OT
EVASION - The point was that in time, the price of oil will naturally escalate, since it's a non-renewable resource. At some point, there will be NO more oil. At the same time as he disagrees, he also concedes: "It will become more expensive over time." So which is it?
STRAW MAN: That's where you refute an argument that was never made. It was never stated (at that point; later it was) that it would happen "overnight". So he invents a statement that was never made, to dress up a weak argument, and smear the opponent: a common rhetorical trick.
That's neither an evasion nor a straw man. The point is that extreme price changes (on the scale of getting $500/bl oil in inflation adjusted dollars) are not likely to happen suddenly, so there will be time to adjust. As the prices climb other sources will make more sense and will be used to a greater extent.
As for "at some point there will be no oil", other than the extremes of "at some point", like if the Sun swallows the earth when it goes red giant, or over a much longer period of time when complex forms of matter may break down with things like proton decay, your statement is very unlikely to be true.
NON SEQUITUR, STRAW MAN: "As it becomes more expensive alternatives will make more sense and will be used more, its not like we will start when oil is $500/bbl.
Nobody said we would "start" at $500/bbl. That's a STRAW MAN, again.
I didn't say you said we would start at $500/bbl. The point is that the normal market response would be to change before that point even without extensive new subsidies or other forms of government intervention. Since we won't wait to start until $500/bbl, the problems you mentioned would be much less severe.
More generally if someone says "not X", or "since X isn't true", and you didn't say "X", that doesn't make for a straw man argument, unless its also combined with a "You say X, but X is not true so your wrong", or other indication that X is your argument that they are responding to. Just pointing out something that you didn't say isn't true, is not enough to make for a straw man.
Re: "...alternatives will make more sense and will be used more." But what will they cost? The point is cost, not whether they "make sense".
They will cost less than oil when it gets sufficiently expensive. They may even cost less than they do today since new techniques and technologies will have been developed in the meantime.
That's it then. Leave it to the market, and when 2019 arrives, we'll have everything we need. No need to plan. No need to anticipate.
"Leave it to the market", does not imply "do not plan". It implies and absence of central planning, but not an absence of planning. Market participants make plans.
"Political restrictions, subsidies, penalties, and let's not forget "etc".
Where did he get this stuff? This is the SECOND (but not the last) time he responds to statements that were never made.
1 - Once again, replying to something you didn't say doesn't make for a straw man unless its implied that you did say it.
2 - If you don't support "leaving it to the market" (which apparently you don't judging from your statement - "That's it then. Leave it to the market, and when 2019 arrives, we'll have everything we need. No need to plan.") Then apparently you are supporting some form of restrictions, subsidies, penalties etc. |
