Starvid wrote:* They all think Peak Oil is a very grave issue, but they also think the doomers are wrong. On a specific question they said Richard Heinberg was very much to pessimistic.
* They said it was hard introducing mass transit (such as electric trains and trams) in a large city if the city wasn't planned for it from the beginning.
Starvid wrote:Hello everyone, I just got a close look at Matthew Simmons, Kjell Aleklett and Robert Hirsch with my own eyes!
They were at the Industry Contact Day - Global Oil Reserves - Hopes and Reality, a Peak Oil seminar in Uppsala. http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/AIM2005pdf.pdf
They did say some interesting things, for example:
* They all think Peak Oil is a very grave issue, but they also think the doomers are wrong. On a specific question they said Richard Heinberg was very much to pessimistic.
Doomer issue: They meant Heinberg was to pessimistic on technology and uh, society. They didn't believe that the end of the world was near, but that we would, and I quote, "muddle through".
venky wrote:If we are to replace our current oil based transport system with an electric based one, the question is obviously where the extra electricity is going to come from. Of course conservation would probably be our strongest weapon and we could get by with a fraction (half or perhaps even a third) of oil equivalent that we use today without damaging the economy.
Berkeley wrote:Simmons calling Heinberg pessimistic reminds me of the tactic the Sierra Club used to use, calling Earth First! extreme. They're extreme, so we're moderates, right? I think these guys get together and decide who gets to be the extremist so the others can play moderate against them. It's for public consumption. They are all really on the same side.
dinopello wrote:I don't really see a big problem putting in surface trams, except that it might lower automobile capacity if it takes up right-of-way.
JohnDenver wrote:Simmons is a Republican investment banker, and his main focus in peak oil activism is to marginalize the environmentalists and open up more opportunities for drilling, refineries, LNG facilities and other investment opportunities.
MonteQuest wrote:Could we? One out of every six jobs is tied to the automotive industry. So, we are talking cutting 30 to 50% of all jobs in the oil and transportation sector?
bobeau wrote:MonteQuest wrote:Could we? One out of every six jobs is tied to the automotive industry. So, we are talking cutting 30 to 50% of all jobs in the oil and transportation sector?
What about all the new jobs which will be created for creating public transportation infrastructures?
MonteQuest wrote:venky wrote:If we are to replace our current oil based transport system with an electric based one, the question is obviously where the extra electricity is going to come from. Of course conservation would probably be our strongest weapon and we could get by with a fraction (half or perhaps even a third) of oil equivalent that we use today without damaging the economy.
Could we? One out of every six jobs is tied to the automotive industry. So, we are talking cutting 30 to 50% of all jobs in the oil and transportation sector? Remember, all that energy consumption creates jobs for millions of people. Conservation on that scale does not happen in a vacuum, it affects people's livelyhood. That "strong weapon" will be devastating to many. Post energy crisis of the 1970's, independent gas stations disappeared overnight. When I was 16 years old, (1967) there was a gas station on every corner of every main intersection in every town. Gas was $.21/gallon.
Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests