Even if global warming is a false alarm...

[Roger881]

Doesn't anybody other than me see huge compelling reasons for getting off of oil?

1. Cleaner breathing air.

2. Modernization.

3. Keeps the US entangled in dangerous parts of the world where the people don't like us.

4. Forces us to compromise values such as support for democracy and human rights all in pursuit of protecting our "vital interests", aka dependency on their oil.

5. Indirectly funds the terrorism economy.

6. Directly funds rouge state nuclear proliferation.

7. Transfers US wealth to the Mid East in staggering amounts for a commodity that we literally burn once purchased.

8. Facing a future where due to limited global resources we are running head long into international conflict with nuclear armed powers who's national economic bloodlines are the same increasingly limited oil supplies.

9. We'll be forced to drill and burn untapped US oil reserves that are presently the only assets we have that will be needed to pay off our building national debt. These oil assets will on day be the largest oil reserves on earth once everybody else's is depleted while increasing in value with each passing day.

10. Oil will always be needed for aviation, industrial manufacturing, etc . Its only smart not to use it for personal transportation when we have the ability to change.

Add your own.

[Jason M. Hendler]

1. Cleaner breathing air.

Depends on the alternatives we choose. Alcohols will make smog problems worse, but fossil fuels with reformers / fuel cells will reduce pollution. [/quote]

2. Modernization.

Had an engineering ethics class in my undergrad that warned of the "progress" justification for doing something.

3. Keeps the US entangled in dangerous parts of the world where the people don't like us.

Agreed. Entanglement is fine, as long as it is our choice.

4. Forces us to compromise values such as support for democracy and human rights all in pursuit of protecting our "vital interests", aka dependency on their oil.

Perhaps it is best that we are not forcing our social engineering experiments on other nations and vice versa. I believe man-hating feminism and its abortion and destruction of the family unit will be the main cause of the collapse of Western civilization. Let's not poison any other cultures.

5. Indirectly funds the terrorism economy.

Agreed, but drugs serve the same purpose, and as long as Hollywood and the music industry continue to glamorize it, there will be arms sales.

6. Directly funds rouge state nuclear proliferation.

Agreed, same as 5.

7. Transfers US wealth to the Mid East in staggering amounts for a commodity that we literally burn once purchased.

Agreed. This is the core of energy independence. Nothing personal towards the Middle East, but we have domestic needs for that wealth.

8. Facing a future where due to limited global resources we are running head long into international conflict with nuclear armed powers who's national economic bloodlines are the same increasingly limited oil supplies.

I am actually encouraged by China's strong actions to become energy independent themselves. I am certain with the combined skill sets of Europe, Asia and the Americas, we will produce sustainable technologies on which our economies will be founded - I still believe money will eventually be based on energy (sunlight).

9. We'll be forced to drill and burn untapped US oil reserves that are presently the only assets we have that will be needed to pay off our building national debt. These oil assets will one day be the largest oil reserves on earth once everybody else's is depleted while increasing in value with each passing day.

Rebalancing of trade will correct deficits and debts, assuming we don't mis-spend the money we keep at home.

10. Oil will always be needed for aviation, industrial manufacturing, etc . Its only smart not to use it for personal transportation when we have the ability to change.

No, there are biofuels and hydrogen that can be used for conventional technologies. Elsewise, aircraft can use biofuel replacements. Better still, if we build out the evacuated cylinder shipping / transportation system, we can reduce long distance air travel and increase "last mile" shipping / transportation using fuel cells and electrics (planes, trucks, cars, etc.).

Add your own.[/QUOTE]

[swimdad623]

Doesn't anybody other than me see huge compelling reasons for getting off of oil?

I agree with you, but the battle cry to "fix global warming NOW!" distracts us from the main need - energy independence. As a country, it's terrible that we're dependent on other countries (many of which don't like us) for something so critical to our life and well-being. Unfortunately, the global warming crowd has taken over the politics and debate, and is only offering solutions that aren't efficient or scaleable. Believe it or not, there are hundreds of solutions for efficient and economical transition from imported oil to home-grown (and often cleaner) energy sources. Unfortunately, whenever someone tries to enable these solutions, the cry from the global warming crowd is that we're only allowed to consider often-impractical 'green' solutions. Anything not 100% 'green' doesn't qualify.

When this blog first started, I had an interesting conversation with a fairly-rational environmental advocate in California. Between us, we discussed the idea that we could start drilling for oil in the Alaska Wilidlife Reserve or off the coast of the USA, with the conditions that the oil only be pumped for a limited time (say 25 years), that a fee be charged for each barrel of oil taken, and that 100% of that fee would go to research and deployment of renewable energy. That actually sounded like a win-win for everyone - the oil helps our economy with domestic energy (reducing our need for imported oil), and the fees go toward improving the economics of renewable energy sources. Also, by setting a timetable for the end of the oil, the renewable energy providers know when the subsidies will end, so they have time to discard impractical solutions and ramp up production on practical energy solutions.

