Living Car Free - Say you inherited oil bearing land

What if you didn't have the choice? Would you refuse to go to the hospital at all if the only way to get there was by a petroeum-powered vehicle?

Elk, he obviously supports oil through other means. Using the internet doubtlessly consumes oil-- even if his computer and all of its accessories used no oil in their production and transport, or in their use, his ISP almost certainly would, both for the energy to run their network, and the vehicles they use to maintain their cables, nodes, and other network hardware; not to mention installing the connection to his residence in the first place.

The idea of living without oil without shunning nearly all forms of technology in modern life is simply hilarious. All Roody is arguing is that it's better to do a large amount of damage to the environment through inaction than to do a smaller amount of damage through action.

Elk, he obviously supports oil through other means. Using the internet doubtlessly consumes oil-- even if his computer and all of its accessories used no oil in their production and transport, or in their use, his ISP almost certainly would, both for the energy to run their network, and the vehicles they use to maintain their cables, nodes, and other network hardware; not to mention installing the connection to his residence in the first place.

The idea of living without oil without shunning nearly all forms of technology in modern life is simply hilarious. All Roody is arguing is that it's better to do a large amount of damage to the environment through inaction than to do a smaller amount of damage through action.

No that is not what I'm saying, not at all. You're making it much too complicated, I'm merely saying that if I do something that I know is wrong, then I'm doing something wrong, even if the consequences are unexpectedly positive, or at least less damaging. The oil that comes out of my ground will damage the atmosphere. That oil, out of that ground. Not some hypothetical oil from foreign ground that my oil could have replaced.

Do you think it's OK to sell homegrown heroin, because if you don't sell it, some other heroin--produced by the Taliban--will be sold instead? Maybe it took more energy to transport the Taliban heroin, and the profits were used to persecute innocent people. OTOH, it took less energy to transport your homegrown heroin, and you used the profits to sponsor anti-drug classes. Even so--even if the Taliban heroin is "more evil"--your own heroin is still evil and it's still wrong to sell it.

What if you didn't have the choice? Would you refuse to go to the hospital at all if the only way to get there was by a petroeum-powered vehicle?

This is the situation that we're all faced with every day. We'd like to have electricity that's renewable, but the power company doesn't provide it that way. We'd like to take an electric bus, but they don't have any. We'd like to use the biodiesel ambulance but the diesel one pulls up. I only hope that by the time of my funeral, the hearse will be pedal powered or something.

Our civilization runs on oil. It is unfortunate, but the only way to avoid using any oil at all is to rip off your clothing and go live in the woods, eating only what you can gather with your own hands. None of us want to revert to hunter-gatherers, or subsistance farming. Most of us like civilization.

Everything in your house probably got there at least partially by car or truck. If there is any plastic in your house, it is derived ultimately from petroleum. The electricity used for communicating over the 'Net is largely generated from gas, coal, or oil. If you are wearing any polyester, it is made from oil. Even if you wear only natural fibres, petroleum went into their processing and manufacturing. Unless you eat all organic all the time, the food you eat was produced with oil. And, even if you do eat all organic all the time, unless all your food was harvested from a garden within walking or cycling distance, oil was involved in getting it to you. And what about the industrial processes that went into making your bicycle?

Also, if I own oil-bearing land, that oil will be pumped out eventually. Even if I never let it be done, I'm not immortal. My heirs may feel very differently about it, or their heirs. Even if I were to place the mineral rights in some sort of preservation trust, such things can be broken, and if the country gets desperate enough for oil it will be. "If it must be done, it were best done quickly," as the poet says.

Also, if I own oil-bearing land, that oil will be pumped out eventually. Even if I never let it be done, I'm not immortal. My heirs may feel very differently about it, or their heirs. Even if I were to place the mineral rights in some sort of preservation trust, such things can be broken, and if the country gets desperate enough for oil it will be. "If it must be done, it were best done quickly," as the poet says.

I think there's an excellent chance that people will no longer be pumping oil in 20 years, more or less. Let's try to leave as much in the ground as possible until we come to our senses and ban this disgusting and deadly practice of transferring carbon from the earth to the sky.

