Morphed Climate/Energy Bill is DOA in the Senate

From:  The Caucus Blog – NYTimes.com
Senate Democrats on Tuesday abandoned all hopes of passing even a slimmed-down energy bill before they adjourn for the summer recess, saying that they did not have sufficient votes even for legislation tailored narrowly to respond to the Gulf oil spill.

Although the majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, sought to blame Republicans for sinking the energy measure, the reality is that Democrats are also divided over how to proceed on the issue and had long ago given up hope of a comprehensive bill to address climate change.



“Ask anyone outside of Washington, and they’ll tell you that this isn’t a Democrat or a Republican issue, it’s an American issue,” Mr. Kerry said. “It’s American troops whose lives are endangered because we’re dependent on oil companies in countries that hate us. It’s American consumers who are tired not just of prices at the pump that soar each summer, but sick and tired of our oil dependency that makes Iran $100 million richer every day that Washington fails to respond.”

h/t to Tom Nelson

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Energy, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

125 Responses to Morphed Climate/Energy Bill is DOA in the Senate

  1. Martin Brumby says:

    “It’s American troops whose lives are endangered because we’re dependent on oil companies in countries that hate us. It’s American consumers who are tired not just of prices at the pump that soar each summer, but sick and tired of our oil dependency that makes Iran $100 million richer every day that Washington fails to respond.”

    Wouldn’t that be a good reason to carry on exploiting the abundant fossil fuel reserves available in the US and Canada?

    Just wondering…..

  2. Question: is there a link where we can read the bill they are debating?

  3. Juraj V. says:

    AFAIK, Iran is selling most of its oil to China.

  4. stephen richards says:

    It’s interesting isn’t. They always said that the fighting in the middle east was not about oil and here is Kerry say the opposite. More lies ?

  5. Ken Hall says:

    “Wouldn’t that be a good reason to carry on exploiting the abundant fossil fuel reserves available in the US and Canada?”

    The deals America has with Saudi Arabia forbids America from exploiting their own massive proven reserves.

    The “civilised” Western nations have to control access to and use up all the oil in the middle East to prevent large reserves falling into the hands of “unstable” regimes.

    Also, if you added all that oil to the market place at once, they could not charge the prices the do for it. The price would drop so low it would become massively uneconomical and the oil billionaires would become oil millionaires.

    Besides, according to the MAX PLANCK SOCIETY we have to stop ALL use of carbon based fuel entirely.

    Perhaps those who support such a measure could now be considered to be “thick as a Planck”?

  6. Pete Hayes says:

    And elections looms in the U.S.!

    One would hope that the financial mismanagement by the Labour Party, in the UK, leaves no room for manoeuvre for the current lot, who seem hell bent on proceeding to economic suicide! Waits for hospital operations lengthen by the day due to cuts so lets see if Met Office/CRU money is cut back as well!

  7. Dave from the "Hot" North East of Scotland says:

    @Martin Brumby
    “Wouldn’t that be a good reason to carry on exploiting the abundant fossil fuel reserves available in the US and Canada?”

    To me it appears that the US of A have taken a deliberate choice to use up oil reserves elsewhere in the hope that one day they will hold the remaining major deposits and therefore the global-political whip-hand. What a good job that oil reserves in certain parts of the world seem to be holding out longer or even regenerating.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/crispin8.html
    however – conversely..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
    But…the jury remains out

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4J8D95X-1&_user=10&_coverDate=03%2F15%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1420851124&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=50ceb2d6e74f3a383cf1f1bfc41236f1

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/nt2m870w7568528k/

    Can anyone find any ‘evidence based’ literature to prove/refute well regeneration ‘a la Crispin’ ?

  8. JimB says:

    I agree with Martin…
    Common misperceptions regarding energy and availability:
    Most americans don’t realize that the number one source for imported oil to the U.S. is Canada, and
    Most americans have no idea that there are shale oil reserves in Wyoming/Colorado that are estimated to surpass the entire oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

    We have been hoisted on our own petard, by our own politicians. We have all of the fossil fuel energy we need to last us well into the future (current estimates seem to be around the 400yr mark), at which point I’d like to believe there would no longer be a dependence on “oil”.

    The problem with this article, and the bill, is that it is far from “dead”. We would have been better off had this made it to the floor for debate. What is bound to happen now is that AFTER the midterms, this bill will almost certainly be part of the “lame duck” agenda, and I’ll be shocked if it doesn’t get passed along with a host of other legislation that will cause us to wake up one morning in December wondering what the hell happened?

    JimB

  9. Brian, follower of Deornoth says:

    @Rob Schneider, didn’t you know that nowadays the bills are passed first, and written afterwards?

  10. M.A.DeLuca II says:

    Don’t celebrate too quickly. This is a hydra, and cutting off one of its heads only leads to the creation of others. This thing will be back, pieces of it enacted as riders on other “must pass” legislation.

  11. Rhys Jaggar says:

    Err……………presumably the rest of the world to whom America exports this that and the other might reasonably ask about how their dependence on American products makes America richer????

    Don’t mean to be rude, but America’s as hard as nails when it comes to making money from foreigners. So why they complain when others do in oil what they do in all kinds of things just beats me……….

    The unique nature of the immigrants who populated America in the past 300 years, perhaps????

    Thoughts:
    1. Put in some bullet trains between US cities to start cutting down on short-haul domestic flights.
    2. Stop buying gas guzzlers and make do with a Yaris, a Mini, an Escort or the like.
    3. Make some nicer friends who’ll sell you some oil.
    4. Stop going to war for oil: you don’t make friends that way.
    5. If you do go to war for oil, stop talking about doing it for democracy. It makes you out to be liars.
    6. Remember you’re only one nation on this earth. And there’s nothing special or different about you. You just occupy a big chunk of land between the Atlantic and Pacific.
    7. Think about the enormous amount of sunlight in your SW deserts: perfect for solar power, wouldn’t you say????
    8. Build your houses better: then you’ll need less energy to heat them.
    9. Embrace community public transport to reduce journeys of less than 3 miles. Ditto with bicycles. It’s called community pride, not socialism……
    10. Stop blowing billions a year on drugs. Then you could afford more petrol.
    11. Get as many as possible of you to generate micro-biomass generators to minimise your need for external energy.

    That’ll do for starters.

    Better than bombing the shit out of countries, isn’t it??

    More respectful of human life, isn’t it????

  12. Bill Tuttle says:

    “It’s American troops whose lives are endangered because we’re dependent on oil companies in countries that hate us. “

    Thank you for your whole-heartedly faked concern about American troops, Senator Kerry, but I never felt endangered or hated by Canada — which is our biggest supplier of foreign oil.

  13. JER0ME says:

    Martin Brumby says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:36 am

    “It’s American troops whose lives are endangered because we’re dependent on oil companies in countries that hate us. It’s American consumers who are tired not just of prices at the pump that soar each summer, but sick and tired of our oil dependency that makes Iran $100 million richer every day that Washington fails to respond.”

    Wouldn’t that be a good reason to carry on exploiting the abundant fossil fuel reserves available in the US and Canada?

    Just wondering…..

    No. in fact just the opposite.

    Imagine there were several shops, all selling stones dug up from a patch of land behind each shop, and the number of stones remaining fell each year, and the price increased each year. Now imagine you owned one shop (and land). Would you benefit more by digging up and selling all your stones now, or by waiting until the others had sold most of theirs?

    Seems pretty simple to me.

  14. GM says:

    Martin Brumby says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:36 am

    Wouldn’t that be a good reason to carry on exploiting the abundant fossil fuel reserves available in the US and Canada?

    And where exactly are those reserves if it’s not a secret??

    It is truly amazing how people will readily believe in even the silliest myths if it suits their preconceived world views. Case in point:

    Ken Hall says:
    August 4, 2010 at 2:19 am
    “Wouldn’t that be a good reason to carry on exploiting the abundant fossil fuel reserves available in the US and Canada?”

    The deals America has with Saudi Arabia forbids America from exploiting their own massive proven reserves.

    Again, where are the “proven reserves”? Shales do not count because shale oil is not really oil, and you can only think it is if you are utterly ignorant of geology and thermodynamics.

    Dave from the “Hot” North East of Scotland says:
    August 4, 2010 at 2:36 am
    @Martin Brumby
    “Wouldn’t that be a good reason to carry on exploiting the abundant fossil fuel reserves available in the US and Canada?”

    To me it appears that the US of A have taken a deliberate choice to use up oil reserves elsewhere in the hope that one day they will hold the remaining major deposits and therefore the global-political whip-hand. What a good job that oil reserves in certain parts of the world seem to be holding out longer or even regenerating.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/crispin8.html
    however – conversely..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
    But…the jury remains out

    And when someone brings up the abiogenic “theory” of oil origin, you know the lunacy fest is on…

    Another one:

    JimB says:
    August 4, 2010 at 2:43 am
    I agree with Martin…
    Common misperceptions regarding energy and availability:
    Most americans don’t realize that the number one source for imported oil to the U.S. is Canada, and
    Most americans have no idea that there are shale oil reserves in Wyoming/Colorado that are estimated to surpass the entire oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

    We have been hoisted on our own petard, by our own politicians. We have all of the fossil fuel energy we need to last us well into the future (current estimates seem to be around the 400yr mark), at which point I’d like to believe there would no longer be a dependence on “oil”.

    The bigger problem is that the Americans that have no idea there are oil shales in Wyoming and Colorado while a majority of the total are only a subset of the Americans who don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics….

    When someone finds a way to get 20 million barrels a day with an EROEI of at least 10 out of those oil shales, while being able to scale it up to at least 3 or 4 million within 5 to 10 years from now, then you can claim that there are X number of years of proven reserves and there is no problem.

    Unfortunately the chances of this happening are as slim as the chances of the majority of Americans ever understanding the Second law…

  15. GM says:

    This part should be separate from the blockquote:

    The bigger problem is that the Americans that have no idea there are oil shales in Wyoming and Colorado while a majority of the total are only a subset of the Americans who don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics….

    When someone finds a way to get 20 million barrels a day with an EROEI of at least 10 out of those oil shales, while being able to scale it up to at least 3 or 4 million within 5 to 10 years from now, then you can claim that there are X number of years of proven reserves and there is no problem.

    Unfortunately the chances of this happening are as slim as the chances of the majority of Americans ever understanding the Second law…

  16. CodeTech says:

    Oddly enough, the US is NOT dependent on foreign oil from countries that hate the US. The US is, however, dependent on oil from the US and Canada. It is truly unfortunate that kerry and 0bama and the rest of their little club are doing their best to block oil from Canada, labeling it “dirty oil”… and preventing drilling and exploration in promising American locations.

    The net result would be to force the US to become dependent on oil from countries that hate the US.

    It doesn’t matter a lot to Canada, we’ll just sell our “dirty oil” to someone else. We’ve noted China, for example, ready to line up tankers at western ports to fill up.

    Oh, and about “blaming” Republicans: in the future, that will be changed to “crediting” Republicans for helping to prevent suicide.

  17. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    “we’re dependent on oil companies in countries that hate us”

    No, they don’t hate the US otherwise they wouldn’t drive American cars (more popular in some Muslim countries than in Europe), drink Cokie, wear Levis or go to the movies or send their kids to international American schools.

    The so called hate is stirred up by religion, racism, leftists and the military industrial complex which is invested in by many governments and individuals worldwide including terrorists and their financiers.

  18. mikelorrey says:

    If they want energy independence, why are they punishing coal the most?

  19. James Sexton says:

    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 3:46 am “………”

    GM, uhmm entropy isn’t really a hard concept. For a listing of our reserves go to the USGS. I’m not sure about the 400 years, but here is something that has been shown over the length of time we’ve used oil. We continue to find more reserves every year. We increase our abilities to extract the oil constantly. We constantly learn more efficient techniques in our oil use. This nation, this globe isn’t running out of oil anytime soon and if we’re prudent with the use of oil, we’ll have plenty of it several generations to come. I’ve plenty more to say, but I’m late for work. It amazes me how people will totally ignore past experience in regards to our history with oil to try to make a point that we don’t have any. GM you don’t know how much oil we have left, no one does. We know we’ve plenty for a while and we know we’ll find more.

  20. Les Francis says:

    Stopping America’s dependence on foreign oil – by John Stewart
    (excuse language)
    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future

  21. mikael pihlström says:

    mikelorrey says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:02 am

    If they want energy independence, why are they punishing coal the most?
    —–

    Punishing coal? Fossil fuels receive about 10 x amount of subsidies
    compared to renewables worldwide. And those are the easilly traceable
    subsidies. In addition, diffuse production supports.
    For oil industries in USA, see:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?emc=eta1

  22. Henry chance says:

    This bill has nothing to do with climate. It is one of the pet words inserted to decieve people. I googled a bit and can’t find a place to read the bill. It seems legislation is now very secret.
    Obama said he would post bills passed by congress for several days before signing them. That will not happen. He wasn’t truthful.

  23. Joe Lalonde says:

    Do not trust a politician.
    They say what you want to hear to be elected then use “Good for the Country” when elected.

  24. cedarhill says:

    Rob Schneider at 1:12AM.

    It’s Senate bill S.3663. thomas is provided to you by you – meaning we pay for the service.

    The easiest way to find anything Congress has kicking around it to start at http://www.senate.gov then click on the sidebar link “Active Legislation” then look under heading of “Curently Active”. You’ll see S.3663. But if you know the title of the bill (this one is the Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act and is cited by articles sometimes along with the bill number), you can go directly to the public repository url at http://thomas.loc.gov. Put in the name of the bill. If you put that into a search you should get a bill summary and status page where you can select various things include the CBO cost if available. Select text of the bill and you should get this url

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.3663:

    which is where you’ll be if you selected it off the active legislation link (provided you know the bill number). You can click on the pdf version, and, if lucky, you’ll have the bill without having to use Thomas to page through it. Oh, and it’s “only” 401 pages double spaced. A word of caution, wading through amendments and what comes out of a House-Senate committee can be a daunting task akin to “Must pass so we can know what it looks like after it’s really put in readable form”.

    Oh, and Thomas is provided to you by you – meaning we pay for the service. What I found interesting is how the politicians name bills to make them sound really great. I’ve been waiting for the “Perpetual Prosperity Children’s Welfare Famine Free Pestilence Prevention Cheap Gasoline and Universal Love” bill. Must be why they feel they don’t need to read past the title.

  25. wws says:

    Not surprisingly, this article edited out the two primary reasons the bill died; Harry Reid wrote this bill himself (it was NOT the Kerry-Liebermann bill, which Reid never allowed to come to the floor) and he inserted two provisions guaranteed to make it fail in the Senate. And he *knew* this, and this was why they were inserted – Reid calculated that it would be better to have something he could make a negative campaign issue with in the fall rather than allow his opponents to join him in doing anything.

    These are the two provisions – the first was increasing the liability cap for offshore drillers: it’s not that the idea was so bad, but it needed to be tied to the net worth of a company to be workable, rather than unlimited. The way Reid’s version was written it would have made liability insurance economically impossible to get for all but the 5 or so largest oil companies in the world (Exxon, Chevron, etc) and thus it would have driven several hundred smaller companies which operate in the Gulf area out of business.

    Mary Landrieu and every other Democratic Senator in the region opposed this just as bitterly as any Republican, since this provision should have been labeled “Destroy 100,000 regional jobs and destroy all locally owned businesses in order to give Exxon, Chevron, and others a near monopoly lock on the segment.” But now Harry can campaign with the claim that nasty Republicans just want to let BP off the hook. (liability limits are waived in the case of gross negligence, so BP doesn’t get out of anything even under current law)

    The second provision was a last minute addition by Harry, one that had never been part of any bill before last week – he inserted a provision which would have forced anyone developing shale gas in the US (the most promising energy segment in the country today) to have publicly listed anything included in the frack fluid. 2 problems here; all fracking companies have propietary blends and they have problems releasing their formulas, based on years of experience and tests, to their competitors.
    But more importantly, the real goal of this provision was to give local activists the ammunition they needed to sue any drillers in local courts, since scary sounding chemicals are always a great way to excite the locals. (You mean they’re pumping Di-Hydrogen Oxide under My Land????) So, the practical effect of this provision would have been to shut down the one segment of American energy production which is booming and which truly is helping to achieve all of the goals that Reid and the Dem’s say they support.

    And lest you have any doubt that this was intended to kill the bill, consider one final nail Reid himself put in this bill’s coffin – he wrote the bill himself, throwing out Boxer’s committee work, throwing out all of Kerry’s work, allowing no other Senators any input at all – and then he ruled that his bill had to be considered on a take it or leave it basis, no debate allowed, no amendments allowed. The reason you don’t see that happen much is because that kind of heavy-handedness pretty much guarantees a 99-1 vote against in the Senate no matter *what* the issue is – Senators don’t much like having their toes stepped on that way no matter which party they’re in.

    So that’s why the bill died – Harry Reid quite intentionally murdered it.

  26. Brego says:

    The U.S. imports ZERO oil from Iran.

    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbblpd_a.htm

    Sen. Kerry is talking out of his hat, as usual.

  27. James Sexton says:

    mikelorrey says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:02 am

    “If they want energy independence, why are they punishing coal the most?”

    Indeed, and why do we have a moratorium on off-shore drilling, and why aren’t we building nuclear plants. Why haven’t we embraced hydrogen as an eventual replacement fuel?

  28. Mustafa says:

    That’s the key question proponents of energy legislation and MSM keep ignoring. How does preventing the construction of coal-fired power plants in the U.S. promote energy security, energy independence, or whatever other goal they are trying to acheive other than driving us into poverty.

  29. Dave from the "Hot" North East of Scotland says:

    @GM
    “And when someone brings up the abiogenic “theory” of oil origin, you know the lunacy fest is on…”

    I did ask if anyone had any harder evidence than one bloke called Crispin, a Wiki-entry and a couple of lightweight links. I’m not a petrochemical engineer or geologist but I do understand chemistry. So please GM – show us the colour of your money rather than go all disparaging on us.
    If you’re degree is in either of those fields or something related, please contribute to the debate.
    If methane can be formed abiogenically, it’s not beyond reason that other hydrocarbons and derivatives can be formed in like manner. At some point or other in the past, amines were formed abiogenically and became peptides and became life……

  30. kramer says:

    Kerry: “Ask anyone outside of Washington, and they’ll tell you that this isn’t a Democrat or a Republican issue, it’s an American issue,” Mr. Kerry said. “It’s American troops whose lives are endangered because we’re dependent on oil companies in countries that hate us. It’s American consumers who are tired not just of prices at the pump that soar each summer, but sick and tired of our oil dependency that makes Iran $100 million richer every day that Washington fails to respond.”

    Under cap-and-trade, energy prices and the prices of over 400 everyday items that use oil will “necessarily skyrocket,” we’ll be paying foreign countries billions each year in green wealth redistribution schemes such as carbon offsets (and if some greens get their way, we could be paying hundreds of billions/year to foreign countries in eco-reparations), and our troops would STILL be fighting wars in the middle east in order to keep the oil flowing to the other countries that are still going to be using oil.

  31. R Taylor says:

    Bill Tuttle says:
    August 4, 2010 at 3:12 am
    ___________________________
    You mean it didn’t worry you when Manitoba’s licence-plate logo changed from “Friendly Manitoba” to “Take Another Look”?

  32. Eric (skeptic) says:

    #11 Rhys Jaggar, that’s certainly an interesting European perspective. Here’s my response:
    1. Don’t let your birthrate fall to 1.2 and
    2. Don’t embrace immigration from Mulsim countries.
    3. Don’t let socialism take over so completely that rioters burn pregnant women to death for simply being at work (Greece).
    4. Don’t let your “peaceful” economic integration fool you into thinking that the old animosities are gone.
    5. Don’t pretend that reducing greenhouse gases 10 or 20% (Germany) can be extrapolated into the future or to other countries since all you did is:
    6. Don’t offload your GHG “pollution” to other countries and pretend that you lowered GHG emissions.
    7. Don’t let the gangs (see #2) beat up women on your very efficient trains
    8. Don’t pretend that the wars you are not in (Afghanistan and Iraq) are any worse than the ones you were in and will be in once your liberty is threatened (see 1, 2, 3, 4, …)

  33. Chuck L says:

    The dems will probably try to pass climate legislation during the lame duck session of Congress, after the elections, possibly by using the reconciliation process since the House already passed a bill, if the Senate can come up with a bill, however streamlined it might be Of course, the EPA is waiting in the wings to impose cap and trade, carbon tax, and other rules and regulations to accomplish the Administration’s goals, non-legislatively, if they are unable to pass legislation after the elections.

    This battle is far from over.

  34. Bruce Cobb says:

    Of course, “energy independence” is just their ruse to try to sway Democrats who are on the fence, and even some Republicans to vote for this monstrosity. Kerry claims it’s an “American issue”. In a way, he’s right. It is unAmerican to vote for a bill that would raise energy costs, hurting business and especially hurting the poor and middle class for no reason whatsoever, and at the worst possible time.
    As for the lame-duck session, how many lame-duckers are going to be willing to essentially commit political suicide on this? I guess we’ll find out, but I’m betting, not enough.

  35. James Sexton says:

    Rhys Jaggar says:
    August 4, 2010 at 3:04 am

    Thoughts:
    1. Put in some bullet trains between US cities to start cutting down on short-haul domestic flights.
    2. Stop buying gas guzzlers and make do with a Yaris, a Mini, an Escort or the like.
    3. Make some nicer friends who’ll sell you some oil.
    4. Stop going to war for oil: you don’t make friends that way.
    5. If you do go to war for oil, stop talking about doing it for democracy. It makes you out to be liars.
    6. Remember you’re only one nation on this earth. And there’s nothing special or different about you. You just occupy a big chunk of land between the Atlantic and Pacific.
    7. Think about the enormous amount of sunlight in your SW deserts: perfect for solar power, wouldn’t you say????
    8. Build your houses better: then you’ll need less energy to heat them.
    9. Embrace community public transport to reduce journeys of less than 3 miles. Ditto with bicycles. It’s called community pride, not socialism……
    10. Stop blowing billions a year on drugs. Then you could afford more petrol.
    11. Get as many as possible of you to generate micro-biomass generators to minimise your need for external energy.

    That’ll do for starters.

    Better than bombing the shit out of countries, isn’t it??

    More respectful of human life, isn’t it????

    Rhys, you bring up some interesting points, as you may imagine, as an American, I take some exceptions to some of your points.

    You said, “Don’t mean to be rude, but America’s as hard as nails when it comes to making money from foreigners.”

    Perhaps in some ways, however, our trade deficit has been a constant almost my entire life, so, I’d say you probably have a misconception about our trade policies. “Hard as nails” isn’t how I’d view a nation that freely gives away food to impoverished nations without using it a leverage for trade, but your free to have your own opinion. When we complain about the oil dependence, many aren’t complaining to others, but rather our politicians complicity in the dependence.

    From your thoughts,

    1. Probably a good idea

    2. Maybe a good idea, or it may be a defeatist attitude. One of the wonderful things about the American culture is we don’t except we have to do without.(There are some here, but for the most part we don’t.) Further, an Escort isn’t a viable option for much of this country. I live on a gravel road, a new Escort doesn’t do well in those conditions. Experience has taught me that.

    3. “Make nicer friends.”……???? Yeh? Honestly, as pointed out upward in this thread, we don’t need anymore than the friends we have. Not that most of our “friends” have ever repaid the kindness we’ve shown, in terms of saving their behinds in various wars. But they’re welcome anyway. We didn’t do it for enduring loyalty, and for the most part, we sure didn’t get it either.

    4. “Stop going to war for oil.”? If it is in our national interest to secure oil, then I make no apologies for it. However, I don’t believe that is why we are in Iraq, but other than Iraq, can you name another war we were in that someone can conceive we were there for the oil? You make it sound like we are serial oil war mongers. History doesn’t agree. But again, if it is in our national interests, so be it. We have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury our dead.

