Comments kjmclark has made
I fear thou dost protest too much.
You can say it as many times as you like, you were wrong the first time and you're wrong this time. The major short-term effect of energy supply shocks is economic dislocation. It happened in the late 70's energy shock and it will happen this time as well. The 70's shock culminated in the recession of the early 80's and in some short-term reduction in oil use. There was no significant increase in coal to liquids or ethanol use, though both technologies were available then.
In the middle-term, you may be right, but it looks to me that people who think peak oil will reduce energy use are thinking of the short-term, get-the-ball rolling effect. The historical record from the last shock tends to agree with them. Last time, the shock and demand destruction was followed by an increase in supply, which then crushed the oil alternatives. If the follow-on effect this time is continued decrease in supply, then I would still expect the alternatives to be hurt, but with a much quicker comeback this time.
The bigger question is the effect of the economic dislocations on the world's energy gluttons, Americans. We are not in a good fiscal position to make a roaring comeback in our energy use if we are hit by an early 80's style recession. And what happens to the developing world that has been providing the US all-you-can-consume manufactured goods buffet when our economy is hit upside the head with a painful recession? A world-wide recession touched off by Peak Oil would likely reduce energy use overall.
Coal's future is certainly bright for something so dark, but it won't be replacing much oil in the short-term. On Peak oil will not help us in the climate change fight posted 3 years, 6 months ago 39 Responses
If you can't beat them...
The other alternative is to buy land or mineral rights for land that has oil, gas, or coal and take it off the market. This way environmental groups could protect that land from development in the short term, raise energy costs without raising taxes, and even use the market to raise funds and buy more land in the future. Imagine if environmental groups had bought producing land in Texas during the last oil slump and taken it off the market until prices reach, say $100 per barrel. Then they sell the land to the highest bidder, save the proceeds, and repeat the next time oil prices drop. Oil has always been a boom and bust business, and will continue to be, just with much larger booms in the future as there is less and less oil to go around.
Environmentalists are already doing this to some extent by raising red flags for US energy drilling. That raises the costs of energy, working to reduce demand and encourage conservation. Amazingdrx's suggestion for a windfall tax on energy companies is the same sort of thing - raise costs for energy companies and they will pass the costs along to consumers.
Unfortunately, anything environmentalists do to raise energy costs and encourage conservation will get thrown back in our faces, since average Joes care much more about filling up their pickups than what kind of world their kids will live in. At least we can point to the economics community, which has called for increasing energy costs to solve many problems for quite a while now.On Who will advocate for green measures that don't make anyone money? posted 3 years, 10 months ago 10 Responses