No that is not what I'm saying, not at all. You're making it much too complicated, I'm merely saying that if I do something that I know is wrong, then I'm doing something wrong, even if the consequences are unexpectedly positive, or at least less damaging. The oil that comes out of my ground will damage the atmosphere. That oil, out of that ground. Not some hypothetical oil from foreign ground that my oil could have replaced.

Your point would be noble, if that were the case. The fact is, in that last sentence, reality replaces "could" with "would".

As much damage as the OP's oil will undoubtedly do, denying that oil will surely case EVEN MORE DAMAGE. All you are claiming is that if you are not directly involved (which is also absurd in modern times) it is better; regardless of whether it is ACTUALLY better for the environment. In fact, you don't even care about the emotional, moral, or 'karmic' state of the person involved-- again, you are asking them to do MORE damage to the planet. You do not give a **** about 'keeping carbon in the ground and out of the air', if you did you would attempt to use the least oil possible in order to actually achieve those goals.


Do you think it's OK to sell homegrown heroin, because if you don't sell it, some other heroin--produced by the Taliban--will be sold instead? Maybe it took more energy to transport the Taliban heroin, and the profits were used to persecute innocent people. OTOH, it took less energy to transport your homegrown heroin, and you used the profits to sponsor anti-drug classes. Even so--even if the Taliban heroin is "more evil"--your own heroin is still evil and it's still wrong to sell it.

Frankly, your analogy is ridiculous. Oil is not illegal, and heroin is not essential. More specifically, heroin is not the backbone of nearly the entire global economy and lifestyle. Heroin is not used by every man, woman, and child almost everywhere on the globe in some way or another. And honestly, if I had to choose between a horrible substance being sold from people who will abuse or neglect the profits from it and who harm the environment, and someone who puts the profits to good use and tries to minimize the damage; yes, I would go for local production. I don't care if you're talking about oil or hairspray, there is such a thing as 'less evil'. The world does not exist in terms of black and white.


Let's try to leave as much in the ground as possible
Again, you contradict yourself. Leaving as much in the ground as possible would be DRILLING LOCALLY TO AVOID EXPENDING ADDITIONAL OIL IN TRANSPORTATION. Leaving as much in the ground as possible would be using as much of the oil profits as you can get your hands on to fund alternative energy projects so that we can wean off of the stuff sooner. Acting irrationally will NOT keep as much in the ground as possible; anymore than buying a hybrid makes it environmentally friendly to drive your car to your mailbox.

Frankly, your analogy is ridiculous. Oil is not illegal, and heroin is not essential.

A lot of essential drugs do come from the poppy though.
Good and bad come from it too.

Your point would be noble, if that were the case. The fact is, in that last sentence, reality replaces "could" with "would".

As much damage as the OP's oil will undoubtedly do, denying that oil will surely case EVEN MORE DAMAGE. All you are claiming is that if you are not directly involved (which is also absurd in modern times) it is better; regardless of whether it is ACTUALLY better for the environment. In fact, you don't even care about the emotional, moral, or 'karmic' state of the person involved-- again, you are asking them to do MORE damage to the planet. You do not give a **** about 'keeping carbon in the ground and out of the air', if you did you would attempt to use the least oil possible in order to actually achieve those goals.



Frankly, your analogy is ridiculous. Oil is not illegal, and heroin is not essential. More specifically, heroin is not the backbone of nearly the entire global economy and lifestyle. Heroin is not used by every man, woman, and child almost everywhere on the globe in some way or another. And honestly, if I had to choose between a horrible substance being sold from people who will abuse or neglect the profits from it and who harm the environment, and someone who puts the profits to good use and tries to minimize the damage; yes, I would go for local production. I don't care if you're talking about oil or hairspray, there is such a thing as 'less evil'. The world does not exist in terms of black and white.


Again, you contradict yourself. Leaving as much in the ground as possible would be DRILLING LOCALLY TO AVOID EXPENDING ADDITIONAL OIL IN TRANSPORTATION. Leaving as much in the ground as possible would be using as much of the oil profits as you can get your hands on to fund alternative energy projects so that we can wean off of the stuff sooner. Acting irrationally will NOT keep as much in the ground as possible; anymore than buying a hybrid makes it environmentally friendly to drive your car to your mailbox.