    5. If we did, indeed go to war for oil, as you suggested, then why haven’t we simply taken the oil? We didn’t. You should check where Iraqi oil goes. In 2008 57% went to Europe and Asia while the Western Hemisphere 41%. Maybe we went to war so you could have oil. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iraq/OilExports.html

    6. Sir, I could go into excruciating details about what separates us from the rest of the world, but time and space prohibit such an endeavor. From our political and religious inception to the cultural melting pot, to the uniqueness of this land, we are indeed “special”. I don’t expect you to see it, but you should understand why I believe we are special.

    7. Solar power may be the way to go, going forward. Today, however, this simply isn’t a viable alternative to fossil fuels. When one factors cost and reliability, it is laughable to suggest we can simply turn the switch on and have a replacement for our traditional energy sources. Please remember we still cannot store AC power.

    8. Better built houses certainly is a reachable goal, thanks for pointing that out, I’ll pass that one the powers that be that don’t believe that is a direction we need to go towards.

    9. Sis, if I had less than 3 miles to go, I’d probably just walk. But I don’t see how that contributes to the pride of the community. I’m not sure you understand the demographics of the U.S.

    10. Another good call on your part. Again, I’ll pass that on to the crack and heroin users of this country.

    11. We’ll have to take the micro-biomass generators under study. Wouldn’t it just be easier to build nuclear plants?

    Maybe it would be “better than bombing the shit out of other countries”, but I haven’t read where much of the world was complaining in 1944 and 1945. Well, there were probably two countries, but that was about it. Maybe we should apologize for being mean to the Taliban? or Al Qaeda?

    Rhys, I’ll join you an a call to show life more respect. However, the realities of this world shows us that the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint.

    Personally, I believe the U.S. is too involved in the machinations of the rest of the world. I believe the U.S. doesn’t need the rest of the world to maintain this nation. We have enough natural resources and food and manpower and technical abilities that we can do just fine without the rest of the world. And that whatever happens in the rest of the world, well, a smart man once said “People deserve the government they have.” and the condition of the public well being.

  36. Henry chance says:

    Coal. We consume a lot of coal that is produced in a country that has a lot of people that hate us.

  37. GM says:

    Dave from the “Hot” North East of Scotland says:
    August 4, 2010 at 6:21 am
    @GM
    “And when someone brings up the abiogenic “theory” of oil origin, you know the lunacy fest is on…”

    I did ask if anyone had any harder evidence than one bloke called Crispin, a Wiki-entry and a couple of lightweight links. I’m not a petrochemical engineer or geologist but I do understand chemistry. So please GM – show us the colour of your money rather than go all disparaging on us.
    If you’re degree is in either of those fields or something related, please contribute to the debate.
    If methane can be formed abiogenically, it’s not beyond reason that other hydrocarbons and derivatives can be formed in like manner. At some point or other in the past, amines were formed abiogenically and became peptides and became life……

    It matters very little whether methane can be formed abiogenically, what matter is whether the oil we’re using was formed abiogenically (it wasn’t, which is backed up by mountains of evidence) and whether the amounts of oil we’re using are being replaced abiogenically (they aren’t).

  38. James Sexton says:

    mikael pihlström says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:46 am

    mikelorrey says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:02 am

    If they want energy independence, why are they punishing coal the most?
    —–

    “Punishing coal? Fossil fuels receive about 10 x amount of subsidies
    compared to renewables worldwide. And those are the easilly traceable
    subsidies. In addition, diffuse production supports.
    For oil industries in USA, see:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04bptax.html?emc=eta1

    mikael, I’m not sure about worldwide, but I can speak to the U.S. I’m not sure I’d take the NY Times as an authority that doesn’t need fact checking. You should read the real numbers. Go here http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/execsum.pdf . Please look at tables ES5 and ES6. Also, while you’re reading it, don’t confuse energy from synthetic coal derivatives with the traditional coal industry. The two aren’t the same. Then look at subsidies per BTU.

  39. Bruce Cobb says:

    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 3:45 am
    It is truly amazing how people will readily believe in even the silliest myths if it suits their preconceived world views.

    You mean like the myth of CAGW/CC? Right, it’s because people don’t understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics that people (at least the ones able to think for themselves) no longer believe in a fairy tale. Just keep telling yourself that.

  40. Smokey says:

    GM,

    You cut ‘n’ pasted this:

    So please GM – show us the colour of your money rather than go all disparaging on us.

    If you’re degree is in either of those fields or something related, please contribute to the debate.

    Why cut and paste it if you’re not going to answer?

    Did you come here from climate progress, relaclimate, or another of those faith-based pseudo-science blogs? Here, we need more than your assumptions.

    Show us your “mountains of evidence”, keeping in mind that abiogenic oil is about where plate tectonics was in 1978.

  41. Dave from the "Hot" North East of Scotland says:

    @GM

    Thanks for your opinion.
    No links – No cred.

  42. GM says:

    James Sexton says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:14 am
    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 3:46 am “………”

    GM, uhmm entropy isn’t really a hard concept. For a listing of our reserves go to the USGS. I’m not sure about the 400 years, but here is something that has been shown over the length of time we’ve used oil. We continue to find more reserves every year.

    While using something like 5 times the amount that’s found (globally, not in the US, in the US it’s much worse)

    We increase our abilities to extract the oil constantly

    Which can only get us from recoverable 40% to recoverable 100% (not that it will and not that we are “increasing our abilities to extract oil” by anything more than small percentages), with much lower EROEI. Hardly enough to prevent Peak Oil and allow for growth.

    We constantly learn more efficient techniques in our oil use.

    Do we? Airplanes, for example, are close to the limit of efficiency. And improved efficiency has never stood a chance against exponential growth

    This nation, this globe isn’t running out of oil anytime soon and if we’re prudent with the use of oil, we’ll have plenty of it several generations to come.

    1. We aren’t prudent
    2. It’s not even a problem of how much oil is left, if we can’t grow the economy (and our oil consumption in turn), this society falls apart. Which is happening right now

    I’ve plenty more to say, but I’m late for work. It amazes me how people will totally ignore past experience in regards to our history with oil to try to make a point that we don’t have any.

    Here is some past experience for you – I suggest that you examine the track record of extrapolating past experience into the future

    GM you don’t know how much oil we have left, no one does. We know we’ve plenty for a while and we know we’ll find more.

    Nobody really does and it’s not really needed. A lot of the points raised by people concerned about resource depletion are really axiomatic and self-evident. It is, however, impossible to predict where exactly collapse will happen and how it will play out. What we know is that it is not really a matter of how much oil is left, it is a matter of oil flow. And most likely it will not take a giant disruption in the flow of oil to bring the system down.

    One of the biggest tragedies of the “environmental movement”, and the reason why it is so useless and often even harmful is that people focus on single issues and very few take an integrated view of things. So now we have the activists focusing on global warming and the deniers on the other side doing their best to hold the front (very successfully, one has to admit). In a way it doesn’t really even matter whether the globe is warming or not (although it is), because even if it wasn’t, the combination of the depletion of fossil fuels, phosphorus and other irreplaceable minerals, fossil aquifers, topsoil loss and exhaustion, etc. all, against the background of severe overpopulation and a social system that requires infinite growth to sustain itself would still do us. You can deny the existence/severity of one issue, but you have to a complete lunatic to deny them all, because a lot of them follow directly from the laws of nature and the basic principles of ecology. Of course, the unchecked dominance of free market ideology provides no shortage of people who deny them all…


  43. At 3:04 AM on 4 August, Rhys Jaggar offers the following recommendations, which I address seriatim:

    1. Put in some bullet trains between US cities to start cutting down on short-haul domestic flights.

    Economically non-feasible. Were that not so, private companies would still be providing this service, as they had done in the years before commercial air transportation became technically feasible as a superior alternative. Even in the very densely populated northeast corridor (even in New Jersey, which has a population density equal to that of Bangladesh), neither light rail nor “bullet trains” have proven cost-effective in terms of capital and operating expenditure per passenger-mile. Metropolitan rail systems – like the subways in New York, Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington DC – cannot even generate sufficient revenue to pay for normal maintenance and repairs, and rely upon tremendous federal subsidization for senseless expansions, which the entrenched lobbies of the contractors and labor unions impose upon the nation. Studies and experience have shown that buses work with greater flexibility and cost efficiency (both intra- and inter-city), but the bus manufacturers simply haven’t got the cash to buy enough politicians.

    2. Stop buying gas guzzlers and make do with a Yaris, a Mini, an Escort or the like.

    What the Englishman dismisses as “gas guzzlers” are vehicles with four- and six-cylinder engines, structurally designed for American roads. Except for those who simply do not depart the confines of major metropolitan areas, no other vehicles are practical in these United States. Europeans do not have any real grasp on how big this country really is. For example, the distance between Chicago and New Orleans (which doesn’t look like much on the map) is about the same as that between Berlin and Moscow. Those Americans who are still employed in the wake of Dubbya’s administration and that of our current Fraudulence-in-Chief routinely commute to and from work over distances that would shock the average Eurozone citizen. A great many people who work in New York City and points east, for example, cannot find affordable housing anywhere closer than Carbon County, Pennsylvania, and must daily drive the full width of the state of New Jersey to get to and from their jobs. Little econobox cars are utterly impractical for such high-mileage, high-speed driving.

    3. Make some nicer friends who’ll sell you some oil.

    Don’t need to. As long as the currency currently being debauched by our Federal Reserve System is in any wise acceptable to vendors of petrochemical feedstocks in the global market, it doesn’t matter if those vendors are “friends” or not.

    4. Stop going to war for oil: you don’t make friends that way.

    Or simply stop engaging in armed conflict against other nation-states in the absence of a declaration of war, as is required in the U.S. Constitution.

    5. If you do go to war for oil, stop talking about doing it for democracy. It makes you out to be liars.

    See above. “…every human race tries every political form and that democracy is used in many primitive societies … but he didn’t know of any civilized planet using it, as Vox Populi, Vox Dei translates as: ‘My God! How did we get in this mess!’” (Robert A. Heinlein)

    6. Remember you’re only one nation on this earth. And there’s nothing special or different about you. You just occupy a big chunk of land between the Atlantic and Pacific.

    On the contrary. America started as the political instantiation of the philosophical Enlightenment, and to the extent that this nation yet retains the elements of that heritage, in which the institution of civil government is held to have no legitimate purpose except the defense of individual rights “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and is therefore obliged to operate under the rule of law, “American exceptionalism” is genuine and unassailable. The Brits might lay legitimate claim to John Locke, but the only place in the world where his Two Treatises finds genuine expression today is in these United States. By succumbing to victim disarmament (“gun control”), the British have forsworn Locke’s “right of rebellion,” and therefore their pretense to government limited by rule of law no longer rises even to the level of a farce.

    7. Think about the enormous amount of sunlight in your SW deserts: perfect for solar power, wouldn’t you say????

    U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (National Socialist, California) has been implacable in blocking the construction of solar power electricity generation facilities in the sere and otherwise useless wastes of the Mojave Desert for many years. She and other entrenched National Socialist politicians (we’re not calling them “Democrat” any more) will continue doing such things in the name of “environmentalism.” Besides, solar power – unless you’re speaking about solar power satellites in geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) – is far to diffuse a source of energy to significantly support an industrialized civilization. Figure it out in turns of watts per square meter of collecting surface (even if you assume 100% efficiency, which is impossible), and you’ll see that this is right.

    8. Build your houses better: then you’ll need less energy to heat them.

    Who pays for this? We are presently experiencing the “bust” phase of an economic bubble in the American housing industry, inflated by National Socialist Party political measures (reaching back into the reign of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and sharply exacerbated during the malfeasances of Bubba, our Perjurer-in-Chief, but ever and anon sustained by the Republicans). “Energy efficient” residential and commercial construction is not without substantial monetary cost, and the question is never “How much will be saved?” but rather “How the hell do we pay for this?” You might as well ask why houses are not constructed like hardened concrete bunkers in the “Tornado Alley” states, or why the people living in the below-water-level flood zones of New Orleans did not have their houses constructed on pontoons or boat hulls so as to rise and float when the levees failed.

