18 Comments
User's avatar
Greg Halvorson Blog's avatar

I was gone all summer, not blogging , because it's a waste of time to write then, all punditry is  forgotten (no one cares), and only now is it time to start paying attention. 

Expand full comment
It’s in the bio's avatar

Are you aware that the EIA has acknowledged that the global supplies of crude oils, hydrocarbons and biofuels are only estimated to meet the planets consumption demands until 2050.

There is a finite amount of those resources. They are not renewable, nor are they permanent. If there is nothing to replace them when they are exhausted, that will be the real problem.

And as far as Palestine is concerned, I could give a rats ass less about what happens to Israel or Palestine. They geographically occupy the same area and they can’t figure out a solution. Oh well. Not my problem. Tho it is amusing to outsiders watching to see Israel’s PR absolutely falling apart. Maybe Baby Netanyahu shouldn’t have tried to prop Hamas up. True story. Can you believe it? Baby Netanyahu actually sought to support and prop up Hamas. I suppose the “plan” was Hamas would stall peace talks and then Israel could sweep in and scoop up all that prime real estate. Which honestly is so on brand. At this point I hope Hamas and Israel point nukes at each other and get it over with. Then my tax dollars can stop being funneled to that ungrateful welfare state. Billions annually for as long as I have been alive. What an absolute shit show.

Expand full comment
Greg Halvorson Blog's avatar

The global supply of untapped fossil fuels exceeds 100 years, and more is being discovered constantly. Fact.

Expand full comment
It’s in the bio's avatar

Even if that were true (which according to the foremost experts on this it is not) that still is not a permanent supply.

It is finite. Humans will run out. We NEED renewable energy and if we aren’t positioned to switch when it does run out, we are well and truly fucked.

Expand full comment
Mark Gilman's avatar

Trying to make green energy the default source in favor of fossil fuels is a foolish strategy for the immediate future. The so-called urgency to avoid global warming is a way of giving government waaay too much control of our lives. Let fossil fuels remain the primary source while green energy develops technological improvements such as superior batteries.

The so called "natural" evolution of "universal fuel change" is far from secure. It took several decades for the United States to shift from horse power to gasoline took quite a while... from the late 1800s to the 1930s. Even with a speeding up of such a process now will need to be slowed a bit from the government mandates until 2035.

More time for the earlier mentioned changes in technology in infrastructure and hardware are critical. There is no need to make the citizenry deal with monstrous fossil fuel price increases. If such slowing is not provided... it could be that both movements could be flushed down the toilet.

There is good reason that both sides remain suspicious of each other. The way you present your case is short on evidence and short on scientific reasoning. I would love to see electric power to work--but frankly, it would allow not reduced costs when most electric power is generated by fossil fuels. The lack of common sense on the left has many Americans saying rightfully that the so-called democratic socialists are dishonest about what they stand for.

A majority vote seems to be non-existent. And this is an issue that needs vocal support on both sides. Don't see it happening, especially with the bad science being utilized on the left. The promise of green energy doesn't llne-up with the actual science of green energy. Honesty has to happen. And the team really pushing to be "true" is the one with solely the financial control... the left.

Expand full comment
It’s in the bio's avatar

Comment threads are generally not forums for presentations of evidence. That is what peer review is for. This is just commenting on the fact that fossil fuels are neither renewable nor clean. They serve their purpose now, but we need to be preparing for phasing them out either by way of technological advances in the energy industry or by way of simply running out/running so low the cost becomes prohibitive.

The expectation is a global population of nearing 12 billion in less than a century. The current demands on fossil fuels are more than is being extracted. That is with 8 billion. 4 billion will scale utilization and power needs exponentially. Especially with the advent of AI and intelligent machines which will require even more power.

It’s time to face facts that the world is repay evolving and while we can’t and shouldn’t transition now, we should be looking at how we can as soon as possible.

Expand full comment
Mark Gilman's avatar

I always have to ask who are you identifying as "the foremost experts?" Sources I have read identify fossil fuel supplies available are between 100 and 200 years, yet so called "green energy" folks want to drop it all together in order to have cleaner burning energy, while denying the problems with creating green energy devices that also harm the planet, through strip mining and other practices never addressed by the left-leaning scientists.

An article from 2013 claims that the world will never actually run out of fossil fuels., warning that continued temp increases are the real concern--even if that rise is also debated by scientist in terms of how big the increase is from year to year.

"...in recent years, the size of U.S. reserves has actually grown (by more than a third since 2011), primarily as a result of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) technologies that enable economical access to oil and gas deposits trapped in underground rock formations."

"Oil companies, gas companies and the federal government collectively invest billions of dollars each year in research and development to create new fossil fuel technologies. The state of the art will continue to advance, enabling economical access to new reserves well into or beyond the 21st century." Jeffrey Rissman, policy analyst at Energy Innovation: Policy and Technology.

https://www.livescience.com/37469-fuel-endures.html

Expand full comment
Greg Halvorson Blog's avatar

He doesn't care — facts and reality are meaningless to authoritarian leftists.

