Bidder 70 receives 2 years

And just burn down our parks and forests until then? That doesn't sound like a good idea, either. Especially considering a) how much money that industry spends on tanking any possible alternatives and ensuring that Washington does nothing other than drill, drill, drill, and b) the fact there isn't a viable alternative.

happy jack wrote:

sparks wrote:

I believe that civil disobedience is exactly what we need to battle the fossil fuel industry ....

.........

This is a classic battle of good vs. evil ....

sparks:
Don't you think it might be wise to find a practical and viable alternative to fossil fuel before you go about trying to destroy the industry?

Here's the thing,Jack. Unless you know of a viable and practical alternative, this planet is our only home. Our climate is changing far faster than even the most dire scenarios that were being presented several years ago. The fact is the fossil fuel industry will change radically in the near future. The only question is whether it we will do it or whether Mother Nature does.

happy jack wrote:

Do you think it's realistic and practical to have the fossil fuel industry brought to a halt with no alternative energy source on the horizon?

What do you mean by "brought to a halt"?

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

What do you mean by "brought to a halt"?

Well, you applauded Bidder 70's efforts to disrupt the fossil fuel industry, and disruption is a natural precursor to eliminating something altogether. I would assume halting fossil fuel processing is Bidder 70's ultimate goal, wouldn't you?

No. It's equally possible he recognized a dubious or illegal sale, and acted accordingly to keep the land intact rather than swearing off fossil fuels in their entirety. I don't know for sure, but the possibility does exist.

But anyway, I'm going to assume by "brought to a halt" you mean the sudden and immediate cessation of all extraction and exploration. Such a scenario is neither possible, practical, or wanted by anyone with a realistic understanding of the concepts involved. I thought this bit from an article here was useful:

Quote :

Drill noplace, drill never!

It's incredibly counterintuitive to say this in Texas. It really is seen as close to insane. I understand this. I have friends and acquaintances for whom the spigot just turned on. I have a hard time wishing their good fortune to end.

And I understand that we still have all that automotive infrastructure to feed at the least, and the existing supplies won't last forty years, so, well, so it's hard to say exactly what activities to stop when. This is why we need to think quantitatively and collectively. And nobody with any stake in the fossil fuels will welcome such collective wisdom, I promise you that!

Was he disrupting the industry or disrupting the resulting crash we're driving headlong into? Civilizations can avoid such crashes by weaning themselves off of the resource in question beforehand, in our case moving from an unsustainable fossil fuel based infrastructure to one less energy intensive and certainly not growth based (or we'll end up right back where we started). We have to realistically acknowledge our situation before we have any real hope of changing it. And there's proven to be a lot of vested interest in making sure that doesn't happen.

happy jack wrote:

But unless you wish to spend the rest of your life without transportation, electricity, and heating/air conditioning, you might want to think about keeping the fossil fuel industry up and running until you invent something that provides you with transportation, electricity, and heating/air conditioning.

Unmitigated growth based on nonrenewable resources on a finite planet ensures we'll hit that wall eventually regardless. It will either be our reality or our children's. How long do we wait to before we can discuss the possibility of us not finding cheap, renewable alternatives? Discuss a third option, perhaps? 'Cause we're pretty late in the game already.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Was he disrupting the industry or disrupting the resulting crash we're driving headlong into?

Neither. He was expressing his opinion in an article.

I was referring DeChristopher in that statement, not Tobis.

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

…. moving from an unsustainable fossil fuel based infrastructure to one less energy intensive and certainly not growth based ….

And this new infrastructure would be …. ?

Um... one less energy intensive and certainly not growth based. Are you looking for a specific name or something?

happy jack wrote:

Heretic wrote:

How long do we wait to before we can discuss the possibility of us not finding cheap, renewable alternatives?

Discuss all you want, but in the meantime, don’t shut down the only source you have.

Why are we talking past each other? Again, no one is proposing that we do so. I thought I was clear:

Quote :

But anyway, I'm going to assume by "brought to a halt" you mean the sudden and immediate cessation of all extraction and exploration. Such a scenario is neither possible, practical, or wanted by anyone with a realistic understanding of the concepts involved.

But let's be very clear: maintaining a way of life so dependent on fossil fuels will ruin us just as much as swearing off of it tomorrow, which is why I'm proposing neither. Things will continue to get worse as demand for it rises far faster than supply, putting even more hurt on already failing economies. And speaking of supply, we're going to need what, 7 or 8 more Saudi Arabias in order to meet demand? You really think that's plausible or practical? None of the "huge" finds over the past couple of years, domestic or abroad, come close to matching the barrel per day extraction rates we'd need. We'll also have an increasingly erratic climate to look forward to, causing an even further rise in food prices, as well as emergency services as a result of the increasing number of extreme weather events. And that continues until either it's gone or we just can't get anymore, resulting in all the horrible, awful stuff that would happen if we stopped cold turkey tomorrow.

So don't fool yourself into thinking that a "just keep drilling" scenario is doing anyone any favors. It's a great plan for you, right now, but does little for the following generations. A switch away from our fossil fuel infrastructure will happen; it's simple physics. All we get to choose is to do so voluntarily or have it drastically imposed on us later.

What have you been listening to?

Whatever...

Any comments on the actual topic? Agree/disagree with my previous post?

happy jack wrote:

I thought I made that clear.

Saying something is more well thought out than something else doesn't tell me anything. Anything creationist William Dembski writes is more well thought out than 99% of the stuff I hear from other creationists, but it's all still bullshit.

And if 99% of what you hear is coming from internet forums, for once, check out a link or two (or 50) in my posts. I don't post them 'cause I like the color blue.

Bump