    9. Embrace community public transport to reduce journeys of less than 3 miles. Ditto with bicycles. It’s called community pride, not socialism……

    Economically non-feasible. Again, such mass transit systems have proven consistently far more costly in terms of both capital investment and operating expenses per passenger-mile. In America, the most cost-efficient transportation option is the privately owned automobile. Moreover, just how the hell many people in America even make “journeys of less than 3 miles”? I live in New Jersey, the only state in the union that is – from Cape May to the Water Gap, from the Delaware River to the Hudson – rated as entirely metropolitan, and I cannot go grocery shopping without driving five to ten miles at minimum. And you try getting anywhere on a bicycle in the heat of a typical American summer (a helluva lot hotter than anything experienced by northern Europeans) and the stormy cold of a typical American winter. Britons – in their “right little, tight little island” – get the balmy benefits of the Gulf Stream. We do not.

    10. Stop blowing billions a year on drugs. Then you could afford more petrol.

    Courtesy of Barry Soetoro (he never did change his name back to “Barack Hussein Obama” after being adopted in Indonesia by Lolo Soetoro) and the rest of the National Socialist Party, that number is trillions, not billions. And as we Americans succumb – by virtue of this entirely unconstitutional violation of our rights – to the equivalent of Canada’s socialized medicine system, let us take note that the provinces of Canada are being bankrupted by their government health care expenditures. Or were you referring to “recreational” drugs? Well, the solution to that is decriminalization, and let Say’s law operate as the drug warriors’ price support program is withdrawn.

    11. Get as many as possible of you to generate micro-biomass generators to minimise your need for external energy.”

    Again, economically impracticable. Too diffuse in energy yield to matter. Remember, you’re speaking of an industrialized civilization, not a hippie commune succumbing to pellagra on a bit of waste ground in one of the flyover states. Such a silliness cannot confer any sort of economies of scale, obliging enormous inputs of time, effort, and materiel for minimal-to-zip energy output.

    All of the obvious idiot “thoughts” of the watermelon types (“green on the outside, red to the core”) have been considered, evaluated, and dismissed, in every case for good and substantial reasons which have everything to do with objective reality in spite of well-intentioned fantasy.

  44. Pamela Gray says:

    Gosh, there are so many issues in this thread.

    I believe the energy way to go lives in coal, shale oil that we can extract oil from economically, and nuclear ships and subs. Think smaller, community/local/regional based power plants that could easily fit in a carrier or sub, and geared to power an industrial complex or city/town/rural community.

    I also believe we should close and fully patrol our boarders and lengthen the path to visiting us for temporary purposes and for citizenship. If that means other countries do the same to us, so be it. We have no more right to shop in France than the French have to shop in the US.

    But by God, once you are here to live legally as a citizen, freedom to become (or not) a prosperous citizen should be your daily sustenance, and to live or die by it. If you want health care and you are a person capable of work, you should earn your health care. Medical costs would plummet tomorrow if suddenly we had to pay for it instead of Uncle Sam.

    And our skies would be much clearer if we didn’t have jets crisscrossing our land. We don’t need so much air travel. If you are rich, okay, have a nice flight. Otherwise why would anyone need to hop a jet to fly to another state? If you can’t walk it, ride a horse to it, ride a truck, train or bus to it, or drive your car to it, tough titties.

  45. Don Shaw says:

    “Shales do not count because shale oil is not really oil, and you can only think it is if you are utterly ignorant of geology and thermodynamics. ”

    Oil shale is not Petroleum oil since it has formed differently. It is a solid mixture containing Kerogen which can be processed using available technology to form a synthetic crude that is essentially the same as petroleum oil.
    It is currently more expensive to process than buying oil at current crude prices but was very attractive when OPEC decided to raise the price of crude oil and empose an embargo. Massive projects to process shale oil were underway until The Saudi’s realized they might loose their grip on energy supply if coal liquification and Shale projects were built. The Saudi’s killed the projects by lowering the price of crude and ending the embargo. Competition works! As I recall, coal liquification and gasification required about $80-100/bbl to be economically viable in the 80′s. Shell has announced that their in-situ extraction process of oil shale will be competitive at $30/bbl crude price, so there is considerable promise.

    There are massive reserves in the Canadian Tar sands although slightly less than in Saudi. Pelosi and her minions are trying to ban the use of tar sands because their production produces more CO2 than conventional crude oil production. The Chinese are ready to step in if we are stupid enough to ban the Canadian oil sands.
    Most of the US oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Venvuela, (soon Brazil) and locations other than the middle east. It is a lie that our crude comes primarily from the unfriendly countries in the Middle east although Venzuela is not exactly our friend these days.

  46. GM says:

    Smokey says:
    August 4, 2010 at 7:35 am
    GM,

    You cut ‘n’ pasted this:
    So please GM – show us the colour of your money rather than go all disparaging on us.
    If you’re degree is in either of those fields or something related, please contribute to the debate.

    Why cut and paste it if you’re not going to answer?

    Did you come here from climate progress, relaclimate, or another of those faith-based pseudo-science blogs? Here, we need more than your assumptions.

    Show us your “mountains of evidence”, keeping in mind that abiogenic oil is about where plate tectonics was in 1978.

    Where do we start? Geological settings of reservoirs? Isotope composition? The existence and geological settings of oil shale and natural gas? The empirical reality of depletion?

    The last one doesn’t disprove abiogenesis per se, but it disproves the argument that there is no reason to worry about peak oil because of abiogenesis.

    Really, I heard that this place was ranked first among the science blogs on the internet some time ago, yet it seems like a congregation of cooks of any possible kind. I am waiting for the anti-vaxxers and creationists to pop into the conversation any moment…

  47. James Sexton says:

    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 7:22 am

    “It matters very little whether methane can be formed abiogenically, what matter is whether the oil we’re using was formed abiogenically (it wasn’t, which is backed up by mountains of evidence) and whether the amounts of oil we’re using are being replaced abiogenically (they aren’t).”

    Really? That’s what matters? Not to me, but insisting on something that has “mountains of evidence” and then not providing any evidence is silly. I’m real interested in how you think the oil got there. But, whether it is a finite resource or not, doesn’t really matter to me and I’m curious as to why it matters to anyone. The alarmists say we should cease oil use today or we might run out. But if we do run out, wouldn’t we have to cease oil use then? How does this matter?

    Regardless, to repeat, I’m very interested in hearing your theories of how oil got here.

  48. CodeTech says:

    Wow – that was intense GM. You sure showed us.

    Thing is, I’m pretty sure oil is biogenic, but I’m not 100% sure. The more I see about this miniature debate the more I wonder if the “crazy Russians” might actually be on to something. All of the hallmarks are there: experts dismiss abiogenic believers as idiots, there is a consensus in the field, I hear a lot of appeal to authority, and people who should be interested in researching the possibility just ignore it as whacko.

    Thanks to branches of Science infested with junksters like climatology, nutrition and pharmacology, it has become almost impossible to trust experts and consensus. We all have to question a lot of what we think we know, since so much of what we KNOW is just plain wrong. Then again, I highly doubt you’re the kind of person who believes that is even remotely possible.

    I work in an oil-related industry, live in an oil-financed city, and live in an area that booms and busts based on oil prices. I have many friends and acquaintances that are oil company execs, IT people, geologists, wildcatters, etc. and have watched an increasing number over the last few years giving the abiogenic theory some interest.

  49. GM says:

    Dave from the “Hot” North East of Scotland says:
    August 4, 2010 at 7:39 am
    @GM

    Thanks for your opinion.
    No links – No cred.

    I don’t really have the time and energy to do your homework for you (I have actually been wondering why I am wasting them here since yesterday, but I get in that mood sometimes). Not that if I did it, it would have made any difference.

  50. GM says:

    Don Shaw says:
    August 4, 2010 at 8:02 am
    “Shales do not count because shale oil is not really oil, and you can only think it is if you are utterly ignorant of geology and thermodynamics. ”

    It is currently more expensive to process than buying oil at current crude prices but was very attractive when OPEC decided to raise the price of crude oil and empose an embargo. Massive projects to process shale oil were underway until The Saudi’s realized they might loose their grip on energy supply if coal liquification and Shale projects were built. The Saudi’s killed the projects by lowering the price of crude and ending the embargo. Competition works! As I recall, coal liquification and gasification required about $80-100/bbl to be economically viable in the 80′s. Shell has announced that their in-situ extraction process of oil shale will be competitive at $30/bbl crude price, so there is considerable promise.

    Once again for those who have missed it – prices do not matter here, it is the net energy you get out of the process. Which is reflected in prices to an extent, but prices are fundamentally wrong way to look at anything that has to do with the real world.

  51. GM says:

    CodeTech says:
    August 4, 2010 at 8:09 am
    All of the hallmarks are there: experts dismiss abiogenic believers as idiots, there is a consensus in the field, I hear a lot of appeal to authority, and people who should be interested in researching the possibility just ignore it as whacko.

    I am sure you are going to tell the same to the doctor that tell you that you really should have a surgery of that tumor he just found…

  52. Pamela Gray says:

    Who cares how it’s made???? Can we use it economically? And once we take it from the ground, can we clean up after ourselves before we move to another location?

  53. Pascvaks says:

    I spoke to my Two Senators via Conference Call. Here the long and short of what they said:

    IT’S NOT THAT THE SENATE DOESN’T WANT TO PASS THE BILL, ask any currently serving lilly livered Senator in Closed Door Session and he/she will tell you that they really DO want to pass the Bill, we’ve already been paid more than enough, the problem is NOT the Will of the Senate but the Will of Some Stupid Worthless No-Account People in this country called VOTERS; about 85% of these ignorant idiots don’t want this Bill to pass and for any Red Blooded or Blue Nosed Senator to Vote for it would be worse than Political Suicide, they might even get Tarred and Feathered, and that hasn’t happened in over a century or two.

    Remember, don’t blame your hard working Supreme Soviet Senate (or The Speaker’s “Peoples House Of Democratic Representatives”), it’s NOT their fault. BLAME the SCOTUS Gang of 9, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Indians, the Pope, the UN, the League of Nations, George II and George III Bush, your Parents, your Mother-In-Law, Jimmah Carteer, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson, Iran, Malta, George I (Washington). And if you want to know who the real troublemaker is, next time you spend a penny look up when you wash your hands.
    __________

    PS: Not sure what they ment with that crack about the penny.

  54. Dave form the "Hot" North East of Scotlnad says:

    @GM
    “Really, I heard that this place was ranked first among the science blogs on the internet some time ago, yet it seems like a congregation of cooks of any possible kind. I am waiting for the anti-vaxxers and creationists to pop into the conversation any moment…”

    So why do you behave like those you seek to accuse? Projection perhaps?

    Once again – please simply tell us what are your credentials.

    Please provide a link – any link at any point in time.

    Although a clinician – I don’t discount anything from any other person exhibiting interest in my field or indeed any other point of interest. The growth of knowledge is a shared process and best conducted politely.

    Your eloquence and force of argument count for nothing if you merely continue being bombastic in your presentation.

    For example there are many people holding and expressing a faith who are complete scientists in every sense of the word, just as there are also atheists doing the same. Taking a judgemental and arrogant stance only serves to weaken your case and denies others of the genuinely sought validity of what you might have to offer.

  55. Dave from the "Hot" North East of Scotland says:

    Just wanted to correct my poor name spelling on the previous comment!
    Doh!

  56. James Sexton says:

    GM,

    Thanks for the response, while I won’t paste your entire response, I’ll paste this; You said”…In a way it doesn’t really even matter whether the globe is warming or not (although it is), because even if it wasn’t, the combination of the depletion of fossil fuels, phosphorus and other irreplaceable minerals, fossil aquifers, topsoil loss and exhaustion, etc. all, against the background of severe overpopulation and a social system that requires infinite growth to sustain itself would still do us. You can deny the existence/severity of one issue, but you have to a complete lunatic to deny them all, because a lot of them follow directly from the laws of nature and the basic principles of ecology. Of course, the unchecked dominance of free market ideology provides no shortage of people who deny them all…”

    First, while I didn’t paste it into this comment, most here do not deny the earth is warming. I’m may be an extreme case that asserts you can’t prove that it is in any meaningful way and even if it is, it isn’t detrimental to the human condition. Your use of the word denier is a bit inflammatory to many here, but I’ve been called much worse so it doesn’t bother me as much in spite of the insulting tone.

