Global Warming News

[Pilot]

Crash Course Chapter 17a: Peak Oil - Economy - Crash Course Videos at Chris Martenson - Economy, Energy, export land model, fuel shortages, oil production, Peak Oil, supply and demand, three Es

That's an interesting essay and has many good points. I also suggest folks read it. A couple points that may really be minor in the big picture:

When people claim the US hit it's peak in 1970, they overlook the fact that that was about the time that we banned offshore drilling. Had we not done so, the US peak would likely have come somewhat later; how much later I have no idea. My guess would be only a a year or two, but what do I know? We have made political decisions to limit our oil supply; if the situation gets as bad as the essay suggests, the politics will likely change and we will probably start drilling in many places we wouldn't consider drilling in today. How much that would affect things is anybody's guess. But when you hear arguments that the oil in Alaska or some other place will only supply US needs for a very short time, keep in mind that we have over 500,000 oil wells in the US--no one field will supply a huge amount. It's like turning off that unneeded light--it only makes a very small difference, but every little bit helps.

Discoveries: 70% of the earth's surface is under the ocean; we are just now getting into really deep ocean drilling and Brazil recently made a big deep discovery. Virtually all the deep ocean rigs are now at work.

Demand: India and China are getting into cars in a big way. When the recession ends, look for demand and prices to rise.

Price: Oil is priced in dollars. Our government policies--current and previous administrations both-- have contributed to a weak dollar. The weaker the dollar, the higher the price of oil. A strong dollar gives us cheaper (to us) oil.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Promoting socialism yet again Keegs ? ?That will wake up FallbrookFarmer! His fight card must be filled up, haven't heard from him.

If you stand on a hilltop in Germany and look across a valley, you see tightly clustered villages with farm or forest lands surrounding them. You can't build a new house outside of a sanctioned 'new building area', which is generally located on the edge of an existing village or town. It just isn't allowed. In general, raw land doesn't change hands nearly as frequently as here either.

There are historical (walled towns) and cultural elements involved certainly, but some of those land use patterns evolved over time in densely populated countries because they were found to be successful. As we become a densely populated country, some of these adaptations will make more sense to us IMO.
Dave.

The reason, methinks for the walled towns, were not for "cultural elements"
but to keep out the Huns/Visogoths/other invaders.
I am glad that you used this example of land use, because it is directly related to zoning of today. Were here, go away!
Lets drive up the land prices so we can keep out the undesirables
Example: Had a friend who bought 200 acres in Orange Co Ca. back in the 80s
with the thought of developing it. Shortly after he purchased it, OC passed a law saying that you needed a minimum of 5 ac per parcel to build, needless to say his plans were shot, He held out for about 7 years, making a few pennies per bushel of oranges, Finally had to sell at a substantial loss.
A couple of years later there was a case that went before the Supreme Court(Boy Scouts vs LA County) that held when a parcel was purchased with a certain legal use, the county could not retroactively rezone it to a more restrictive use. My friend? TooBadSoSad.
I guess I am sort of an absolutist about property rights because they are at the base of all our freedoms.
One only has to look to the Kelo decision to see how far the camel's nose of government interference has diminished the right of citizens to use their property as they see fit.
I know that you can use examples of "car on Blocks" and "neighbors with smelly outhouses" etc. But I would point you back to London, where neighborhoods where there literally slaughterhouses, are now some of the poshest of Londons smart neighborhoods.
Markets will always decide the highest and best use for a particular piece of property, and if the present owner is not smart enough to realize what that is, I can guarantee that someone else will.
I can tell you from personal experience that one can make a very nice living,
going into neighborhoods, and scouting out that piece of property that everyone else is crying about, and buying it, cleaning it up, and either selling it or holding it for rental.
Free markets and free men make better decisions about the use of property than any zoning board ever could.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Good thought, Keegs!

Farmer, a 2 day drive from Houston? What were you thinking? You are supposed to take public transportation to save the planet!