Expand full comment
Mark Gilman's avatar

Yeah... yet I still try to use a little logic.

Expand full comment
It’s in the bio's avatar

The experts in this case are the worldometer, the Energy Information Administration and other scientists.

This data is tracked and measured. At best, assuming no additional population growth and no additional usage above present trends, it’s estimated the reserves will last appx 47 years.

If however the average usage continues along the known trajectory, it is estimated we will run out by 2050. The science of knowing this isn’t based on guessing. It’s based on the same sort of anticipation algorithms built on differential equations. I know there is a consensus in the far right that inconvenient realities are fake news and you’re free to reject it if you want, but the facts remain there is a finite amount of reserves that will expire in the lifetimes of some people(the younger population)

Expand full comment
Mark Gilman's avatar

I see... so your minority "majority" uses accurate numbers based on "anticipation algorithms built on differential equations." No real explanations in terms of explaining the that terms you provided--just trust us.... the view by leftist scientists all believing in climate change dogma... that refuses to address inconsistencies in their own religious science.

Anticipation algorithms, and differential equations--more of the same guessing... Anticipation means "what we expect." That isn't science, and your "theoretical" views being called "facts" shows it is your side that thinks guessing is factual.

You are focused on making the climate change "timeline" viewpoint factual--yet refuses to embrace the varying supply levels of fossil fuels that are still accessible. There remains as many as 200 years of fuel supplies--or more.

Leftist scientists are the ones with inconvenient "realities." The stubborn adherence to climate change's warming deadline runs counter to the changing deadline for irreversible climate global issues. (Ask AOC or Greta Thunberg about when the globe reaches the "point of no return.").

The very fact that you defend your theory while absorbing conclusions that some of your predictions have been wrong is smothered in double-talk about "average usage continues along the known trajectory."

The right-leaning viewpoint has always dealt with and focused on whether or not petroleum reserves globally remain steady or not. In fact, the projected reserves for the future remain between 100 years to 200 years--far beyond the lifetimes of most Americans. If there is any speculation on the right, it would be that technological advances will help to improve petroleum based mileage over time.

The decision by the Biden administration to shutdown American oil production at the start of the presidential term, and Biden's continued refusal to keep oil companies bond by anti-exploration policies show that the climate change science is firmly entrenched in the political realm--like it or not.

Enjoy your political advantage for the moment.

Expand full comment
It’s in the bio's avatar

Do you know how fighter jets track each other? Do you know how the stock exchange works and trading? Do you know how city planning engineers create the patterns for traffic lights?

I’m not going to explain differential equations in depths here because it is high level graduate math. I dabbled in college. A lot of it is way over my head in fact. But there are some content creators that I watch that do deep dives into these and explain how the math we learned is applied in the real world.

You say it’s nonsense and that’s fine. I see so often the maddening position on the right that theory means no one knows. That the right wing just out of hand dismisses what they don’t want to believe. It’s among the most cowardly things in life - ah, an inconvenient truth, therefore I reject it because I’ve found fringe evidence that the norm is a lie. I digress.

OPEC and those monitoring the currently disagree with what you and this OP have stated. There is not an endless supply of oil and gas reserves. The world is using more than is added to reserves everyday. This isn’t like that fable about the endless fish and bread in the Bible or wherever that’s from. It doesn’t just replenish itself.

No one is saying switch immediately. But we need to be heavily invested into the development of these alternative sources because the day is rapidly approaching when the reserves will be too low, the cost will adjust too high, and the petroleum heyday is behind us. It’s really that simple. You can accept or reject it and whether you do or don’t isn’t actually material or relevant. It’s similar to flat earthers. Believe it’s flat if you want to. That’s your right. But you’re still wrong in the end.

Expand full comment
Greg Halvorson Blog's avatar

That is flat out false…, Known oil and gas deposits FAR exceed 100 years. Fact.

Expand full comment
It’s in the bio's avatar

I mean, you’re free to say it’s flat out false if you want. But that doesn’t change anything.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/

There are an estimated 1.755billion barrels of oil in reserve. Global consumption of oil is currently estimated at roughly 96.5 million barrels per day. According to OPEC, global demand is expected to reach 109 million barrels per day.

While it’s possible we could continue to drill the facts are this: 1) we don’t know where pockets are reserves are or if they exist. 2) if they do exist they will be the result of deeper and more dangerous drilling, and therefore will become more expensive to the point it is no longer a viable source. Like mining diamond from a meteor or something.

Let’s say very very best case you’re right (which you aren’t) - that means in 100 years we run out anyway. You’re treating fossil fuels like it is an unending and renewable source. It’s not. It will absolutely run out. What then? What happens when it does? Humanity needs to be positioned to lean in to renewable resources like solar, wind, nuclear and others which are not only renewable but cleaner.

Expand full comment