We'll probably never reach agreement because we're each talking about different areas of thought. You're talking about the way you think things are; I'm talking about the way we should think about things.

You're saying that if I pump the oil on my land, the results will be bad for the environment, but less destructive than if I don't pump it. You might be right. Then again, you might be wrong. You won't know for sure until after you pump the oil.*

I'm saying that I already know that it's wrong even before I pump it. Since I try not to do what's wrong, I know not to pump it.


*For example, if the oil is going to be used by somebody in New Jersey, it might actually take more energy to transport my oil from Texas than it would take to transport other oil from the Persian Gulf. This is because ocean transport is very efficient, while transport by truck or even pipeline is less efficient.

Frankly, your analogy is ridiculous. Oil is not illegal, and heroin is not essential.

Oil should be illegal, and it probably will be in fairly short order.
Heroin is legal in some countries.
Heroin is essential to junkies. And it's essential to others in the sense that it's the basis for many other important medications, especially morphine. It's production is essential to the economies of some nations or regions.
Oil is not essential because there are many replacements for it, such as wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, etc. Only our refusal to use the alternatives makes oil seem essential.

Roody, I'm with you on this one.

Thank you for having the courage of your convictions, the future of our planet depends on people who think like you.

It's interesting that people usually don't treat oil-in-the-ground like they treat shares of stock: price very likely to rise in the long term, what do I do? SELL, QUICK!

I think there's an excellent chance that people will no longer be pumping oil in 20 years, more or less. Let's try to leave as much in the ground as possible until we come to our senses and ban this disgusting and deadly practice of transferring carbon from the earth to the sky.

Why not just let it run out- you wont need to ban it or have the political hassle of the process
of getting the ban put in place. Natural economics of supply and demand will make the last
amounts extremely expensive which will pressure the public to find alternatives. Enterprising energy
people will see that this will happen and offer some alternatives to a very grateful public.

Why not just let it run out- you wont need to ban it or have the political hassle of the process
of getting the ban put in place. Natural economics of supply and demand will make the last
amounts extremely expensive which will pressure the public to find alternatives. Enterprising energy
people will see that this will happen and offer some alternatives to a very grateful public.

My answer would be the same. We don't know for sure what will happen if we continue using oil. One possibility is that there's a lot more oil than the peak oilers know about, and we won't reach peak for many years. Another possibility is that price increases might encourage the exploitation of unconventional oil sources (like tar sands and ultra-deepwater drilling), instead of encouraging the development of renewable alternatives (like wind, solar, hydrogen, etc).

On the other hand, we do already know that burning oil is a bad idea and morally dubious, so we should stop doing it for that reason alone.

We'll probably never reach agreement because we're each talking about different areas of thought. You're talking about the way you think things are; I'm talking about the way we should think about things.

The way "we should think about things" only applies if there is a way to stop that oil from being used by not distributing it. But that is never going to happen. Whether you pump that oil or not, someone IS going to need to use it, and it's best to go with the devil you know.

You do bring up a valid point about whether it being more environmentally friendly depending largely on its final usage. However, even if it used more oil (which is fairly unlikely; oil companies haven't made huge profits by being stupid) you're still ignoring the fact that the profits can be put towards technologies and movements (for example, pro-environmental lobbying) which would still make it the optimum choice for the environment in the long run.



Oil should be illegal, and it probably will be in fairly short order.
Heroin is legal in some countries.
Heroin is essential to junkies. And it's essential to others in the sense that it's the basis for many other important medications, especially morphine. It's production is essential to the economies of some nations or regions.
Oil is not essential because there are many replacements for it, such as wind, solar, nuclear, biofuels, etc. Only our refusal to use the alternatives makes oil seem essential.

1- Good luck with that. Meanwhile, in reality, people respond better to environmentalism that doesn't make them think they're going to have to go back to living in caves.
2- Irrelevant. The point was that if it was legal, and I had the opportunity to provide a lesser evil, yes, I would go for it. Especially if I could use that money to help the ones that do want help.
3- The first point is irrelevant. It might be essential for someone with an addiction; however it is not something they require to live. Second and third points are valid, and yes, the same applies to oil.
4- Oil as an energy source, perhaps. It is still used in many manufacturing processes. There's also the fact that it would cost huge sums of money to switch everything over to new energy sources. These technologies ARE being accepted and used more and more widely; however it would be insanely foolish to expect them to be accepted overnight. In the meantime, shutting down the pumps on your land will NOT help the situation even marginally, especially compared to how much help COULD be provided by putting that money towards getting people to switch.


