4 ms·

The U.S. imported more oil for a while, decreasing domestic production, and then recently began importing less oil and increasing domestic production again in a

The U.S. imported more oil for a while, decreasing domestic production, and then recently began importing less oil and increasing domestic production again in areas that had been left as reserves or hadn't been commercially feasible before the record high per-barrel prices of oil a decade ago (see e.g. http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/us-drilling-boom-brings-net-oil-imports-to-a-20-year-low/ http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/us-drilling-boom-brings-net... ; there are other sources available online if you don't like AEI). So we have to look at world oil production, not just domestic. And, although world oil production is still growing, that growth is clearly in decline as most new sources for oil require far more effort to extract than in the past (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Oil_Production.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Oil_Production.png). I'm not a peak oil alarmist. It's entirely sensible to expect that as oil becomes more difficult to extract, its price will go up, and as its price goes up, new sources of oil will become more feasible to engineer. But, so much of oil production and consumption and everything associated with it is horrible and disgusting and a potential ecological and economic disaster waiting to happen. (...Deepwater Horizon...) We shouldn't need peak oil scaremongering to move us off of oil dependence quickly. It should make sense to do so anyway, especially as other technologies continue to improve.

maxharris 12y ago
But, so much of oil production and consumption and everything associated with it is horrible and disgusting and a potential ecological and economic disaster waiting to happen. (...Deepwater Horizon...) What about all the good it makes possible? Fossil fuels made it possible to build and run the hospitals that save our lives. Try running an ICU on wind and solar power alone, without a huge, expensive and very uneconomical battery. Think also of the food we eat - while you can quibble about the merits of particular diets, there's no way that the 7 billion people alive today could get the calories they need to stay alive without tractors, fertilizer, etc. These two examples are the the beginning - our lives are made possible by oil. While burning fossil fuels may have a negative effect on climate, is that effect so bad that we should abandon them? Fossil fuels give us such good control over our climates that climate-related deaths (everything from storms to hurricanes, etc.) have dropped precipitously over the past century: in the past 80 years, there has been a 98% decrease in deaths due to climate. Couple those facts with the abominable track record that everyone has about predicting the severity of future conditions (remember the shrill predictions of the 60s and 70s?), and fossil fuels come out ahead of everything else out there, short of nuclear.
- wtallis 12y ago
  > "While burning fossil fuels may have a negative effect on climate, is that effect so bad that we should abandon them?" Not yet. But the benefits you list all took effect long before the downsides, as with most forms of pollution. That short-term reasoning has worked so far, but we're pretty sure that it's starting to fall apart. Pretty soon we're going to be burning increasing amounts of oil to mitigate the effects of burning too much oil, and there aren't a whole lot of ways that can play out. Those shrill predictions from the 60s and 70s were ultimately wrong about how the shape of the supply curve for oil would evolve, but they also completely failed to consider the possibility that using oil could reduce reserves of natural resources other than oil. That's something we now know to be worth worrying about.
- sien 12y ago
  Global GDP increased by twenty to forty times in the twentieth century. Life expectancy has doubled. That depended hugely on fossil fuels. If moving away from fossil fuels was free we'd do it. The problem is the huge cost. Hopefully it will happen over the next 100 years. Most people would happily spend 100 / year to get off fossil fuels. But 10K? 5K? That's the question. Now we can spend money on research which has a huge payoff.
- thaumaturgy 12y ago
  Do you allow any room at all for a compromise? Or must you assume that I mean, "completely and totally abandon fossil fuels even where it doesn't make sense to do so"? > Fossil fuels give us such good control over our climates that climate-related deaths ... have dropped precipitously over the past century... What? Are you sure this isn't due to better construction materials and practices? I haven't heard this before. > ...and fossil fuels come out ahead of everything else out there, short of nuclear. This probably isn't true, although it depends a lot on how you measure "ahead" and which numbers you choose to run with. If we're looking at EROI (or EROEI -- I guess it's lost a letter recently), then oil is somewhere between 10:1 and 5:1, and falling, and that puts it behind wind and hydro, but ahead of nuclear and solar. (I was surprised by the numbers on nuclear years ago when I first looked at this.) e.g. http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/argument-over-the-value-of-solar-focuses-on-spain http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/argument-over-the-... There are also some strong arguments for the adverse health effects of burning coal and oil (e.g. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-a..., or just go live in Beijing for a year and try not to get a respiratory infection). I am all in favor of continuing to produce and consume oil where it makes sense to do so. I am also all in favor of continuing to develop replacements for oil as expediently as practical. Do you think that's an unreasonable position?

