[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]You're a liberal, clueless windbag.A true sign of a moron and a liberal (forgive the redundancy) is they somehow equate a lack of oil to a world war. This is the height of idiocy. Why would anyone go to war when the oil is depleted?[/citation]
I see you had to break out fabricated attacks because you didn't like what I had to say... And you had to make sure that I was labeled as BOTH a "liberal" and "idiot," as well as make it clear that they were all but interchangeable, just so you'd feel better. (both labels are un-true, BTW) This is certainly the mark of high class. I'd wager some money that you identify with the Teabaggers.
Anyone with any degree of reading capability at all would notice that I never said that oil would "run out," at least anytime in the next few hundred years. Given that you tried inserting words in my mouth, you honestly aren't even deserving of being taken seriously... But I shall just to embarrass you further.
Quite simply put, it's a simple equation: massive economic shocks resulting in a FORCE major change in the way everyone does business will INVARIABLY cause a depression. And economic instability lends to political instability. And high political instability INVARIABLY yields war: anyone who can remember history beyond a few years, (of which only a tiny minority, a different sort of "1%" are capable of, as it would appear) would know this as an absolute fact. And of course, the oil wouldn't be gone, so there'd be something to fight over. Again, history lesson: the Great Depression was caused by a massive economic crash, and made severe chances, forced, to the way everyone lived as a result. (and no, this is merely counting the Herbert Hoover era; I'm talking about changes forced by economic factors, not by government changes brought by Roosevelt) And then, of course, Japan attacked the USA because their supply of oil (primarily from the East Indies) was being cut off, with American and British controlling interest enforcing an embargo. (yes, at the time, the USA was a leading exporter of oil)
Why would it "solve" the problem? Countries go to war when they think they might win. Obviously, half the time they're wrong, since there's always losers.
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]But, let's be real, and get past your idiotic liberal nonsense. We are already capable of producing ethanol. If prices of oil go up, the value of ethanol will go up, creating more of an incentive for greater production. You'll have more farms, more corn, more ethanol.[/citation]
You've not paid any attention to this, have you? I live in the Midwest, and E85 (which is relatively widely available here) is still a losing proposition. Plus it diverts farm space from edible crops, and has been a factor in food shortages worldwide. In the USA, manifested in the fact that food on average went up >50% in price over the past 3 years. Ethanol may or may not help, but it's a seriously immature technology. And with the economic pressures here, development of ethanol is mostly sidelined. After all, it's been a whole century since Henry Ford considered ethanol-powered cars the future... So where's our century of development on them? It didn't happen, because everyone with power is short-sighted. The basic mindset has always been "oil will be cheap enough to keep using." The same goes for electric cars.
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]Forget about oil for electricity production, once it goes up past a certain point, that will be done away with; there are many alternatives.[/citation]
Oil isn't used for electricity beyond a tiny niche: that's primarily coal, natural gas, and nuclear, for which vastly higher supplies are on hand: centuries' worth without any steep increase in price.
[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]There are also other forms of bio-fuel production that can be used, a lot on waste products. The problem is always the same, oil is too cheap to make it economically feasible. At $10 a gallon, that no longer is the case, and gas demand would go down tremendously, as people drive less, and as production of alternative fuels grow. Of course, electric car use would skyrocket. The only reason why these aren't done is oil is too cheap. Remove that, you get more alternative fuel sources, and you get a dramatic uptake in electric vehicles. Oil demand will go down as price goes up. There are alternatives.[/citation]
The extended problem here is fivefold, actually:
1. There's no solid proof on exactly WHERE the price point for alternative fuels would come into play. Keep in mind that as currently done, for instance, growing corn for ethanol and other crops that get turned into biofuels makes use of petroleum-derived fertilizers, petroleum-derived pesticides and other chemicals, as well as petroleum-fueled equipment. Biofuels can only solve ONE of those parts: no one's found how to use ethanol for general-purpose pesticides.
2. You assume that there's automatically already capacity to cover all oil consumption from other sources. The problem is that because oil is cheap enough RIGHT NOW, (yes, even at $100US/barrel) not only are the other sources not even being USED, they're not even being DEVELOPED. Ramp-up takes a lot of time and work: the Athabasca Tar Sands are a good example, where companies are still scrambling to ramp up production; they're at 1.3 million barrels a day: in spite of accounting for arguably as much as 60% of the world's currently-accessible oil reserves, it only accounts for barely more than 1% of the production. Once you factor in the need for costly research, which is even farther (time wise) from the expected profit-turning on an investment, developing a source "early" winds up appearing even less appealing. By the time the drop in oil supply comes and investors finally buy into the idea of developing alternatives, it's already too late: the economic shock will come, as it will take seemingly forever to get the alternatives online at all, let alone fill the entire gap, which will be widening by the day.
3. While automobile gasoline tends to get all the rap about oil consumption, they only account for 45% of oil consumption in the USA. (with diesel adding another 20% or so) The remaining 35% or so includes a lot of synthesized chemicals, including plastics, which can't so readily be replaced, and at any rate, biofuels are entirely unsuited for.
4. Yes, market forces dictate that if the supply and demand can stabilize and meet each other, the price will stay steady. The problem here is the basic fact that after oil production peaks globally (which it will, given many major producers, such as the USA, have already peaked nationally) there won't be a period where supply will be able to be steady: it will keep dropping and dropping, and, because market responses are never instantaneous, that "drop in demand" will constantly be playing catch-up: The result will be a continuous free-fall that will mean continuous price rises.
5. You're failing to account for more than just immediate effects here. Yes, while people will be FORCED to adapt to the new norm (they won't have any other choice) that's not to say it's ideal: people driving less means consumption of all products goes down, and also means that, if farther commutes are out-of-the-question, unemployment will go up. Both will factor into a contraction of production... Hm, does that not sound like a recession to you? Alternative fuels aren't going to fix that at all; "leave it to the market" doesn't prevent recessions. (though it does tend to end them, by the same forces that bring them) Or are you proposing that the system should be socialist to try to counter this? I would have to chide you for that.
Facebook
Twitter