They're right in the sense that America consumes more than the Earth's resources can sustain, and America will need to monopolize those resources to extend the time it can continue that consumption.

But, I sense an assumption that there needs to be an equal standard of living world wide, and that technology will not provide us with viable alternatives in the future. In that sense, I will say they're either wrong or assuming too much.

Rape the earth. Build our way out.

They have been saying we are going to hit peak oil soon for 50 years. It will happen someday but these assholes don't know when and nobody calls them on it when they are wrong and they have predicted it every single year. They probably advocate some policies that only further their ideas about social justice. Do we need nuclear power and electric cars sure someday but the free markets are perfectly capable of adapting to this need if we let them. If for some reason electric cars have appeal to people than somebody will step in and build one and if they make money another person will step in to compete with them so there is plenty incentive to make the best and cheapest product and if people don't want them than it wouldn't be right to force them on people. You won't need the government to spend anything on this. All that is is left wing alarmist tripe.

I think it will be funny what liberals have to say when the most evil things in the world, corporations comes up with the solutions to all these problems.

> sKoE )= wrote:
> Or just nuke the planet into oblivion and go live on the moon... <

I call Titan!
__________

I know what will go some way to solving the problem: People in general growing a brain and realising that buying a TV, Hi-Fi, PS Wii60 and Segtendo Gamestation, DVD or Blu-Ray player is an idiotic watse of money when you have a PC.

No, I don't have a lot of furniture.

"Dibs on Mars!"

Sorry, mars is already taken by aliens.

Phssthpok: "They have been saying we are going to hit peak oil soon for 50 years. It will happen someday but these assholes don't know when and nobody calls them on it when they are wrong and they have predicted it every single year."

The problem with peak oil is its application to the real world. On paper, it's a beautiful mathematical formula, and the plots on the graph are all very convincing. Yet it does not account for the /unknowns/. It assumes constant production at a constant rate as far into the future as they intend to predict, and oil production simply does not follow such a curve. Indeed, individual oil fields do not even adhere to the curve. In fact, the production of /any/ limited resource never yields such a curve. There are many factors at stake which the peak oil theorists do not account for; such as the geopolitical, or changes in the supply of oil, or its demand, or the fact that field outputs change at a variable rate.

It's the perfect example of what modern day economists attempt to do when making policy recommendations on the economy. They /think/ they have it all figured out, with their amateur formulaes and questionable research, but they simply do not understand the nature of chaotic systems, to include economies. Meteorologists will readily admit the impossibility of predicting weather. You can understand the mechanics of it, how weather /works/, but you can't /predict/ it with any degree of accuracy beyond a few days. There are too many variables -- known and unknown -- to consider.

Perhaps mainstream economics should include a primer on nonlinear dynamics.

Probably has something to do with the notion that if you have Oil the US will meddle with your internal affairs.

> [TI] ARFeh zee Frenchie wrote:

> Surely getting off oil dependence is desirable as it would limit the leverage of oil producing countries (of which ALMOST all seems to be crazy, anti-West nations)?

Especially that "Canada" place!  I'll be soooooooo glad when our economy isn't dependent on them, so we can nuke the bastards once and for all!