscating the issue at a time when we can't afford much more delay. It's much more productive to debate how it's going to happen than to argue about if and when.
Also, good work on the low carbon footprint. I wish you luck in getting back there- our current system sure doesn't make it easy.
"The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn't deliver the goods." -John Maynard Keynes
No. What I'm saying is that people will NOT embrace a change in our energy use until it becomes reasonably affordable. IOW, close to or about the same as what we're paying now.
As popularity for renewable energy grows, costs should fall. This in turn will lead to greater usage -over time-.
I don't advocate or agree with what I think current legislation will accomplish; namely artificially forcing a rise in the costs of traditional fossil-based fuels so that they meet the costs of more expensive renewables.
You're contradicting your own logic there. Alternatives will NOT become reasonably affordable until people embrace them. You acknowledge that increased adoption will lower costs, but you want costs to be lower before people start adopting. That process is too slow without government intervention.
The best way to get people to embrace the alternatives is to bring the REAL cost of the current energy sources right to their wallets, instead of paying them indirectly through other forms of taxation. The days of subsidizing fossil fuels need to come to an end, and that money needs to go towards alternatives instead of funding military actions to stabilize existing supplies.
A serious effort started right now will make a world of difference in fossil fuel consumption in 10 years, and that's what needs to be done.
For advertising information Click Here
Don't worry, we got lots up here we'll share