I don't disagree that we need to stop using oil, and that sooner is better. That's obvious.

What you are saying, in this specific case though, would almost certainly be more damaging than helpful; and it relies on a sort of wishful thinking which is just plain silly. We cannot change the world overnight; at least not without going far beyond the wrongs of oil. Each and every one of us uses oil. Each and every one of us relies on it. It's asinine to ignore that, and it's childish to have a doublestandard that makes it ok to use it but not to sell it.

I think Roody and I would be completely 100% polar on nearly every issue imaginable. But you have to give the guy credit for standing by his convictions. All you other car-free anti-oil people who would sell are hypocrits. You can justify and rationalize all you want, but it doesn't make it right.

:)

I think Roody and I would be completely 100% polar on nearly every issue imaginable. But you have to give the guy credit for standing by his convictions. All you other car-free anti-oil people who would sell are hypocrits. You can justify and rationalize all you want, but it doesn't make it right.

:)

I'm a great admirer of Roody, and of course I respect his position. But in any situation there are a variety of ways of trying to apply one's philosophy and there is always room for alternate opinions without each person being accused of hypocrisy. As well, none of us is pure in our actions and it's impossible to be pure in applying our own principles to our own behaviour. We all have to compromise to some degree to survive and function in society. People who believe in a totally free market don't refuse to drive on non-tolled roads because they're paid for by taxes, or refuse to buy food because agribusinesses get government subsidies. Roody probably heats his home with fossil-fuel derived energy (because he doesn't have much choice) and old scratch probably went to a public school. All we can do is try to shift our own behaviour and society at large, in the direction that we believe is right or best.

In my case, I probably wouldn't halt pumping oil on land I inherited, not just because I'm not sure that my individual moratorium on oil production would make any difference (which is probably true) or because I might get a little greedy at that point (which certainly might happen), but also because I would see it as a paradoxical opportunity to lessen oil dependence. Right now our society functions on oil energy. Transitioning to a sustainable economy is going to take a huge investment in new (and old) technology and in research and education. And, most important of all, it's going to take energy. Right now, you can't build a wind turbine or solar cell or develop any other green energy source without using oil money and oil energy up front. If someone hands me control of a small segment of the oil economy, why not use it to spur development of alternatives?

[....] The way "we should think about things" only applies if there is a way to stop that oil from being used by not distributing it. But that is never going to happen. Whether you pump that oil or not, someone IS going to need to use it, and it's best to go with the devil you know.
First, I think it's better not to go with the devil at all. Second, how will someone use my oil if it's still resting in the ground? In this scenario, the only oil that I have control over is the oil under my property. If I don't pump it, it will stay there, right where it belongs--even though I can't force the Saudis to stop producing and I can't stop Americans (even myself) from buying it. But isn't it better to do what little good I can do, rather than fretting about the evil that others do?


you're still ignoring the fact that the profits can be put towards technologies and movements (for example, pro-environmental lobbying) which would still make it the optimum choice for the environment in the long run.
I addressed this issue in post #53, and in earlier posts when I talked about Bill Ford, and the heroin dealer donating a hospital wing. Doing something good doesn't undo a bad act, especially if you continue doing the bad act. Also, most people are like Bill Ford--they won't jeopardize the family business, even if they have to go against their ideals to keep it profitable.




1- Good luck with that. Meanwhile, in reality, people respond better to environmentalism that doesn't make them think they're going to have to go back to living in caves.
2- Irrelevant. The point was that if it was legal, and I had the opportunity to provide a lesser evil, yes, I would go for it. Especially if I could use that money to help the ones that do want help.
3- The first point is irrelevant. It might be essential for someone with an addiction; however it is not something they require to live. Second and third points are valid, and yes, the same applies to oil.
4- Oil as an energy source, perhaps. It is still used in many manufacturing processes. There's also the fact that it would cost huge sums of money to switch everything over to new energy sources. These technologies ARE being accepted and used more and more widely; however it would be insanely foolish to expect them to be accepted overnight. In the meantime, shutting down the pumps on your land will NOT help the situation even marginally, especially compared to how much help COULD be provided by putting that money towards getting people to switch.

