GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

SallyRand · 05-13-2011, 02:22 PM

Part Two:

The upshot? Despite decades of doomsaying, and even despite major restrictions on drilling in the U.S. and in other countries, the state of affairs is still one of growing production and ample supplies for decades to come. As oil economist Michael Lynch explained, as of 2009
?the consensus among geologists is that there are some 10 trillion barrels out there. A century ago, only 10 percent of it was considered recoverable, but improvements in technology should allow us to recover some 35 percent -- another 2.5 trillion barrels -- in an economically viable way. And this doesn?t even include such potential sources as tar sands, which in time we may be able to efficiently tap.

But surely oil supplies will run out or go scarce at some point? No?because at the same time that entrepreneurs have every incentive to develop more oil, they have every incentive to develop substitutes for oil (especially as oil prices rise). Oil itself was originally a substitute lamp oil for whale oil and animal oil, and then was replaced by the superior electric light-bulb. Oil was once a major source of electricity; it was superseded by coal and natural gas, which were better sources for fixed power generation.

To the extent it becomes expensive to extract oil from the earth in sufficient quantities, we can be sure that entrepreneurs will work to make substitute sources of fuel based on legitimately promising technologies, such as natural gas or coal, or that they will seek to create battery-powered vehicles charged with nuclear power or some yet undeveloped technology?to the extent that the government refrains from its policy of heavily restrict mining, drilling, and nuclear technology. It is government policy, not the finite quantity of any given raw material, that is the real threat to future energy supplies.

The upshot: we will never run out the energy we get from oil--unless we run out of freedom.

Myth #4: Because oil is mostly in other countries, they can cut us off at will and create an economic catastrophe.
??think of the instability and the impotence you feel knowing that every day we have to have a lifeline from places half a world away that could cut us off in a minute.? ?Bill Clinton, 2006.

Reality: International trade makes our energy supply more secure?and far more affordable.

Two-thirds of the oil Americans use is imported from other countries. This state of affairs is often derided as America?s ?dependence on foreign oil,? conjuring up thoughts of being helplessly at the mercy of Saudi Arabia. But our relationship with foreign companies is not some helpless dependence?it is trade that is vital to the interest of all involved. Canada, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico do not sell oil to the U.S. and other countries as an act of charity that they can effortlessly revoke; they do it because it is economically vital to their survival.

The idea that we are perpetually at the mercy of Saudi Arabia simply shutting off its spigots, which would be complete suicide for a country whose whole economy relies on oil, is absurd.

By the same token, it?s crucial to realize that we buy oil because it provides the value it does cheaper and better than anything else?and we buy oil from foreign countries because given present knowledge and technology, it is far, far cheaper to do that than to try to produce all of Americans? oil consumption domestically. (However, this is no way justifies America?s anti-development drilling restrictions in Alaska and on the Outer Continental Shelf, which should be lifted.)

To be sure, temporary supply disruptions are possible, whether due to political machinations or natural disasters?but in such cases free, international trade is the solution, not the problem. Higher oil prices resulting from decreased supply would spur new production (of oil or viable substitutes) among trading partners worldwide and limit consumption to its most valued uses.

In general, trade with other countries vastly increases our economic well-being and security. It affords us access to the cheapest oil sources in the world, and offers us more options in the event that some production is stopped. During Hurricane Katrina, our ?dependence on foreign oil? was vital to getting much-needed supplies of gasoline to the Gulf Coast when U.S. refineries shut down.

This is not to say that the current possession of oil by unfriendly or outright militant dictatorships is an ideal state of affairs--but the foreign policy mistakes that brought it are not solved by withdrawing from international trade.

Myth #5: Because oil money funds hostile dictatorships (Iran, Saudi Arabia) by using less oil we can make them poorer and make ourselves more secure.

?If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, he would dry up revenue for terrorism [and] force Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take the path of reform?? --Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 2004

Reality: Direct threats to America must be fought through direct and decisive military action?not through multi-decade, sacrificial schemes to lower oil prices.

Iran and Saudi Arabia use ill-gotten profits to spread totalitarian Islamic ideology around the world and terrorize us with their minions. This, however, in no way justifies any attempt at ?energy independence??that is, renouncing international trade in energy, including the two-thirds of our oil we buy on the international market.

If, say, Iran's money is the problem, then the solution is to cut off Iran's money directly--for example, by organizing a global economic boycott against Iranian oil (not "foreign oil"). Why on earth should we give up two-thirds of the oil we need, an incalculable economic sacrifice? It is self-sacrificial and xenophobic to try to end our reliance on foreign oil as such and retreat into some kind of oil subsistence farm, in the hopes that this would someday lower Iran?s oil revenues. (This is especially dubious given skyrocketing oil demand from India and China.) It is an undeniable fact that Iran was an active, blossoming sponsor of terrorism when oil was at $10 and $20 a barrel (as was Saudi Arabia)?can anyone possibly believe that focusing on lowering oil prices over a period of decades would accomplish anything besides giving Iran more time to develop nukes, while undermining America?s economy and military?

Myth #6: Because the burning of oil produces CO2, oil is a deadly pollutant that must be severely capped.