maxharris 12y ago

But, so much of oil production and consumption and everything associated with it is horrible and disgusting and a potential ecological and economic disaster waiting to happen. (...Deepwater Horizon...) What about all the good it makes possible? Fossil fuels made it possible to build and run the hospitals that save our lives. Try running an ICU on wind and solar power alone, without a huge, expensive and very uneconomical battery. Think also of the food we eat - while you can quibble about the merits of particular diets, there's no way that the 7 billion people alive today could get the calories they need to stay alive without tractors, fertilizer, etc. These two examples are the the beginning - our lives are made possible by oil. While burning fossil fuels may have a negative effect on climate, is that effect so bad that we should abandon them? Fossil fuels give us such good control over our climates that climate-related deaths (everything from storms to hurricanes, etc.) have dropped precipitously over the past century: in the past 80 years, there has been a 98% decrease in deaths due to climate. Couple those facts with the abominable track record that everyone has about predicting the severity of future conditions (remember the shrill predictions of the 60s and 70s?), and fossil fuels come out ahead of everything else out there, short of nuclear.

wtallis 12y ago
> "While burning fossil fuels may have a negative effect on climate, is that effect so bad that we should abandon them?" Not yet. But the benefits you list all took effect long before the downsides, as with most forms of pollution. That short-term reasoning has worked so far, but we're pretty sure that it's starting to fall apart. Pretty soon we're going to be burning increasing amounts of oil to mitigate the effects of burning too much oil, and there aren't a whole lot of ways that can play out. Those shrill predictions from the 60s and 70s were ultimately wrong about how the shape of the supply curve for oil would evolve, but they also completely failed to consider the possibility that using oil could reduce reserves of natural resources other than oil. That's something we now know to be worth worrying about.
sien 12y ago
Global GDP increased by twenty to forty times in the twentieth century. Life expectancy has doubled. That depended hugely on fossil fuels. If moving away from fossil fuels was free we'd do it. The problem is the huge cost. Hopefully it will happen over the next 100 years. Most people would happily spend 100 / year to get off fossil fuels. But 10K? 5K? That's the question. Now we can spend money on research which has a huge payoff.
thaumaturgy 12y ago
Do you allow any room at all for a compromise? Or must you assume that I mean, "completely and totally abandon fossil fuels even where it doesn't make sense to do so"? > Fossil fuels give us such good control over our climates that climate-related deaths ... have dropped precipitously over the past century... What? Are you sure this isn't due to better construction materials and practices? I haven't heard this before. > ...and fossil fuels come out ahead of everything else out there, short of nuclear. This probably isn't true, although it depends a lot on how you measure "ahead" and which numbers you choose to run with. If we're looking at EROI (or EROEI -- I guess it's lost a letter recently), then oil is somewhere between 10:1 and 5:1, and falling, and that puts it behind wind and hydro, but ahead of nuclear and solar. (I was surprised by the numbers on nuclear years ago when I first looked at this.) e.g. http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/argument-over-the-value-of-solar-focuses-on-spain http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/solar/argument-over-the-... There are also some strong arguments for the adverse health effects of burning coal and oil (e.g. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/the-hidden-cost-of-fossil.html http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-a..., or just go live in Beijing for a year and try not to get a respiratory infection). I am all in favor of continuing to produce and consume oil where it makes sense to do so. I am also all in favor of continuing to develop replacements for oil as expediently as practical. Do you think that's an unreasonable position?