3 ms·
I think what's he's saying is that "peaking" is meaningless. There's a book that was written back in the early 90s called The Ultimate Resource, by Julian Simo
by omegaham 14y ago
I think what's he's saying is that "peaking" is meaningless.
There's a book that was written back in the early 90s called The Ultimate Resource, by Julian Simon. A fair amount of it is typical libertarian wishful thinking, but he very strongly makes the point that in a free society, there is no such thing as a peak. There are always alternatives, and if a resource becomes more expensive, we will start switching to them. If need be, we will also change our behavior to accommodate these alternatives.
To take a great example, look at gasoline prices. There is no shortage of gasoline in the United States. The price goes up, and suddenly fuel efficiency becomes much more important. As a result, economy cars are much more common, as are hybrids and electric cars. Consumption then goes down.
This would be the case even if gasoline were ten dollars or even twenty dollars a gallon. People would simply take the alternative options, which become more and more attractive as the "default" becomes more expensive.
- richardjordan 14y agoJust because a book makes a claim doesn't make it so. It is ridiculous to claim that you cannot have peaks or shortages because there's always a replacement - this is nonsense. The physics and chemistry involved is fixed. As a famous Scotsman once said, you cannee change the laws of Physics Jim. Economics and physics are not interchangeable. Sure, with certain kinds of economic utility you can interchange the underlying mechanisms used to achieve it, but with chemical reactions necessary to sustain life, as one example, you cannot just swap on a cheaper element. Likewise you cannot change the energy density characteristics and EROEI of supply on one material because petroleum is priced out. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the science behind the problem.