    Given all the problems you’ve listed, the one overwhelming point you seem to be making is that we can in no manner provide sustainability for the “severe overpopulation and a social system that requires infinite growth..” Later and finally you go on to say, “Of course, the unchecked dominance of free market ideology provides no shortage of people who deny them all…” I believe this is where the disagreement lays with you and myself. While a free market is a base tenet in my beliefs, freedom in and of itself is most base. While you pointed out that at times reliance on history is sometimes errant, it seems to me the improper interpretation of history is more the problem. History(or observations, which all are historic) is all we have to base our assumptions on and the extrapolation of the observations. Like the doom and gloom we are constantly bombarded by the AGW crowd, history shows us they’re wrong. They’ve been consistently wrong ever since they started their apocalyptic prognostications. So, also, is the case of the population doomsayers. In my lifetime we were supposed to all have starved several times over, yet, we remain. That stubborn reality of organisms and the will to survive I suppose. But more to the point, even if freedom and population causes a calamity on earth, it is better than the alternatives offered to us by the various apocalyptic prognosticators. Sir, I’ve seen the results of the alternatives. I’ve seen the effects the alternatives have on humanity. From Pol Pot to Stalin to the national socialists. I reject the idea of totalitarian population control and totalitarian rationing of energy. It is beyond me how anyone else can see these alternatives as preferable to the animating contest of freedoms and the innovations that accompany. I once read necessity was the mother of invention. I wonder if most still hold that to be true, for if it is, and we create a necessity from our own use of resources, would that necessity not give birth to another invention that frees us from that necessity?

  57. Henry chance says:

    Big Oil bashing. Koch bought Dupont fibres. You look good wearing spandex when riding your
    TREK bike and make the oil company money when you protest oil. How about carbon fiber rims on the bike? Carbon free tires? On a non asphalt road?
    Whenever the non thinkers get on a carbon free jag, I laugh.
    The EPA wants to outlaw dust. (fugitive waste) For us that means all roads must be paved. How about some carbon free asphalt?

  58. kirkmyers says:

    “It’s American troops whose lives are endangered because we’re dependent on oil companies in countries that hate us . . . .”

    We’re dependent on foreign oil because Kerry and his extremist Green friends have made it all but impossible for American companies to tap into this country’s wealth of domestic oil resources. Let us expand production in the ANWR coastal plain, where there are between 6 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Let us accelerate production in the Bakken Formation in Montana and North Dakota, a 200-billion-barrel oil field that could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, making America virtually energy independent. Let us harvest the huge deposits of oil shale reserves in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, where there are an estimated 1,466,000 barrels of oil. Let us license responsible oil companies to explore in areas now off limits to offshore drilling.

    If Kerry and his eco-cultist friends have their way, we’ll once again be at the mercy of Mother Nature and the elements we’ve worked so hard to tame and control.

  59. Enneagram says:

    JER0ME says:
    August 4, 2010 at 3:38 am

    That, if the “convenient” lie about “fossil” fuels is right, which is not, as for the gigantic and recent findings in Brazil(in deeper water than the Gulf) and the Gulf of Mexico areas. That tale is just for keeping prices up.

  60. Enneagram says:

    Why? If here in WUWT was told, time ago, that there was no need of any legislation because your EPA had fixed it already.
    As we say in spanish “swallow it and say you like it”

  61. Henry chance says:

    Many places called this the spill bill. Legislation regarding the spill. The day of the explosion and the spill, Rush Limbaugh said 75% of this crude would dissipate by means of evaoporation. He was correct. The heavy duty MIT PHD’s like Joe Romm said it couldn’t. They also said don’t burn it. It looks like the “scientists” now admit Rush was correct and most is gone. The slow PHD’s will need millions to do studies to see if it is gone. Then millions more to find out where did it go.
    The models of course ploted dates when it would blacken the sands of Atlantic City and the prime new England shores. The models were wrong. Again.

  62. nandheeswaran jothi says:

    Dave from the “Hot” North East of Scotland says:
    August 4, 2010 at 2:36 am

    we don’t no proof about any plan.

    there is one thing we do know about our government. it is run by people who don’t care about anything, other than getting re-elected. THERE IS NO GREAT MASTER PLAN. PERIOD.

  63. R. de Haan says:

    It doesn’t matter what happens in the Senate.
    The Missile is Launched despite democratic consent.
    “EPA control of CO2: Obama’s Vehicle To Destroy The US Economy is Launched”
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26082

  64. Bruce Cobb says:

    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 8:15 am
    Once again for those who have missed it – prices do not matter here

    Maybe that’s true on your planet.
    Here on planet earth, it is precisely the cost of energy which is the issue. Alternative energies up to this point are simply far too costly. We still need coal and gas for electricity, and oil for heating, transport, as well as thousands of products. In 50 years, who knows? Our energy sources then could be very different.

  65. Mike McMillan says:

    Rob Schneider says: August 4, 2010 at 1:12 am
    Question: is there a link where we can read the bill they are debating?

    No.
    Per Nancy Pelosi, you have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.

  66. GM says:

    James Sexton says:
    August 4, 2010 at 8:55 am
    GM,

    First, while I didn’t paste it into this comment, most here do not deny the earth is warming. I’m may be an extreme case that asserts you can’t prove that it is in any meaningful way and even if it is, it isn’t detrimental to the human condition. Your use of the word denier is a bit inflammatory to many here, but I’ve been called much worse so it doesn’t bother me as much in spite of the insulting tone.

    Well, 2 out of 3 posts in the blog itself seem to be about how it isn’t as hot as it is supposed to be if the “alarmists” are to be beleived.

    I use the word denier because this is the word I have been using for years, I was hardly aware that it is inflammatory here. Certainly, there is no shortage of people using the word “alarmist” in the comments

    Given all the problems you’ve listed, the one overwhelming point you seem to be making is that we can in no manner provide sustainability for the “severe overpopulation and a social system that requires infinite growth..” Later and finally you go on to say, “Of course, the unchecked dominance of free market ideology provides no shortage of people who deny them all…” I believe this is where the disagreement lays with you and myself. While a free market is a base tenet in my beliefs, freedom in and of itself is most base.

    Freedom is nice. But if in the long term it results in a disaster, it has to be limited, I am a biologist by training and profession and I take a long-term view on things centered on what is good for the species. On our case what is good for the individual in the short term is very bad for the species in the long term, which is why I hold the positions I do. I am not for totalitarianism for totalitarianism sake, for example, one of the major reasons why the Soviet Union fell apart was the excessive and completely unnecessary use of repression. People should have as much freedom as possible, but only within the limits of what doesn’t hurt the long-term survival chances of the species.

    While you pointed out that at times reliance on history is sometimes errant, it seems to me the improper interpretation of history is more the problem. History(or observations, which all are historic) is all we have to base our assumptions on and the extrapolation of the observations. Like the doom and gloom we are constantly bombarded by the AGW crowd, history shows us they’re wrong. They’ve been consistently wrong ever since they started their apocalyptic prognostications. So, also, is the case of the population doomsayers. In my lifetime we were supposed to all have starved several times over, yet, we remain.

    History is a very poor guide in this case. Malthusian predictions have been wrong in the past, but only regarding timing. In the long term they are axiomatically correct – can’t have infinite growth in a finite system. And they only have to be right once. This is one of the many fundamental problems with the way the human mind works – a crisis that has been prevented is difficult to be perceived as serious., and the same goes for a crisis that hasn’t happened. We are uniquely unprepared to deal with issues like ecological overshoot.

    But more to the point, even if freedom and population causes a calamity on earth, it is better than the alternatives offered to us by the various apocalyptic prognosticators. Sir, I’ve seen the results of the alternatives. I’ve seen the effects the alternatives have on humanity. From Pol Pot to Stalin to the national socialists. I reject the idea of totalitarian population control and totalitarian rationing of energy.

    Nobody is proposing that. The ideal solution is for everyone to understand that there restraint on human activity has to be imposed and do it voluntarily and peacefully.

    It is beyond me how anyone else can see these alternatives as preferable to the animating contest of freedoms and the innovations that accompany.

    The alternatives are made necessary not by the insanity of some crazy population zealots, they are made necessary the reality of ecological overshoot and denial about it.

    I once read necessity was the mother of invention. I wonder if most still hold that to be true, for if it is, and we create a necessity from our own use of resources, would that necessity not give birth to another invention that frees us from that necessity?

    The problem with invention is that it can’t beat the laws of thermodynamics.

  67. harrywr2 says:

    “Senate Democrats on Tuesday abandoned all hopes of passing even a slimmed-down energy bill”

    The ‘slimmed down’ energy bill was tacked onto a Defense Appropriations bill about a month ago.

  68. GM says:

    Bruce Cobb says:
    August 4, 2010 at 9:55 am
    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 8:15 am
    Once again for those who have missed it – prices do not matter here

    Maybe that’s true on your planet.
    Here on planet earth, it is precisely the cost of energy which is the issue. Alternative energies up to this point are simply far too costly. We still need coal and gas for electricity, and oil for heating, transport, as well as thousands of products. In 50 years, who knows? Our energy sources then could be very different.

    That kind of insanity is the root of the crisis. When people think that the laws of thermodynamics are secondary to the laws of supply and demand, it is no wonder that we’re where we are

  69. jorgekafkazar says:

    Rob Schneider says: “Question: is there a link where we can read the bill they are debating?”

    It’s a tradition that Democrat-sponsored legislation has to be passed before the peasants are allowed to read it.

  70. PhilJourdan says:

    Given the majority the democrats enjoy, blaming republicans for not passing legislation (they cannot) is like blaming slaves for slavery.

  71. nandheeswaran jothi says:

    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 3:46 am

    “proven reserves” is a ever changing number. as our ability to draw oil from the source improves, the number keeps changing.

    as for the shale, the energy balance is quite positive, thank you. and there are multiple techniques we can bring to this game: physical shock, solvent extraction and thermal release are the three we are looking at. what we do not know is the depth & extent of environmental damage we will cause and what the final pumped price will be.

    as for time…. we know it is not 5 years. but not much more than 10 years. and as for demand, it will continue to keep going down in USA. at about 2-5% per annum, depending on the price.

    Any number for “proven resource” in number of years is the kind of follish thing ignorant people will engage in.

  72. Chuck L says:

    Mike McMillan says:
    August 4, 2010 at 9:58 am
    Rob Schneider says: August 4, 2010 at 1:12 am
    Question: is there a link where we can read the bill they are debating?

    No.
    Per Nancy Pelosi, you have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.
    _______________________________________________

    Funny but sadly true.

  73. wws says:

    GM wrote: Really, I heard that this place was ranked first among the science blogs on the internet some time ago, yet it seems like a congregation of cooks of any possible kind.

    I’ve never seen someone work so hard to prove themselves to be the embodiment of their own pet theory.

  74. Layne Blanchard says:

    Near Term Peak Oil hysteria is just another form of the Eco/Psycho/Politico/Religion

    http://www.businessinsider.com/exxon-found-way-more-oil-than-it-produced-in-2009-and-has-been-doing-it-for-16-years-2010-2

    Collectivist political ideologies are actually religious cults a-la Heaven’s Gate, Jonestown, etc. They’re just larger. Like their smaller brethren, they ultimately turn to Genocide, often thru denial of basic staples (starvation). See any similarity to efforts restricting US consumption? Agenda 21?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html

    Long chain hydrocarbons are strings of Methane Molecules. The Russians aren’t the only ones who’ve signed on to Abiotic oil theory.

    http://vodpod.com/watch/3821383-peak-vs-deep-oil-debate-3-cnbc-abiotic-oil-in-nutshell

    The USA has the worlds largest known reserves of Coal.

    http://www.clean-energy.us/facts/coal.htm

    And extracting that coal (while a dangerous business) is a beloved business of many thousands of highly paid union workers. We need to be building clean burning coal fired power plants (1 each week) just like the Chinese. Dig Baby, Dig!

