Donnie Barnes wrote:
Energy use is a problem, but I don't see why one would care to see fuel prices rise now versus later. I don't see any inherent advantage to an energy crisis in the next 10-20 years versus it happening in 50-100. Seems like, in fact, we'll just naturally be better equipped technologically to take care of it in 50-100 years than we would in 10-20 even without trying. That's not to say we shouldn't try now...we definitely should. But I don't see why you'd want to accelerate the problem in the name of making people accelerate the cure.
Everything involved in this scenario is limited: The amount of remaining oil able to be recovered, the amount of CO2 and other pollutants that may yet be pumped into the atmosphere before some very detrimental climate change is unavoidable, the amount of time left to us as a species to effect some changes or remedies. I don't know what any of those amounts may be, and at this point I doubt anyone really does. It seems likely that some of them
may be quite large, but some of them might also be pretty small.
It just seems to me that the prudent course would be to start trying to turn things around now, so "just in case", when we do eventually figure these things out, it's not an "oops" kind of moment. Turning things around, though, will require a nearly complete reversal of public perception, at least in this country. That's going to take time - generations, frankly - and we can take that lead time straight off of whatever "time we have left". I'd just as soon see us get started.
_________________
Carl Fisher
Be Cool to the Pizza Dude:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4651531