Dr Caleb
Vive Moderator
Posts: 5437
Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:52 am
[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]I kind of liken economics to a very fast-paced evolution: always changing and seeking more efficient structures to achieve its main goal. Unfortunately, the goal of modern dominant capitalist economics is quite different than the goal of evolution and even the population in general. But I'm ranting a rant I've ranted before.[/quote]<br />
<br />
One user - Ed Deak - has posted quite a bit of economic theory here in the time you've been away. He's been studying economics since the end of WWII. If you have a chance, you might want to review his posts. Very enlightening.<br />
<br />
Specifically:<br />
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060221184719552<br />
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060212114538416<br />
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060128150315318<br />
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060123083817616<br />
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060110085537712<br />
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060105110336917<br />
<br />
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/comment.php?mode=view&cid=38532<br />
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/comment.php?mode=view&cid=30416<br />
<br />
Me, I'm in the Steven Leavitt crowd. I think that any economic model that blows up when a company sacrifices profit for goodwill (eg: donations to charity) isn't a very good model. It's flawed, and should be ignored.<br />
<br />
[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]<br />
The point is this: what happens first? Do we turn to bio-fuels and deplete our fresh-water aquifers and soil nutrients, thus undermining our very ability to provide ourselves with basic nutrients? [/QUOTE]<br />
<br />
As above, the sweetgrass I mentioned requires no special farming methods (just plant and harvest once in a while) is easily converted to ethanol, and the residue can be packed into pellets and burnt like wood or fed to livestock. Aquifers wouldn't be depleted because you can use far greater land area, as the grass does not need irrigation other than natural rainfall. Plant 1 million hectares, and if only 900,000 grow, well, all you wasted was seed and fuel to plant. But the other 900,000 will produce next season.<br />
<br />
[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]<br />
Or does burning the bio-fuels add to the already-high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and asphyxiate us? Does burning oil products over-pollute the air with CO2? Or perhaps harsher particulates? [/QUOTE]<br />
<br />
Ahhh! That's the beauty of BioFuel. Zero CO2 added to the environment, because the carbon in the plants was already taken out of the environment by the plants themselves.<br />
<br />
[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]<br />
Turning to coal might equally choke the planet. But with so much CO2 in the atmosphere, shouldn't planetary mean temperatures rise, providing plants with warmer conditions AND more CO2 to breathe, meaning they'll grow faster and provide MORE fuel to us? [/QUOTE]<br />
<br />
You might want to look up 'Tipping Point'. Increasing CO2 does mean an increasing mean temperature, but as temperatures rise, the reflective nature of ice caps and glaciers that melt means that temperatures rise faster and melt more reflective ice, and increase temperature . . . Arrid regions such as sub-sahara Africa and south eastern Austrailia become hotter and drier. Plants will not grow in dry conditions.<br />
<br />
[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]<br />
Obviously there's a whole in that argument - only so much solar energy hits the earth - so maybe that will limit plant growth.[/QUOTE]<br />
<br />
It will, but then we'll be in a position to use that increased solar energy, if we develop the technology.<br />
<br />
[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]<br />
These energy discussions are so utterly complex that they really need a *VERY* in-depth study to determine exactly what kind of limits exist. Of course, there's a big push to avoid such a study as I'm sure it would betray certain mainstream corporate interests. And perhaps those who would lose market shares have already done such a study and understand their vulnerability.[/QUOTE]<br />
<br />
I agree. And for every opinion or fact I said above, there are exactally the same and opposite viewpoints somewhere.<br />
<br />
[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]<br />
Which brings up the even more confusing issue: all our information is imperfect. Even WITH a well-conducted study, we don't actually KNOW if the oil companies and oil-producing countries hold the reserves they claim.[/QUOTE]<br />
<br />
I don't trust Oil companies. Their stock price is exactally related to the reserves they control, so the do tend to overstate their reserves. Shell was busted for it a year or so ago. They overstated their reserves by some large factor, 10% or something.<br />
<br />
[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]<br />
Are oil-producing companies inflating the size of their oil fields to garner larger shares of markets under OPEC's reserves-based limitations (each country can produce a certain percentage of their total reserves each year)? Or are companies and OPEC countries low-balling their numbers to boost oil prices?[/QUOTE]<br />
<br />
I'd say, yes to all the above.<br />
<br />
[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita]<br />
I just find it really hard to properly discuss this question without SOME reliable sources. So, has anyone seen such a study?? [/QUOTE]<br />
<br />
Never. And I've looked.
Take the Kama Sutra. How many people died from the Kama Sutra as opposed to the Bible? - Frank Zappa