    We need refineries and far more domestic exploration. We will never know what we have to work with if we don’t explore.

    I work in the aircraft industry. Every few years we redesign air frames and re-engine existing models. There is constant evolution of efficiency. Today I can fly across country cheaper than the cost of fuel to drive it, and make the trip at 600 mph!

    Yet I read that a recent expansion at Heathrow was postponed/cancelled over CO2 hysteria. The danger of this eco-political cult of collectivism destroying the western world is very real and very malevolent. Every one of us needs to become active in turning the tide.

  75. nandheeswaran jothi says:

    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 10:00 am
    James Sexton says:
    August 4, 2010 at 8:55 am

    GM,
    i do not want to intervene in the nice conversation between the two of you.

    but what seems to be missing in all this talk about malthusian limits is this:

    inventiveness ( if that is a word ) of people in need to find an alternative and science.

    these two are phenomenal and very unpredictable variables, that you cannot ignore.
    just some hundred years ago, they were worrying about what to do with all the horse excrements in NYC. now horse drwan buggies are a novelty.

    you are worrying about population explosions. and the indians and chinese ( combinedly about a third of the world pop. ) now are talking about “when they are going to reach the population peak”, before a worrisome crash.

  76. Taphonomic says:

    Rhys Jaggar says: August 4, 2010 at 3:04 am
    7. Think about the enormous amount of sunlight in your SW deserts: perfect for solar power, wouldn’t you say????

    Actually, no I wouldn’t say. I’d say it shows your ignorance of the desert southwest. Yep, there’s plenty of sunshine. Yep, it can generate power. But who is there to use it? The power has to be transmitted to where people live and use the power with concomitant transmission losses. The transmission infrastructure would also have to be developed to get the power to where people are located.

    Another point: how do you keep whatever you are using to generate the power clean? Atmospheric dust in the southwest contains calcium carbonate which dissolves in the slightly acidic rain. When this lands and evaporates it forms calcium carbonate blotches. If these aren’t cleaned they continue to accumulate. This is the source for the ubiquitous caliche in the southwest. Now these blotches can be cleaned off solar panels or mirrors, but that requires water. Oops, the southwest is a desert. Where do you obtain the water? Many types of solar plants also need water to generate the power. Again, where do you obtain the water? It’s environmentalist fighting environmentalist, see http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2236

  77. Bruce Cobb says:

    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 10:00 am
    I am not for totalitarianism for totalitarianism sake

    Whew! That’s a relief. If one is going to be for totalitarianism, it should be for the “right” reasons. The ends justify the means, eh?

  78. GW says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 4, 2010 at 7:56 am
    ________________________________

    My lord, Pamela. . . WHY were you ever a democrat ??? ; )

  79. James Sexton says:

    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Denier connotates a few things, many link it to a past use of the word in relation to the Holocaust. So, hopefully you can see how some might be a bit miffed to be painted with the same brush. Further, it implies people deny the climate is changing when quit to the contrary, most here understand the earth’s climate is constantly changing and don’t believe the change we’re seeing today is very unusual, or at least can’t rule out that this is part of the normal changing that occurs. Alarmist is used (by me) because I’ve can’t think of a more descriptive term, yet I hope it doesn’t come off as demeaning in any way. But, it is simply a way of describing a person the sounds the alarms to what they view as an impending climate catastrophe.

    “People should have as much freedom as possible, but only within the limits of what doesn’t hurt the long-term survival chances of the species.”

    How do you consider the use of resources, some finite, others not, a threat to our survival? Land will still be here, so will flora and fauna. Even if catastrophic events happen and much of the population dies off, I have serious doubts the entire race will die off. If earth’s population today were reduced to 1000, do you seriously believe that 1000 wouldn’t or couldn’t propagate again? Further, the granting or rescinding of freedoms based on the alleged good of the collective is a road to a disaster much worse than running out of oil.

    “can’t have infinite growth in a finite system…..” and then later you said,”……..The problem with invention is that it can’t beat the laws of thermodynamics.”(Please correct me if I got the gist of your statements wrong.)

    The problem I’m having with the view you’re presenting is that the system your referring to is only partially correct. Your missing the other half of the equation. Specifically indicated in your last statement. I don’t believe we are finished in finding out more laws of nature and physics. Will we find a work around of the laws of thermodynamics? Or will we find an undiscovered law in the future. I believe so. The other half of the equation is, of course, mankind. Mankind has shown an infinite capacity for invention, innovation, learning, discovery and exploration. You seemed to have closed the story on man’s ability to adapt and overcome his environment. While the earth may in some cases have a finite amount of resources, man’s ability to utilize them is infinite.

    GM, I’ve enjoyed this discussion. While I’m more than willing to continue, I’m afraid it would be rather circular from this point. Please come back. I’m interested in some of the other thoughts you may have in the various discussion we have here.

    Thanks,

    James Sexton

  80. Smokey says:

    GM says:

    “Really, I heard that this place was ranked first among the science blogs on the internet some time ago…”

    You heard correctly. This site allows contrary points of view — unlike the heavily censoring ReaClimate, climate progress, tamino, etc. They are all True Believer blogs that do not tolerate different points of view. [And note that the Wikio Award for Best Science site was presented only about 2 months ago.]

    GM says:

    “I use the word denier because this is the word I have been using for years, I was hardly aware that it is inflammatory here. Certainly, there is no shortage of people using the word ‘alarmist’ in the comments.”

    Time for some education: “Denier” is used in order to equate scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] with Holocaust deniers — just as you try to equate skeptics with “creationists” and “anti-vaxxers.” “Denier” is a deliberately pejorative word, and the site policy does not allow it. Since you say you didn’t know, it appears that you got a pass. Now that you know, please use an acceptable term from now on.

    As for alarmist, here’s the history: “Global warming” quickly became “catastrophic runaway global warming due to human CO2 emissions” [CO2=CAGW]. Alarming, no?

    But it is simply a conjecture; CAGW has never been sighted, either currently or in the geological record. Therefore CAGW is a classic argumentum ad ignorantium — an argument from ignorance; a logical fallacy. Even so, the ignorant use alarmist arguments constantly, because if they told the truth there would be nothing to be alarmed about. Therefore, they engage in alarmist arguments in order to scare the public for financial gain and political power. And if they can achieve totalitarianism along the way, so much the better.

    Here is another example of an argumentum ad ignorantium:

    “Freedom is nice. But if in the long term it results in a disaster, it has to be limited… I am not for totalitarianism for totalitarianism sake…”

    Show us where economic and personal liberty have ever caused a worldwide disaster. Rather, it is your precious totalitarianism that has repeatedly caused disasters that killed many tens of millions of people.

    Yet another argumentum ad ignorantium:

    “History is a very poor guide in this case. Malthusian predictions have been wrong in the past, but only regarding timing.”

    Fact: Malthus was wrong, and timing has nothing to do with it. So were the Luddites, whose modern incarnation are the believers in the fantasy that one molecule out of every 2,600 molecules will cause runaway global warming. If a committee of academics convened to formulate the most ridiculous conjecture possible, that one would surely be in the top five. Extrapolating a slight warming predicted by radiative physics into a planetary catastrophe is silliness doubled and squared.

    There is a reason that the alarmist contingent refuses to disclose its data and methodologies: their CO2 conjecture would be promptly falsified if they did. [The scientific charlatan Michael Mann still refuses to disclose his data and methods twelve years after his wildly inaccurate MBH98 hokey stick chart, which was thoroughly debunked by McIntyre, McKittrick, Wegman and others.

    In short, you sound like a tenured academic who has drunk the alarmist Kool Aid being passed around the Ivory Tower. As a cure I recommend spending a few months getting up to speed by reading the WUWT archives. You will soon notice that all of your concerns in this thread have been discussed repeatedly here, and resolved by the only honest climate peer review system still in existence.

  81. Layne Blanchard says:

    Here’s the USGS site on the Bakken formation. Check out the Natural Gas estimate.

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3021/

  82. PW Townsend says:

    Steve, could you change the color from white (which is cold) to green (which is more neutral)? That seems to be the issue. They have cut the center out of the spectrum and replaced it with a hot color (yellow). If they had put green in as “normal” (i.e. 0 deviation) that would be more visually accurate, leaving a less-hot looking map.

  83. Gail Combs says:

    Kerry is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

    France has already proven safe reliable nuclear is the solution to affordable clean energy. Unions and monopolies in the USA have “killed the golden goose” known as the rail, water transportation and automotive industries. The combination of unions and monopolies leads to inefficiency, stagnation and lack of innovation. The USA would have had a much better rail system if unions and monopolies had not driven the cost through the roof:

    Kerry voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
    He voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
    Rated 100% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
    Voted NO on restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007. (Mar 2006)
    NO on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax:

    From: http://www.ontheissues.org/john_kerry.htm#Energy_+_Oil

    Competition at Work:Railroads vs. Monopoly in the U.S. Shipping Industry:
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.141.6922&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    Timeline results for railroad – unions – monopoly:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=railroad+unions+monopoly+history&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=uOj&sa=G&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=jLFZTIVhify9A8iD_YIO&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CEsQ5wIwCg

  84. Vince Causey says:

    GM wrote:

    “Malthusian predictions have been wrong in the past, but only regarding timing. In the long term they are axiomatically correct – can’t have infinite growth in a finite system.”

    There is nothing axiomatic about this at all. Malthus based his observations on geometric population growth vs. arithmetic food growth. Although it is axiomatic that you can’t have geometric population growth indefinately, your reply was about infinite economic growth, so I will deal with that.

    Economic growth is often interpreted by the laymen in simplistic terms, meaning an ever increasing amount of stuff being consumed. With that mindset, it’s no wonder that many well meaning people say you can’t have infinite growth. Over the past hundred years, individual wealth has increased enormously, but the correlation between quantities of stuff that individuals consume, and economic wealth is beginning to breakdown. Instead of consuming ever vaster quantities of raw materials on a per capita basis, many high value items contain relatively little mass of raw materials, with the myriads of cellphones, iPads, and personal computers. And each of these devices has spawned a huge market it something containing even less mass – software. Software, as Bill Gates will tell you, is a multi billion dollar industry, and growing rapidly. All this software is a real consumable product, providing real utility to the world and contributing massively to global wealth and GDP. So here we have a growth sector which consumes almost nothing of the earths resources, and contributes massively towards economic productivity.

    But as society becomes wealthier, individuals consume an even greater intangible – leisure. This is all made possible by growth in economic productivity, that provides more free time, allowing people to consume movies, meals out, health clubs, hotels, beauty therapy, lifestyle coaching.

    And what happens to all that raw material that is mined and used in making “stuff”? With the exception of energy itself, it remains on the planet, ready to be recycled and reused. If these products become scarce, the price signals will cause a growth in the recycling sectors, which at the moment are only in their infancy.

    So I reject your assertion that you can’t have infinite economic growth. Malthusians are wrong because they don’t understand growth and merely attempt to project the present into the future. But I bet in a hundred years time, we will still be having the same arguments.

  85. If they want energy independence, why are they punishing coal the most?

    Because the coal companies can be *made* to buy carbon credits via REDD+, from Amazonia and Indonesia.

  86. GM says:

    Vince Causey
    August 4, 2010 at 11:53 am

    Instead of consuming ever vaster quantities of raw materials on a per capita basis, many high value items contain relatively little mass of raw materials, with the myriads of cellphones, iPads, and personal computers.

    Apparently you have no idea what is contained in those devices…

    And each of these devices has spawned a huge market it something containing even less mass – software. Software, as Bill Gates will tell you, is a multi billion dollar industry, and growing rapidly. All this software is a real consumable product, providing real utility to the world and contributing massively to global wealth and GDP. So here we have a growth sector which consumes almost nothing of the earths resources, and contributes massively towards economic productivity.

    Currently the energy use of computers is approaching 10% of the total. So yes, they information technologies use absolutely no resources…

    But as society becomes wealthier, individuals consume an even greater intangible – leisure. This is all made possible by growth in economic productivity, that provides more free time, allowing people to consume movies, meals out, health clubs, hotels, beauty therapy, lifestyle coaching.

    And those things don’t use any resources either….

    And what happens to all that raw material that is mined and used in making “stuff”? With the exception of energy itself, it remains on the planet, ready to be recycled and reused. If these products become scarce, the price signals will cause a growth in the recycling sectors, which at the moment are only in their infancy.

    Yes, it doesn’t leave the earth. But its entropy is much higher once it ends up in the oceans. You can look at landfills as mines, and they are in a sense, but hardly everything ends up in landfills.

    So I reject your assertion that you can’t have infinite economic growth. Malthusians are wrong because they don’t understand growth and merely attempt to project the present into the future. But I bet in a hundred years time, we will still be having the same arguments.

  87. GM says:

    So I reject your assertion that you can’t have infinite economic growth. Malthusians are wrong because they don’t understand growth and merely attempt to project the present into the future. But I bet in a hundred years time, we will still be having the same arguments.

    That’s a rejection based on basic ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics and of the main components of the resource base of modern society

  88. aletho says:

    By the way folks, the science on abiotic oil IS settled unlike the global warming nonsense:

    KTH Royal Institute of Technology
    September 7, 2009

    Researchers at KTH have been able to prove that the fossils of animals and plants are not necessary to generate raw oil and natural gas. This result is extremely radical as it means that it will be much easier to find these energy sources and that they may be located all over the world…

    Together with two research colleagues, Professor Kutcherov has simulated the process of pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner strata of the earth’s crust. This process generates hydrocarbons, the primary elements of oil and natural gas…

    http://alethonewsa.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/easier-to-find-oil-2/

  89. aletho says:

    For those of you that live in fear of scarcity, take a hard look at this recent article:

    The Orinoco Belt has a strong and, indeed, enviable competitive position

    VHeadline | August 1, 2010

    Former Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) Finance Coordinator Oliver L Campbell writes…

    http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/the-orinoco-belt-has-a-strong-and-indeed-enviable-competitive-position/

    Bear in mind, oil is fungible and exporters are more dependent on export income than importers are on any group of producers.

  90. GM says:

    aletho says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:45 pm
    By the way folks, the science on abiotic oil IS settled unlike the global warming nonsense:

    I just went to Google Scholar and searched for oil formation and I got back hundreds of article, old and new, in direct contradiction with oil abiogenesis. Yes, the science is settled. And it has settled at exactly the opposite conclusion to yours. To claim that the scientific consensus is the opposite to what it is breaks the anti-science-meter

  91. PhilJourdan says:

    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Apparently you have no idea what is contained in those devices…

    Sand for the most part. Is their a shortage of sand?

  92. All Congress has to do to make us energy independent (ie: not reliant for foreigners for our crude oil) is to reinstate the Oil Depletion Allowance. The ODA is what made Amercia the energy powerhouse within the world, and its repeal sent wildcatters overseas looking for oil and made us forever dependent on foreign sources of crude oil. Does Congress have the guts to reinstate the ODA? The answer is a resounding “NO!” And keeping ANWAR, off shore drilling, and drilling on Federal lands off the table doesn’t help either. Look no further than Congress for this mess we’re in.

    In addition, we own 80% of the entire world’s supply of recoverable shale oil. So, what’s the problem?

  93. GM says:

    PhilJourdan says:
    August 4, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Apparently you have no idea what is contained in those devices…

    Sand for the most part. Is their a shortage of sand?

    You indeed have no idea

  94. Brendan H says:

    [SNIP. You know better.]

  95. aletho says:

    GM

    Your “Google Scholar Science” is out of date.

    Labs have now produced petroleum from common calcium carbonate under pressures found in the upper mantle.

    Unlike the fossil fuel theory, this is not theoretical. It is repeatable empirical evidence. Yes, consensus science has often been proven WRONG.

  96. Doug in Dunedin says:

    Rhys Jaggar says: August 4, 2010 at 3:04 am
    Err……………presumably the rest of the world to whom America exports this that and the other might reasonably ask about how their dependence on American products makes America richer????
    ………Don’t mean to be rude, but America’s as hard as nails when it comes to making money from foreigners. So why they complain when others do in oil what they do in all kinds of things just beats me
    ……….The unique nature of the immigrants who populated America in the past 300 years, perhaps????

    Rhys : Talk about muddled thinking!
    1. America is no different to any other nation that exports – people buy and people sell – it called business.
    2. Ditto for 1 above.
    3. What’s unique about the immigrants who populated America in the past 300 years? And what has that got to do with the argument?

    Thoughts: All 11 of them
    Rhys : I bet you haven’t thought through the logistics of any of the so called solutions you offer. You pontification is typical of a w—-ing greenee who has never actually done anything.
    Doug

  97. Smokey says:

    Anyone who believes, against all the contrary evidence, that Thomas Malthus’ dictum that we are ‘condemned by the tendency of population to grow geometrically while food production would increase only arithmetically’ was correct, after more than 200 years being wrong, is borderline loco.

    The Earth’s population was about 800 million when Malthus published his thesis. The planet’s population now is about 6,700 million, and the average person today is much better fed and clothed, and has a much longer life expectancy. Even the very poorest still have better nutrition than the average person living in 1800.

    Malthus’ belief had nothing to do with the ‘laws of thermodynamics.’ He was an economist. [In reality, Malthus argued that human ingenuity -- ie: freedom (remember, that was the period of the Enlightenment) -- was the reason that the planet could support many more people.]

    But as GM makes the argument, Malthus was right in believing that there is a reckoning right around the corner. Maybe there is. But if so, it is entirely the fault of government, not the fault of the people, as the past 200 years has amply demonstrated: the more economic and political freedom a country has, the more prosperous its people are — and the cleaner its environment is.

  98. Mauibrad says:

    Counterintel ops:
    Algore don’t give up easily, letter today from Al:

    Dear ____,

    The Senate has decided that we won’t get a comprehensive climate and clean energy bill before the August recess — which most observers interpret as a death-knell for the legislation this year.

    This failure would be hard to understand at any time, to say the least. But coming as it does in the middle of a record-hot summer and a series of environmental disasters, Washington’s abandonment of this effort is all the more confounding and frustrating.

    However, this setback only makes our work more necessary. As long as we care about our country, our planet, and the future we’re leaving for our children and grandchildren, we must continue to fight.

    Remember: The climate crisis isn’t going away. And neither can we. It is getting worse, so we have to redouble our efforts.

    We’re already planning the next phase of our work, and I’m counting on your continued involvement. I’d like to invite you to join me next Tuesday, August 10, for a conversation to discuss how we should move forward from here. I’ll be answering some questions from Repower America members like you — so please submit a question for discussion.

    “Next Steps for the Climate Movement”
    Virtual Town Hall
    Tuesday, August 10 at 8:30 p.m. EDT
    RSVP to join and submit your question

    The Senate’s decision is a major disappointment for the climate movement, but there is a silver lining. In the last year, supporters like you have organized on an unprecedented scale. And we’ve built overwhelming popular support for action on comprehensive climate and clean energy solutions.

    But by using the right-wing media echo chamber, record campaign contributions and an army of well-paid lobbyists, the oil and coal industries have stopped at nothing to protect the status quo and their profits. They want to keep using the atmosphere as an open sewer for the dumping of their greenhouse gas pollution.

    The Senate’s inaction reflects that reality. We have always known that solving the climate crisis is a generational challenge — and the urgency of the climate crisis demands that despite these substantial obstacles, we must fight for every inch of progress. The science has never been more clear and the evidence is mounting day by day.

    For those of us who understand the stakes, it’s a moral obligation.

    And so we must fight even harder. Together, we must continue to beat back repeated assaults on the authority in the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon pollution. We must continue to pressure our elected leaders — local, state and national — to stand with the American people instead of the fossil fuel industry. We must each take individual action to transition to clean energy in our daily lives. And we must win the ongoing battle of science against spin.

    We can and must continue the fight. Please join me on Tuesday, August 10 at 8:30 p.m. EDT to discuss our next steps.

    http://acp.repoweramerica.org/jointhecall

    Thanks for all you do — we’re all in this together.

    Al Gore

  99. PhilJourdan says:

    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 1:09 pm

    You are the one with no idea – of what I know, or of what you are speaking in this case.

  100. James Sexton says:

    GM says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    aletho says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:45 pm
    By the way folks, the science on abiotic oil IS settled unlike the global warming nonsense:

    “I just went to Google Scholar and searched for oil formation and I got back hundreds of article, old and new, in direct contradiction with oil abiogenesis…….”

    GM, you score more points here if you provide a couple of links to the articles that back your assertions. Many here would actually read them.

  101. Pamela Gray says:

    GM, this is why I was a Dem:

    1. Don’t want religion (unless it is an elective class) in public schools or government. Many conservatives run on a religious plank.

    2. Don’t want government in my bedroom or anywhere near my right to choose what comes, or when it comes, from my body. Many conservatives want to make abortion illegal.

    3. Don’t want government telling me who I can love, how I love, or whether or not I can marry or get divorced. Many conservatives want to discriminate regarding marriage and bedroom practices.

    4. Don’t want government telling me what jobs I can or cannot have if I am qualified for them, which includes the military. Many conservatives have this silly notion that females cannot aim and fire.

    5. I’m not fond of corporations. Many conservatives love them and go out of their way to gain their attention.

    6. And finally I believe in publicly caring for those who cannot care for themselves. A measure of a truly free society is how we collectively treat those who do not have the capacity to become productive. Many conservatives think that we can leave it all up to charity and still be a decent country to live in.

    But it seems the Dems have turned into money spending greenpeace and PETA-ish activists. They have gotten away from their baseline message and now just seem bent on running up the deficit.

    However, I am as distrustful of Conservatives as I now am of Democrats. To tell you the truth, I am disenchanted with the whole lot and am getting ready to go fishing.

  102. GM says:

    James Sexton says:
    August 4, 2010 at 1:43 pm
    GM, you score more points here if you provide a couple of links to the articles that back your assertions. Many here would actually read the

    Random research article:

    http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/5/591

    Nice review on abiogenesis:

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121502173/PDFSTART

  103. rbateman says:

    What this means is that people, like Chu, Jackson and Holdren, will be throwing cruel rulings and stone-cold policies at the American people.
    They won’t give up, and now that they can’t have thier Big Tax, they’ll attempt to substitute by draconian fiat.
    I say attempt.

  104. rbateman says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    August 4, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Don’t give up, Pam: That’s exactly what they are counting on.

  105. aletho says:

    GM,

    You provide a link to an article that one must pay to read! And this is what you suppose is to convince us that your 200 year old unproven theory trumps replicable science?

    Fascinating.

    One wonders what drives your faith.

  106. Bruce Cobb says:

    For those interested in abiotic oil, even GM:

    http://carnegiescience.edu/news/hydrocarbons_deep_earth

    http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/ef9006017

    http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/ef9006017ttp://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/ef9006017

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/14/science/14meth.html?_r=1&n=Top/News/Science/Topics/Space

    The idea that oil could in fact have another origin, besides the much-touted “fossil” one isn’t that far-fetched, it seems. But, it does tend to threaten the world-view of Alarmists, who really really, just don’t want to hear about it.

  107. aletho says:

    rbateman 3:45,

    You are absolutely correct, here’s an example:

    New York City passes B2 oilheat mandate
    By Erin Voegele – Aug. 3, 2010

    On July 29, the New York City Council unanimously voted to pass air quality legislation that will ensure all heating oil used within the city contains biodiesel. The legislation, which expected to be signed into law within two weeks, will require the use of a B2 blend of heating oil starting in October 2012…

    http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/aletho-news/nyc-preparing-war-reducing-reliance-oil

  108. James Sexton says:

    GM, your link to the review on abiogenesis is behind a paywall. Your first link, while it may be of interest to geochemists, is probably wasn’t what I was looking for. I’m happy for the Chinese in finding some more oil and gas reserves and the chemical compositions and weight had me animated. It didn’t seem to add to any of the conversations. You did say it was random. :-|

  109. James Sexton says:

    aletho says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    rbateman 3:45,

    You are absolutely correct, here’s an example:

    New York City passes B2 oilheat mandate
    By Erin Voegele – Aug. 3, 2010

    On July 29, the New York City Council unanimously voted to pass air quality legislation that will ensure all heating oil used within the city contains biodiesel. The legislation, which expected to be signed into law within two weeks, will require the use of a B2 blend of heating oil starting in October 2012…

    They never cease to amaze me. Now heating fuel? Butter for popcorn was bad enough. Do the people of the city really accept every aspect of their life to be regulated? Now they can’t choose how to heat themselves? What happens when a cheaper more efficient fuel is available?