I didn't say anything about cave-dwelling. I think that switching from oil to alternatives will be a boon to the world economy and will foster new technologies that will make our lives better in both the short- and long-term.
Agreed. Except that all assumptions should be questioned.
Oil is equally "essential for someone with an addiction; however it is not something they require to live." There are many alternatives to oil that we've so far chosen not to use.
Of course it would cost a huge amount of money to switch to an oil alternative. It would also create a huge number of jobs. Besides, that's what money is for--to buy things that you want or need. If we want clean energy, we'll have to pay for it. Also, bear in mind that in the last 50 years we've spent enormous sums of money developing several systems, including the internet, cell phones, cable TV, interstate highways, the industrialization of developing countries, and on and on. There's no economic reason that we can't also develop a new energy system in fairly short order--if that's how we decide to spend our money.








I don't disagree that we need to stop using oil, and that sooner is better. That's obvious.

What you are saying, in this specific case though, would almost certainly be more damaging than helpful; and it relies on a sort of wishful thinking which is just plain silly. We cannot change the world overnight; at least not without going far beyond the wrongs of oil. Each and every one of us uses oil. Each and every one of us relies on it. It's asinine to ignore that, and it's childish to have a doublestandard that makes it ok to use it but not to sell it.

I agree that it's going to be difficult to switch off the oil pumps. At times it seems impossible. But, silly or childish as I am, I can see that we won't switch them off until we switch them off. It has to start somewhere. And if it doesn't start with us--the supposed environmentalists--why should it start with Exxon-Mobil?

I'm a great admirer of Roody, and of course I respect his position. But in any situation their are a variety of ways of trying to apply one's philosophy and there is always room for alternate opinions without each person being accused of hypocrisy. As well, none of us is pure in our actions and it's impossible to be pure in applying our own principles to our own behaviour. We all have to compromise to some degree to survive and function in society. People who believe in a totally free market don't refuse to drive on non-tolled roads because they're paid for by taxes, or refuse to buy food because agribusinesses get government subsidies. Roody probably heats his home with fossil-fuel derived energy (because he doesn't have much choice) and old scratch probably went to a public school. All we can do is try to shift our own behaviour and society at large, in the direction that we believe is right or best.

In my case, I probably wouldn't halt pumping oil on land I inherited, not just because I'm not sure that my individual moratorium on oil production would make any difference (which is probably true) or because I might get a little greedy at that point (which certainly might happen), but also because I would see it as a paradoxical opportunity to lessen oil dependence. Right now our society functions on oil energy. Transitioning to a sustainable economy is going to take a huge investment in new (and old) technology and in research and education. And, most important of all, it's going to take energy. Right now, you can't build a wind turbine or solar cell or develop any other green energy source without using oil money and oil energy. If someone hands me control of a small segment of the oil economy, why not use it
to spur development of alternatives?

Fair enough. Everyone has their opinions.

It just really bothers me when a member of PETA wears leather shoes. Or when a member of MADD gets pulled over for DUI.

:)

I think Roody and I would be completely 100% polar on nearly every issue imaginable. But you have to give the guy credit for standing by his convictions. All you other car-free anti-oil people who would sell are hypocrits. You can justify and rationalize all you want, but it doesn't make it right. :)

Thanks, Nick.

I could say the same--and more--for feba. I believe he's only 17 years old, but he (or she) has a fine mind and is very articulate. I don't think he's a hypocrite by any means. I predict great things for this young person.

All you other car-free anti-oil people who would sell are hypocrits. You can justify and rationalize all you want, but it doesn't make it right.

Join the club, bucko. You're supporting oil just the same as any of us.


It just really bothers me when a member of PETA wears leather shoes. Or when a member of MADD gets pulled over for DUI.

Or when a Senator who supported a ton of anti-gay legislature is caught sending illicit messages to an underage intern!


First, I think it's better not to go with the devil at all.

Again, admirable, but strictly contrasts with reality. You yourself use oil every day, like it or not. You might MINIMIZE it by using non-oil power and transportation, but you still do support and rely on it just as much as everyone else.


Second, how will someone use my oil if it's still resting in the ground? In this scenario, the only oil that I have control over is the oil under my property. If I don't pump it, it will stay there, right where it belongs--even though I can't force the Saudis to stop producing and I can't stop Americans (even myself) from buying it. But isn't it better to do what little good I can do, rather than fretting about the evil that others do?

First of all, learn to read. Let me put it more simply, since you seem to have trouble with it. Country A needs 10 barrels of oil. You live in country A. You have ten barrels of oil. You can sell it, and Country A will use those ten barrels of oil. On the other hand, someone in Country B also has ten barrels of oil. If you don't sell your barrels, they will be transported from Country B to Country A; which will use more barrels in the process. Ultimately, to use the least oil possible, it's best to sell yours, even if you disagree with their use.

What 'little good you can do' would be to SELL THE OIL and use the profits for good. That is the best case scenario here. It is not perfect, of course not; but again you cannot get people to stop relying on oil by not selling one small bit of it. Again, all you are saying is that it is better to cause a large amount of damage through inaction than it is to cause a smaller amount through inaction.



Doing something good doesn't undo a bad act, especially if you continue doing the bad act.

Of course not. However, doing something bad (drilling for oil) is still better than doing something worse (drilling for oil on the other side of the planet from the ultimate destination)


It's like cars-- they are bad, but I don't think there's going to be much disagreement that a Hummer is much worse than a Hybrid.




I didn't say anything about cave-dwelling.
Nobody ever said you did. The fact is, though, when you talk about chucking oil out the window without a fallback or a transition period, that is not only what is factually going to happen, but what people are going to hear you advocating as well.


Oil is equally "essential for someone with an addiction; however it is not something they require to live." There are many alternatives to oil that we've so far chosen not to use.

Again, as an energy source, perhaps, as a manufacturing ingredient, tool, and etc. not necessarily. And yes, it is something that we require to live, in modern times; how many people (and countries) would die if we didn't have oil to power the machines that make and ship our food crops?



Of course it would cost a huge amount of money to switch to an oil alternative. It would also create a huge number of jobs. Besides, that's what money is for--to buy things that you want or need. If we want clean energy, we'll have to pay for it. Also, bear in mind that in the last 50 years we've spent enormous sums of money developing several systems, including the internet, cell phones, cable TV, interstate highways, the industrialization of developing countries, and on and on. There's no economic reason that we can't also develop a new energy system in fairly short order--if that's how we decide to spend our money.

Agreed. However, keep in mind that DEVELOPING systems and REINVENTING systems are completely different systems. Look at the state of the electrical power grid (in NA at least) or networking (ISPs are not doing a very good job of keeping up with bandwidth demand, again in NA at least)



I agree that it's going to be difficult to switch off the oil pumps. At times it seems impossible. But, silly or childish as I am, I can see that we won't switch them off until we switch them off. It has to start somewhere. And if it doesn't start with us--the supposed environmentalists--why should it start with Exxon-Mobil?

What is needed to shut down the oil pumps isn't shutting down the supply, it's shutting down the demand. The only way to kill the oil market through killing supply is the Earth just plain running out of oil. The demand is what we environmentalists need to worry about-- getting more people living carfree, getting tougher on energy hogging appliances, getting more oil run power sources to switch over to clean energy (Cars to bikes is a big one; but also cars to electric cars, and power plants to Wind/Solar/Hydro/Nuclear/etc.)

Again, your intentions are noble, your ideas for achieving them are just distorted.


I could say the same--and more--for feba. I believe he's only 17 years old, but he (or she) has a fine mind and is very articulate. I don't think he's a hypocrite by any means. I predict great things for this young person.

He, and thank you. I noticed I had my birthday displayed here, I was wondering if the age card would come up.

Join the club, bucko. You're supporting oil just the same as any of us.


I only read in this forum to gain perspective. I usually don't try to say anything. I am the antithesis to most of the guys in here. I drive a full size Chevy Truck. It has a V8. I don't believe we're running out of oil, and I don't believe in man-made global warming (or cooling, or climate change, etc.)

The first thing I'd do with oil bearing land is sell it. And I would sleep quite soundly at night about it too. :lol:



Or when a Senator who supported a ton of anti-gay legislature is caught sending illicit messages to an underage intern!


Excellent point. The list of hypocrisy goes on forever and ever.

Again, admirable, but strictly contrasts with reality. You yourself use oil every day, like it or not. You might MINIMIZE it by using non-oil power and transportation, but you still do support and rely on it just as much as everyone else.

I've conceded this point several times. Please move on.


What is needed to shut down the oil pumps isn't shutting down the supply, it's shutting down the demand. The only way to kill the oil market through killing supply is the Earth just plain running out of oil. The demand is what we environmentalists need to worry about-- getting more people living carfree, getting tougher on energy hogging appliances, getting more oil run power sources to switch over to clean energy (Cars to bikes is a big one; but also cars to electric cars, and power plants to Wind/Solar/Hydro/Nuclear/etc.)

But this discussion is based on a supply scenario. I think we should limit ourselves to talking about supply as much as we can. Most LCF threads are about demand, so this is an interesting change.



He, and thank you. I noticed I had my birthday displayed here, I was wondering if the age card would come up.

I sure don't mean to be playing an age card--just complimenting you on your precocity. A little bit, I find it distressing that many of our bright young minds are so pessimistic about the future. To paraphrase Kim Stanley Robinson: "The times are so hopeless that we can't afford the luxury of hopelessness." Crisis means opportunity, so your generation has more opportunities than most did.

(BTW, if you don't like for people to know your age, you could remove it from your user profile.)

I'm not even thinking of the oil being bad for the environment. I'm thinking of it being bad karma for the person pumping it or selling it, if he/she knows that it's an evil thing. Would it be OK to sell heroin or poison cookies, as long as you used the profits for some noble purpose?

And yes FEBA, I do think oil is evil. Carbon belongs in the ground, not in the air that we and our descendants unto a hundred generations must breathe. American oil is just as bad as Saudi oil or Nigerian oil or any other oil.

i second that; screw profiteering, a tiny bit of oil isn't going to help anyone but you, and even then only in the short term.

i'd turn the land into a nature conservatory or something, and laugh at the fat-cats that wanted to buy it.

btw what is "clean" oil? someone mentioned it on the first page. does it burn cleanly too?

which forum is this again? i'm lost..

which forum is this again? i'm lost..

Car free has always been a partly political forum, (the same is true of advocacy and safety). It's partly about how to live car free, but in this thread and many others, it's also about why to live car free.

btw what is "clean" oil? someone mentioned it on the first page. does it burn cleanly too?
I think they were referring to oil that's light, pure and easy to refine--like the oil from Texas and Saudi Arabia. It costs more, but the refiners like it because it takes less energy to refine, and IIRC it's easier on their pipelines and equipment.


which forum is this again? i'm lost..
The important thing is to label threads accurately, IMO. That way, people who aren't interested in politics and philosophy can skip threads like this one.

The important thing is to label threads accurately, IMO. That way, people who aren't interested in politics and philosophy can skip threads like this one.

What's so ambiguous about the thread title?

But this discussion is based on a supply scenario. I think we should limit ourselves to talking about supply as much as we can. Most LCF threads are about demand, so this is an interesting change.

This is true. I still stand by my point that it's better to provide the best supply possible while you're trying to stop demand, but I don't really think arguing more about that is going to change anyone's mind much.


I sure don't mean to be playing an age card--

Oh, I didn't mean it in a negative way. And actually, I didn't think you were the one that was going to bring it up, either. It was more intended as "huh, it wasn't some jerk using it for a petty insult." than anything else.

And say it was already in production, what would you do with it?

Not a troll post, a good friend of mine inherited land in Texas last week that is being drilled.

I'd be loading up the truck and I'd move to Beverly (Hills, that is)

Even if we came up with a replacement for petroleum as an energy source tomorrow and it were widely implemented, we still would need petroleum for other things. Plastics for example.

I would cash out and run hahahaha