Originally posted by spicersh
I've not read up enough on the oil issue to speak with any authority, but I did wonder about this part. You're assuming that all of this progress would have already been made, and I don't think it's accurate to do so. I liken it to drug discovery in the pharmaceutical industry. You can't put a timeline on innovation, you find it when you find it. You very well may be right that other technologies could have been found by now, but it's not an absolute. I realize you threw in the qalifier "likely," but you still present it as though it would definitely have happened, and I don't think that is accurate.
sh, this is pretty much where I think I'm at. On two separate occassions and from two different "experts" (?), they've made the use of the term Manhattan-style project to describe what has to be done to deal in any signficant way with the impending oil peak. The namby-pamby grants for research into alternatives have always been paltry to what's going to be required.
As for us continuing, the point of the Hubbert's Peak is that when we've reached that, we've basically pulled all the low-hanging fruit of fossil fuels out. All that's basically left are the exceptionally hard to get at resources. Thus, while its a curve, the suggestion has been made that its really a crash-and-burn type of mode.
DOE reports indicate a 2% growth in US oil consumption, so we're not stagnant in consumption generally. What's more, it has been pointed out that if oil got expensive enough, China could just walk all over a Middle Eastern country and there'd be little anyone could do. That alone is a frightening, but realistic prospect.
Anyway, its a fascinating subject and I just thought I'd throw it out there for reading if you've got some online time to burn.
BTW, I had specifically excluded dependence in hopes of avoiding the politics because no matter how you cut it, neither side of the aisle has done a good job. They both suck