?As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming-- an 80% reduction by 2050.? --Barack Obama, 2007

Reality: Carbon-caps, not carbon emissions, are the real deadly threat to human life.

It is taken for granted that any negative impact that results as a byproduct of burning oil and fossil fuels is a justification for limiting fossil fuels?even by the U.N.?s widely-accepted figure of 80%.

But this utterly evades the benefits we get from oil and fossil fuels that cannot be substituted for on any foreseeable timetables by the ?green? technologies favored by environmentalists. (See Myth #2.)

Fossil fuels supply 85% of our energy?the energy that makes the difference between a 40-year life expectancy and an 80-year life-expectancy, the energy that protects men from thunderstorms, rising sea levels, temperature extremes, drought, etc. Whether or not global warming proves substantial, these are problems that confront any society, and only industrial-scale energy is capable of solving. Thus, we need to factor into our thinking the benefits of increased CO2 energy and the harms of slashing oil and fossil fuel use by 80%. And, as we have seen, there is no evidence of any viable ?green? substitute for oil.

Loose talk of a ?climate change catastrophe? evades the fact that industrial energy makes catastrophes non-catastrophic. In Africa, a drought can wipe out hundreds of thousands of lives thanks to that continent?s rejection of capitalism and resultant lack of industrial energy.

In America, we irrigate so well that deserts have become the most desirable places to live (think Southern California and Las Vegas).

Economic freedom, not climate, is the fundamental determiner of human well-being. Left free to discover and harness energy, human beings can adapt to any change in weather. But there is no adapting to a mass, government-created drought of energy. There are already 1.5 billion people in the world who live without electricity. What they need is not a stagnant average global temperature; they need capitalism, including cheap, affordable fossil fuels.

The 6 myths about oil all count on the fact that we have not been taught to truly value or understand oil, the oil industry, and the capitalist system that have made them so prominent.

How often do we hear that oil is a source of incredible value to human life, past, present, and future? How often do we hear about of the forward-looking ingenuity of the oil industry and other energy industries to keep finding new and better ways to harness raw materials from the earth. How often do we hear about the great benefits of international trade in energy? Almost never.

It?s time to start talking about these positives and talk about liberating, not restricting, oil production. Otherwise, in the name of being ?clean? and ?green? we will adopt policies that will sentence ourselves and our children to energy poverty.

Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on business issues. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of ?Atlas Shrugged? and ?The Fountainhead.?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/29/myths-oil/

