Rubin's argument [that we are going to have serious energy problems] is powerful. There's no denying that the international economy has become critically dependent on oil as its main source for energy. Yet, like other believers in the "peak oil" theory, he falls into the trap of underestimating society's capacity to meet future fuel challenges through innovation and conservation. The story of energy over the past century has been one of breakthroughs, not retreat...
Hmm, not sure what they mean. The US imported net 0% of the oil it used in 1970; it is now importing 70%.
If we have to trust in "society's capacity... to meet challenges", the record does not inspire confidence.
How about the trap of "there is no problem because I cannot imagine there being one"? Property prices only go up.
Markets are efficient because people are rational and have perfect knowledge (Can you hear my eyeballs rolling? Just the fact that economists think that is proof of stupidity that will require advanced genetic engineering to correct.)
Pension funds will get a return of 8 percent per year, so no problem there.
We cannot possibly double the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, and even if we do, no problem.
We cannot fish cod and other fish to near extinction because the sea is so big.
We cannot possibly burn up all the cheap high-quality petroleum in a single lifetime.
The price of gasoline, today, went down, so I can buy an SUV because of course the price of gasoline today accurately reflects the price of gasoline over the service life of the SUV.
Hell, we cannot even control the amount of food we eat.
No comments:
Post a Comment