[extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ?

[Mike Lorrey]

On the contrary, and contrary to the Green agrarian mythology, putting
the burden on the agricultural system means much more farmland put
under plow, and much more forest re-re-claimed for farmland, means
ecological devastation. It is farmland that destroys wildlife habitat.
VT and NH were once 90% farmland for only two things: a) to grow hay
for all the horses in New York City and Boston, and b) to grow sheep
for wool for keeping NYers and Beantowners warm in those cold cold
winters of the late 19th century when we were headed into an ice age.

Today it is reversed: VT and NH are 90% forest, we have more wildlife
than before the europeans came here, and NY and Boston are not hip deep
in horseshit, disease, and stink.

Insisting on agri-ethanol will push us back to a 19th century economy
and ecological devastation. Anyone who advocates it is a luddite who
knows not what they ask for.

Besides all that, all the distillery mash will release much more
methane into the atmosphere. Scientists had thought methane was six
times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. A report just came out
that its actually 12 times more powerful.

--- Robert Lindauer <robgobblin at aol.com> wrote:

> A green point here:
> 
> If everyone had their own ethanol still it wouldn't be half the
> problem 
> it is now - and there wouldn't be the polution problem either.
> 
> Robbie
> 
> 
> Andrew Beck wrote:
> 
> >>If you were an insider and knew that oil was going to be worth that
> much
> >>in a few years, why would you be pumping for all you were worth and
> >>selling it today for $70/barrel?  That doesn't make sense.  It
> would
> >>be more profitable to reduce your pumping to the minimum necessary
> to
> >>cover expenses, and to keep it in the ground until the oil is far
> more
> >>valuable than it is today.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >The thing about the peak oil debate is that it doesn't take the oil
> to be nearly gone for it to shoot through the roof in price, just a
> small decline in oil supply will make the price go way up because of
> people's complete reliance on oil and refusal to comprimise their
> easy living.  Case in point in the 70s when the supply dropped 5%
> prices shot up 400%.  So all that will make the price of oil shoot up
> is when the supply slows down a bit.  The reserves should still be at
> least halfway full at that point, so now quanitity is good and won't
> comprimise the oil companies reserves when the supply is running out.
> >
> >Also I don't think anybody except oil execuatives are in a position
> to say if they are storing a few wells for a rainy day.
> >_______________________________________________
> >extropy-chat mailing list
> >extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com


		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail 
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: 
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html