In general, people are very smart. They see the difference between impractical and practical solutions. As long as only impractical solutions are considered (such as big solar panel subsidies in my home state of New Jersey - where it's COUDY much of the time), doing nothing becomes the default action. Come up with a plan to get off foreign energy, followed with a 25 to 50 year conversion to economically viable (i.e. no subsidies) renewals, and they'll listen and go along. Run around screaming that the world ends in 6 months if we don't get off fossil fuels, and they'll write you off and do nothing.

[omnimoeish]

Here's one to add. Even if global warming were real, we've been burning fossil fuels for hundreds of years, in fact 100 years ago we were dumping CO2 from coal into the atmosphere by the truck loads throughout the industrial revolution and onward. Throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s, with cars getting 12 mpg and no catalytic converter, the earth was cooling, and many respected scientists say that since 1998-2000 or so, the warming reversed and we are now seeing global cooling. Besides, that we have solutions for CO2, it's called planting trees. We have trees that are scrubbing the air of CO2 all over the world. They're being cut down, it's sad, it's true, and someone should make sure we are planting as many trees as we cut down.

But the moral of the story is that anyone with half a brain knows that we're not going to bring the world to an end in 5-10 years because of CO2. However, what happens when oil prices shoot up to $150-200/barrel because demand in China and India keeps skyrocketing faster than the dwindling supply can keep up? Resource wars, nuclear prolification, etc. etc. Basically everything comes crashing down.

[Khadgars]

Perhaps it is best that we are not forcing our social engineering experiments on other nations and vice versa. I believe man-hating feminism and its abortion and destruction of the family unit will be the main cause of the collapse of Western civilization. Let's not poison any other cultures.

Wow, man-hating feminism and abortion will end Western Civilization? You clearly are heavily immersed in ultra neo-conservative christian ideology that I would argue is more of a threat to this country than abortion and is more backward thinking that I can list.

Rebalancing of trade will correct deficits and debts, assuming we don't mis-spend the money we keep at home.

Agreed.

[Jason M. Hendler]

Wow, man-hating feminism and abortion will end Western Civilization? You clearly are heavily immersed in ultra neo-conservative christian ideology that I would argue is more of a threat to this country than abortion and is more backward thinking that I can list.

It's not based on any religion or ethic. It's a measure of a culture's viability in terms of birthrates. The Islamic world has us all beat, while only immigration keeps our birthrates from reading negative.

[pdt]

It's not based on any religion or ethic. It's a measure of a culture's viability in terms of birthrates. The Islamic world has us all beat, while only immigration keeps our birthrates from reading negative.

Still ignoring history I see.

[Khadgars]

It's not based on any religion or ethic. It's a measure of a culture's viability in terms of birthrates. The Islamic world has us all beat, while only immigration keeps our birthrates from reading negative.

You know, as well as I do, this is just untrue. High birthrates are usually followed by poor living conditions (like most third world countries), the more people you have in the family the more hands you have to tend the farm, work etc. The same holds true here, the lower your income, the more children you have, where as the higher income you have the fewer children you end up having. Simple statistical fact.

If you are worried about population, deaths would be a much better place to start. Over 44,000 people die every year because of lack of health care yet you will never see anti-abortion proponents ever say a lick about that.

Show me a study that implicitly indicates that abortion has a significant role in reducing overall birthrates and maybe we can discuss something, the fact remains is that its a lie and a poor excuse to oppose abortion. In addition, those who want an abortion will still seek in regardless of laws, creating horrific conditions for these young woman to go through. I much rather have a 26 year old woman raising a child when she's ready than an 18 year old who is throwing her life away and probably resents the child any way, possibly ruining the both of their lives. But you just want births, regardless of quality?

I don't like abortion, I think every avenue should be exhausted before one is preformed, including adoption. But the fact remains that is not an option for every one. Why ignore all the people that are already born instead of sending them off to Iraq and Afghanistan to die, or all the sick and poor who die years earlier than every one else.

Any way, sorry for the rant

[Jason M. Hendler]

Still ignoring history I see.

Pdt, you want to talk overall population size and I am talking birthrates. Yes, Iran is an exception, but indonesia more than compensates.

[pdt]

Pdt, you want to talk overall population size and I am talking birthrates. Yes, Iran is an exception, but indonesia more than compensates.

Jason, I'm talking about birthrates in the past in non-Islamic countries.