  110. danj says:

    But this is the same administration that wants to shut down 30 percent of the nation’s crude oil supply with its counter-intuitive moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. If Sen. Kerry is concerned about importing foreign oil, he should tell his friend Obama that we can’t power autos by putting a windmill on top of them yet…

  111. Al Gored says:

    As bad as Bush Jr was, can anyone possibly imagine how bad things would have been with Gore or Kerry as President?

  112. bruce says:

    /GM,

    You are a learned and intelligent individual, I will concede you that. Genetically I fear you were given some irritable genes.

    But lets leave that, its a little weird.

    What I need help with is the notion that price doesn’t matter. If A company can produce an oil like substance for $40 a barrel and make money, is it the notion that they are using $80 worth of material to get it? Is it the lifespan of the product that makes you angry? The idea that only a percentage is available? I don’t understand the point, and I apologize for not being at your caliber. It seems to me if it costs so much energy to get the substance they would push the cost along to me.

  113. April E. Coggins says:

    The Democrats will wait until 3 AM to suddenly reach a resolution and will vote this crap in. History has a way of repeating itself. Hopefully there will be more non-fools than fools voting in November. It’s like watching free people vote themselves into slavery and liking it. Oh wait, it’s not “like”, it is.

  114. Brian H says:

    A sterling piece of evidence for abiogenic hyrdrocarbon creation is Titan, where there are lakes of oil etc. exceeding the total known “biogenic” reserves of Planet Earth.

    I wonder just when Titan’s “Carboniferous” era was.

  115. Brendan H says:

    Smokey: ““[....]” is used in order to equate scientific skeptics…with Holocaust [....]…
    Therefore, they engage in alarmist arguments in order to scare the public for financial gain and political power. And if they can achieve totalitarianism along the way, so much the better.”

    So you’re unhappy at being labelled with a particular word, but are quick to label your opponents as totalitarians. Looks like a double standard there, Smokey.

  116. GM says:

    Brian H says:
    August 4, 2010 at 11:49 pm
    A sterling piece of evidence for abiogenic hyrdrocarbon creation is Titan, where there are lakes of oil etc. exceeding the total known “biogenic” reserves of Planet Earth.

    I wonder just when Titan’s “Carboniferous” era was.

    Completely different geology. Do not compare apples and oranges

  117. GM says:

    bruce says:
    August 4, 2010 at 8:02 pm
    /GM,

    But lets leave that, its a little weird.

    What I need help with is the notion that price doesn’t matter. If A company can produce an oil like substance for $40 a barrel and make money, is it the notion that they are using $80 worth of material to get it? Is it the lifespan of the product that makes you angry? The idea that only a percentage is available?

    You can be making profit in terms of $ signs, but if you are using more energy to harvest the resource than you are getting back, then the whole exercise is completely futile. That’s most drastic version of it, so that you can get the idea. In reality, it is no even sufficient to be making energy profit, it has to be a LARGE ENOUGH energy profit for things to makes sense and for the energy source to be able to sustain a civilization. And this is as inaccurate science as it get, for obvious reasons, but the thinking is that a civilization like ours needs an EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) of at least 10. Oil shales and tar sands are way below that, in the 3-5 range, and that’s without the environmental costs. If you think of it in terms of entropy and you factor in the environmental costs, it is even worse.

    Again, money do not do work and they do not feed people. In theory, money is a token for energy, a claim on physical work. If there was a 1:1 relationship between those, then we could think about things in terms of money. And there is some correlation between prices and thermodynamic costs, but first, the two things have become too decoupled for price to a reliable indicator, and second, thinking of things in terms of money has made us forget that energy is what matters, so we take it fro granted (modern economic does not do energy, it assumes it is an ever expanding resource that will always meet demand). Which has made us totally disconnected from the physical reality we live in

  118. GM says:

    James Sexton says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:47 pm
    GM, your link to the review on abiogenesis is behind a paywall. Your first link, while it may be of interest to geochemists, is probably wasn’t what I was looking for. I’m happy for the Chinese in finding some more oil and gas reserves and the chemical compositions and weight had me animated. It didn’t seem to add to any of the conversations. You did say it was random. :-|

    Sorry, I wasn’t aware it was not open access, I was able to open it with no problems, but then I have the university library account behind my IP. I can upload it somewhere if you really want to read it (it is a minor enough crime I guess)

    The Chinese article was completely randomly chosen (it was the first one that examined isotops and origins of the organic molecules in a field I saw). The point is that those were organic molecules that came from organisms (which you can tell by the isotope composition). As such it is very relevant to the subject. It doesn’t directly state that the abiogenetic theory is rubbish, but it doesn’t need to, as this wouldn’t be the objective of a regular research article in the field, given that the standard model in it is biogenesis of oil.

  119. E.M.Smith says:

    So if I eat some dolomite diet supplement, does that make my body fat non-biogenic as the isotope ratio will be “wrong’? I think folks ascribe far more to C12/C13 ratios than in justified by the reality.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/

    @Brian H: I always loved the way we find hydrocarbons all over the solar system, but here they must be of biologic origin. Yeah, sure… So we have had gigatons of primordial methane land as comet debris, but all the methane today is from plants and animals. We have zeolite rocks that under heat and pressure will convert methane into heavier hydrocarbons. We have subduction of rocks bearing a lot of Carbon that are known to produce hydrocarbons when subjected to intense heat and pressure as happens in the subduction zones (which also are some of the most oil rich lands in the world…) and yet it’s got to be ‘dino-juice’. Uh Huh… IMHO, the most likely explanation is that hydrocarbons are natural non-biologic products that end up also being made by biologic / biogenic sources too. It’s not an “either or” but a “both”.

    Coal is biologic in origin. Gas and oil are mixed source. And that’s why the c12 / c13 ratios vary widely from deposit to deposit.

    There is a discussion of abiotic oil down a ways here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/20/there-is-no-energy-shortage/

    under the “oil” heading.

    @Bruce: The notion of Energy Return On Investment is what’s being pushed. The idea that we ‘run out’ sooner than expected when it costs to much energy to produce it. This ignores the fact that the FORM of the energy matters a great deal. If I can “lift” oil at $80 / bbl to fuel my car, but it takes 20 times the energy content, I don’t really care at all when I’m using electric pumps to do it and they are driven by functionally unlimited nuclear power at a cost of $30. So don’t let the folks pushing the “running out” scare get that one past you.

    FWIW, we can MAKE oil at about $50 / bbl from TRASH (and coal and trees and…). The major impediments to doing it are political and OPEC. We tax the synthetics that same as the OPEC oil (a mistake) and we have OPEC threats to open the tap and drive oil to $40 / bbl (as they have done in the past…). Hard to get funding from a bank when they know you can be put out of business whenever OPEC wants… As has happened in the past…

    There simply is no energy shortage, and there never will be. There is a shortage of political will to stand up to OPEC and make our own oil. Synthetic or otherwise.

    And since I see the Malthusian “running out of stuff” is circulating up thread too:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/there-is-no-shortage-of-stuff/

    Until we start blasting megatons of stuff into space, it’s all still here. The form changes, but we never “run out”. I just did a tour of the California Missions. Mud, straw, some timbers. You can literally build cathedrals out of that stuff, and it’s in as much supply as you could ever want.

    And per the Log Growth nonsense: Real populations have S shaped growth curves, not Log. It just looks Log when you are down near the bottom half. Please stop scaring yourself and the children with bad math and go take a biology course where you can watch all sorts of S shaped growth happen.

    Repeat after me: We never run out of stuff. We have unlimited energy and abundance available to us. We ought to take care of the planet, but also enjoy the bounty it provides. We never run out of stuff. We have unlimited energy and abundance available …

  120. Vince Causey says:

    GM,

    “Currently the energy use of computers is approaching 10% of the total. So yes, they information technologies use absolutely no resources…”

    But computer processor speeds increases with time, does it not? By Moore’s law, doubling every 18 months or so. But as far as I am aware, a PC today, does not consume more power than one produced 10 years ago – actually less power. So there we have it, processor speeds are outstripping GDP growth by a factor of about 20 times, which means growth in computing can be acheived with no increase in energy use per capita while contributing to economic growth. I call that a win win situation.

    I then wrote:
    ” But as society becomes wealthier, individuals consume an even greater intangible – leisure. This is all made possible by growth in economic productivity, that provides more free time, allowing people to consume movies, meals out, health clubs, hotels, beauty therapy, lifestyle coaching.”

    And you replied: “And those things don’t use any resources either….”

    You got it. They actually consume less resources. When a family, using the wealth provided by economic growth goes and eats a meal in a restuarant, they forgoe preparing and eating at home. The restaurant buys food in bulk, and by economy of scale is able to prepare meals for the diners at a lower energy cost than if each of them cooked separately at home. Wealth of the dinners is transfered to the wages of restaurant staff who provide the service in return.

    “Yes, it doesn’t leave the earth. But its entropy is much higher once it ends up in the oceans. ”

    Why should it end up in the oceans? Materials to be recycled are taken to recycling centers, not left to be erroded for thousands of years. The whole point of recycling is that it costs less energy to process say an aluminum can than it does to extract the metal from bauxite.

  121. Dave from the "Hot" North East of Scotland says:

    Well I loved that debate and learned a lot.
    Thanks to all those who contributed some very interesting links and also to the contributors who recognise the “not either / or but ‘and’ ” principle.

    Special thanks to GM – “priceless”!

  122. Brian H says:

    Entropy? Oceans? Gah. All material and energy interactions end up increasing entropy, but it’s the steps inbetween which are fun. The sun’s entropy is increasing massively, but we’re siphoning off some of that action with our local negative entropy mini-loop.

    EMS;
    Excellent post. Thx for the links.

    GM;
    August 5, 2010 at 12:59 am

    I wonder just when Titan’s “Carboniferous” era was.

    Completely different geology. Do not compare apples and oranges
    ___
    Sez who? The geology of planets and planetoids in the solar system and beyond is only trivially and barely comprehended, with major terra incognita on all sides. And as Feynman said, when the evidence contradicts the theory (“guess”) the theory (“guess”) is wrong. That’s the definition of science.

    The solar system makes hydrocarbons in overwhelmingly large quantities. Anyone who claims to know how it got distributed is simply a liar.

  123. PhilJourdan says:

    GM says:
    August 5, 2010 at 12:59 am
    Completely different geology. Do not compare apples and oranges

    You dodged the question, and no, Titan does not have apples and oranges either.

    IF (big word) there are indeed oil pools on Titan, where did they come from? And since Titan is lifeless, would that not at least cast doubt on the smug and arrogant notion that abiogensis oil is dead?

    I am not saying (nor was the OP) that oil on Titan proves abiogensis oil on Earth. But it does prove that carbon life is not necessary to create it.

  124. CodeTech says:

    Brian H says:

    The solar system makes hydrocarbons in overwhelmingly large quantities. Anyone who claims to know how it got distributed is simply a liar.

    PhilJourdan says:

    I am not saying (nor was the OP) that oil on Titan proves abiogensis oil on Earth. But it does prove that carbon life is not necessary to create it.

    Bingo, and bingo.

    As I said before, I’m not jumping onto an abiotic stand, but I am questioning the factual assertion that the gasoline I put in my car last night came from deceased animals.

    People who argue based on “because I said so” or “because that’s what everyone says” are not very convincing.

    If petroleum is biotic, why is it rising and why does it pool underneath nonporous formations? Wouldn’t you expect it to be sinking and pooling above such formations? If it has sunk over millions of years, what changed to cause it to rise now?

    Again, I’m asking questions, not making factual assertions.

Comments are closed.