Ted,
I am all for conservation. But it is a question of supply, demand and price. If the price of energy was say 1/10th of what it is now, we would be consuming a lot more energy. So based on this hypothetical situation, we are already saving a lot. If the price goes up, there will be a lot more conservation.
For example, if there was no artificial ceiling for price of electricity, there would not be any shortage in California. As the price naturally goes up, consumers would save more, and ther would be no blackouts.
Previously when we talked about the environment and the diminishment of our natural resourses, you suggested that the supply was ample and confident that long before we ran out, we will have come up with alternates.
There already are alternatives that won't run out for 100s of years - coal and nuclear energy. The oil is just so cheap and so flexible that the alternatives have a tough time competing.
As far as necessity of drilling in the arctic, the oil is there, the need is here, it's just a question of connecting the dots. Whether they get connected today, 10 or 20 years from now, I don't really care. Since the oil is still relatively cheap, I would do it later rather than now.
There is a relationship between this world and us and the other living organisms that inhabit it. Increasingly, that relationship is being skewed in our direction. When the relationship becomes too imbalanced, there will be a price to be paid.
Of course there is a price to be paid for 6+ billion people living on this Earth. Everyone who decides to sacrifice his own life to lessen the pressure on this Earth has my deepest appreciation and gratitude.
Joe |
