Member Rara Avis
Wood and the horse were better?
Wood and horse were renewable, John. And, yea, that's better. Not in the short term, of course, but almost certainly in the long term.
Don't get me wrong. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using our fossil fuels. That's not the mistake we're going to pay dearly for. The mistake was building an economy, indeed an entire society, on something everyone knew couldn't last. An economy that depends on cheap nonrenewable energy is doomed, John. It's as simple as that.
Oil and gas are not cheap as it is, Ron.
Yea, Denise, they are. They're cheaper than virtually any other alternative and probably cheaper than any possible alternative. There will never be another time in the history of the planet when we can dig our energy out of the ground with virtually no effort. From this point on, we have to start working for our energy.
p.s. While I still maintain that oil and gas are cheap, Denise, I don't deny that getting them delivered is painfully expensive for many. That's not because the fuels are expensive, though. It's because you're making some rich people a lot richer. The question that's up in the air is whether that will change in the future. Our next source of energy WILL be more expensive than fossil fuels, guaranteed. Ask any scientist and, if he's honest with you, you'll get the same answer. It's simple physics. It remains to be seen, however, whether that jump in the cost of energy will still be accompanied by a system that makes the deliverer exceedingly wealthy in the process.
And Mike has never irritated or bored me by expressing his opinions on those counter-productive policies.
LOL. I think we all knew that, Denise. I should have added a third alternative just for you -- preaching to the choir. None of three, of course, address the issues.
The answer is not in putting the brakes on the oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power industries in order to force investment in viable alternatives. We can responsibly utilize our current resources while continuing to search for those alternatives for the future, in my opinion.
We're in complete agreement, Denise, except perhaps over the word 'responsibly.' I don't think dumping millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf was responsible, and I suspect you don't either. It was, however, absolutely inevitable. Just like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were inevitable. People make mistakes. Only a fool refuses to plan for those mistakes.
Here's the thing, though.
In spite of the inevitable dangers of nuclear energy, I still support it. Why? Because I think it has a future. At least I hope it does. There are going to be mistakes and those mistakes are going to upset our environment. Perhaps even devastate our environment. But I think we'll survive, we'll learn, and we'll get better. Oil, however, has no future. None, nada, zilch. When we upset our environment in pursuit of oil, Denise, when we devastate it as recently happened, we get no long term benefits. We end up with a planet pocked with festering wounds . . . and still inevitably run out of reachable reserves of oil. I believe the long term costs far exceeds the short term benefits. Especially when there aren't ANY long term benefits.
The worse part, Denise, is that the course you and Mike advocate isn't even going to get you the cheaper energy you want. Uncas has already explained why. All it will accomplish is to continue making those rich people a lot richer for a little longer.