05-13-2011, 02:22 PM
SallyRand So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: In A Galaxie Far, Far Away! Posts: 3,487	6 More Myths About Oil!: Part Two Part Two: The upshot? Despite decades of doomsaying, and even despite major restrictions on drilling in the U.S. and in other countries, the state of affairs is still one of growing production and ample supplies for decades to come. As oil economist Michael Lynch explained, as of 2009 ?the consensus among geologists is that there are some 10 trillion barrels out there. A century ago, only 10 percent of it was considered recoverable, but improvements in technology should allow us to recover some 35 percent -- another 2.5 trillion barrels -- in an economically viable way. And this doesn?t even include such potential sources as tar sands, which in time we may be able to efficiently tap. But surely oil supplies will run out or go scarce at some point? No?because at the same time that entrepreneurs have every incentive to develop more oil, they have every incentive to develop substitutes for oil (especially as oil prices rise). Oil itself was originally a substitute lamp oil for whale oil and animal oil, and then was replaced by the superior electric light-bulb. Oil was once a major source of electricity; it was superseded by coal and natural gas, which were better sources for fixed power generation. To the extent it becomes expensive to extract oil from the earth in sufficient quantities, we can be sure that entrepreneurs will work to make substitute sources of fuel based on legitimately promising technologies, such as natural gas or coal, or that they will seek to create battery-powered vehicles charged with nuclear power or some yet undeveloped technology?to the extent that the government refrains from its policy of heavily restrict mining, drilling, and nuclear technology. It is government policy, not the finite quantity of any given raw material, that is the real threat to future energy supplies. The upshot: we will never run out the energy we get from oil--unless we run out of freedom. Myth #4: Because oil is mostly in other countries, they can cut us off at will and create an economic catastrophe. ??think of the instability and the impotence you feel knowing that every day we have to have a lifeline from places half a world away that could cut us off in a minute.? ?Bill Clinton, 2006. Reality: International trade makes our energy supply more secure?and far more affordable. Two-thirds of the oil Americans use is imported from other countries. This state of affairs is often derided as America?s ?dependence on foreign oil,? conjuring up thoughts of being helplessly at the mercy of Saudi Arabia. But our relationship with foreign companies is not some helpless dependence?it is trade that is vital to the interest of all involved. Canada, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico do not sell oil to the U.S. and other countries as an act of charity that they can effortlessly revoke; they do it because it is economically vital to their survival. The idea that we are perpetually at the mercy of Saudi Arabia simply shutting off its spigots, which would be complete suicide for a country whose whole economy relies on oil, is absurd. By the same token, it?s crucial to realize that we buy oil because it provides the value it does cheaper and better than anything else?and we buy oil from foreign countries because given present knowledge and technology, it is far, far cheaper to do that than to try to produce all of Americans? oil consumption domestically. (However, this is no way justifies America?s anti-development drilling restrictions in Alaska and on the Outer Continental Shelf, which should be lifted.) To be sure, temporary supply disruptions are possible, whether due to political machinations or natural disasters?but in such cases free, international trade is the solution, not the problem. Higher oil prices resulting from decreased supply would spur new production (of oil or viable substitutes) among trading partners worldwide and limit consumption to its most valued uses. In general, trade with other countries vastly increases our economic well-being and security. It affords us access to the cheapest oil sources in the world, and offers us more options in the event that some production is stopped. During Hurricane Katrina, our ?dependence on foreign oil? was vital to getting much-needed supplies of gasoline to the Gulf Coast when U.S. refineries shut down. This is not to say that the current possession of oil by unfriendly or outright militant dictatorships is an ideal state of affairs--but the foreign policy mistakes that brought it are not solved by withdrawing from international trade. Myth #5: Because oil money funds hostile dictatorships (Iran, Saudi Arabia) by using less oil we can make them poorer and make ourselves more secure. ?If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, he would dry up revenue for terrorism [and] force Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take the path of reform?? --Thomas L. Friedman, The New York Times, 2004 Reality: Direct threats to America must be fought through direct and decisive military action?not through multi-decade, sacrificial schemes to lower oil prices. Iran and Saudi Arabia use ill-gotten profits to spread totalitarian Islamic ideology around the world and terrorize us with their minions. This, however, in no way justifies any attempt at ?energy independence??that is, renouncing international trade in energy, including the two-thirds of our oil we buy on the international market. If, say, Iran's money is the problem, then the solution is to cut off Iran's money directly--for example, by organizing a global economic boycott against Iranian oil (not "foreign oil"). Why on earth should we give up two-thirds of the oil we need, an incalculable economic sacrifice? It is self-sacrificial and xenophobic to try to end our reliance on foreign oil as such and retreat into some kind of oil subsistence farm, in the hopes that this would someday lower Iran?s oil revenues. (This is especially dubious given skyrocketing oil demand from India and China.) It is an undeniable fact that Iran was an active, blossoming sponsor of terrorism when oil was at $10 and $20 a barrel (as was Saudi Arabia)?can anyone possibly believe that focusing on lowering oil prices over a period of decades would accomplish anything besides giving Iran more time to develop nukes, while undermining America?s economy and military? Myth #6: Because the burning of oil produces CO2, oil is a deadly pollutant that must be severely capped. ?As President, I will set a hard cap on all carbon emissions at a level that scientists say is necessary to curb global warming-- an 80% reduction by 2050.? --Barack Obama, 2007 Reality: Carbon-caps, not carbon emissions, are the real deadly threat to human life. It is taken for granted that any negative impact that results as a byproduct of burning oil and fossil fuels is a justification for limiting fossil fuels?even by the U.N.?s widely-accepted figure of 80%. But this utterly evades the benefits we get from oil and fossil fuels that cannot be substituted for on any foreseeable timetables by the ?green? technologies favored by environmentalists. (See Myth #2.) Fossil fuels supply 85% of our energy?the energy that makes the difference between a 40-year life expectancy and an 80-year life-expectancy, the energy that protects men from thunderstorms, rising sea levels, temperature extremes, drought, etc. Whether or not global warming proves substantial, these are problems that confront any society, and only industrial-scale energy is capable of solving. Thus, we need to factor into our thinking the benefits of increased CO2 energy and the harms of slashing oil and fossil fuel use by 80%. And, as we have seen, there is no evidence of any viable ?green? substitute for oil. Loose talk of a ?climate change catastrophe? evades the fact that industrial energy makes catastrophes non-catastrophic. In Africa, a drought can wipe out hundreds of thousands of lives thanks to that continent?s rejection of capitalism and resultant lack of industrial energy. In America, we irrigate so well that deserts have become the most desirable places to live (think Southern California and Las Vegas). Economic freedom, not climate, is the fundamental determiner of human well-being. Left free to discover and harness energy, human beings can adapt to any change in weather. But there is no adapting to a mass, government-created drought of energy. There are already 1.5 billion people in the world who live without electricity. What they need is not a stagnant average global temperature; they need capitalism, including cheap, affordable fossil fuels. The 6 myths about oil all count on the fact that we have not been taught to truly value or understand oil, the oil industry, and the capitalist system that have made them so prominent. How often do we hear that oil is a source of incredible value to human life, past, present, and future? How often do we hear about of the forward-looking ingenuity of the oil industry and other energy industries to keep finding new and better ways to harness raw materials from the earth. How often do we hear about the great benefits of international trade in energy? Almost never. It?s time to start talking about these positives and talk about liberating, not restricting, oil production. Otherwise, in the name of being ?clean? and ?green? we will adopt policies that will sentence ourselves and our children to energy poverty. Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, focusing on business issues. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of ?Atlas Shrugged? and ?The Fountainhead.? http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/29/myths-oil/ Last edited by SallyRand; 05-13-2011 at 02:23 PM..