Dave, just to be sure there is no confusion, I don't oppose land use planning and zoning in general; my concern is with finding the right balance between land use restrictions and freedom. I think Oregon went too far and so do lots of others who moved to the Vancouver area so they could live the lifestyle they desire. Oregon is a Mecca for government control types who pack themselves into condos and miniature lots in Portland and Eugene, the rest of the state disagrees and is outvoted by the metro areas. Oregon's land use restrictions have contributed greatly to the Vancouver area's growth. Washington isn't backward in their land use laws; they are just not as restrictive as Oregon--they found a better balance as far as those ex-Oregonians are concerned.

Yea but I got 57MPG in my Golf TDI. Does that make me a "Greenie"? Nah just cheap!

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

That's an interesting essay and has many good points. I also suggest folks read it. A couple points that may really be minor in the big picture:

When people claim the US hit it's peak in 1970, they overlook the fact that that was about the time that we banned offshore drilling. Had we not done so, the US peak would likely have come somewhat later; how much later I have no idea. My guess would be only a a year or two, but what do I know? We have made political decisions to limit our oil supply; if the situation gets as bad as the essay suggests, the politics will likely change and we will probably start drilling in many places we wouldn't consider drilling in today. How much that would affect things is anybody's guess. But when you hear arguments that the oil in Alaska or some other place will only supply US needs for a very short time, keep in mind that we have over 500,000 oil wells in the US--no one field will supply a huge amount. It's like turning off that unneeded light--it only makes a very small difference, but every little bit helps.

Discoveries: 70% of the earth's surface is under the ocean; we are just now getting into really deep ocean drilling and Brazil recently made a big deep discovery. Virtually all the deep ocean rigs are now at work.

Demand: India and China are getting into cars in a big way. When the recession ends, look for demand and prices to rise.

Price: Oil is priced in dollars. Our government policies--current and previous administrations both-- have contributed to a weak dollar. The weaker the dollar, the higher the price of oil. A strong dollar gives us cheaper (to us) oil.

Perhaps you haven't heard, The US now funding off shore oil exploration.



Off course the shore is in Brazil, and the major investor in the project is a guy
by the name of Seorge Goros, or something like that, He may have had a role
in electing some politician here in the states, whose name escapes me.

 

[Cottonhawk]

".....the major investor in the project is a guy
by the name of Seorge Goros, or something like that, He may have had a role
in electing some politician here in the states, whose name escapes me....."
The investor is George Soros.
Soros played an important role in electing B. H. Obama.

 

[keegs]

Good thought, Keegs!

"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke

 

[Loren49]

Lets be far and balanced with our research:

John McCain funded by Soros since 2001

John McCain: George Soros' Best Friend

Looks like this guy wants to buy a little influence no matter who won - kind of like corporations.

Loren

 

[EE_Bota]

I would encourage folks to see the 20 part series. It is "timeless" to the extent that it matters little if more oil is found. Also, it need not be oil at all, and could just as easily be copper, uranium, water, or any bounded input into the economy, giving that much of what is going on in the human realm seems to be based on unlimited inputs. There are entire economic systems based strictly on finding plenty, easily.

Some folks are old enough that it may in fact just be an intellectual exercise to see the series; also many older folks remember techniques from their childhood that will aid them in a "low energy surplus" economy. Most folks, however, will see some of the outcomes in their own future, and many, including me, don't have a clue how to do things the old fashioned way. You older folks need to evaluate the course, and decide whether to show it to your (even adult) children, and set about teaching what you know about how to make do the old fashioned way.

Perhaps that is too strong and pushy. Do as you like, but I strongly suggest you "like" to see the series.

 

[MossRoad]

Read this to see if any of this discussion matters in the "big picture".

http://i.imgur.com/WOh7B.jpg

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Lets be far and balanced with our research:

John McCain funded by Soros since 2001

John McCain: George Soros' Best Friend

Looks like this guy wants to buy a little influence no matter who won - kind of like corporations.

Loren

How many "corporations" almost brought down the Bank of England, and how many "corporations" were started in former communist countries, that are now major players in currency manipulation?
If Seorge Goros was a friend of John McCain, I'm thinking that the Senator wouldn't need too many enemies.
And as we all know, campaign contibutions are the "mothers milk" of political life, but this guy is a one giant
teat for every "progressive group" out there.
Loren, as you are very good at research, please enlighten us as to the dollar amount donated to "conservative" causes by the gentleman in question. Inquiring minds want to know.