The unfortunate problem is that there is no current alternative to oil...Solar, wind, and wave power can make contributions but the infrastructure and maintenance required make these unrealistic alternatives.
Solar, wind, etc. are MORE EXPENSIVE than burning oil for energy, at least when you don't take the hidden environmental and social costs into account (as our current social structure doesn't). This does not mean that those alternative forms of energy are "UNREALISTIC," just that in order to start using them on a large scale we would need to make a social adjustment.
Yes, there would be consequences from making such an adjustment. We might need to drive smaller cars or use public transportation more; pay more for electricity and for goods that take a lot of energy to manufacture, etc.
But there will also be consequences from continuing to rely on oil. Doing so sends tens of billions of dollars every year to our deadliest enemies (Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya) who use the money to finance terrorism and develop weapons of mass destruction. If these weapons should one day be used against us, they could cost the world tens or hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars worth of damages, and tens of millions of lost lives. The chances of this actually happening are substantial, and are substantially enhanced by our providing our enemies with tens of billions of dollars each year.
The environmental risks are also significant. There is at least a significant possibility that our continued use of oil would contribute significantly to changing the global climate in ways that could be catastrophic.
As I said in my original post, making the transition would be wrenching in the short term, but highly beneficial in the long term. The question is, would it be worth it? Since I don't care so much about driving an SUV, and I do care about avoiding arming our enemies and seeing our coastal cities flooded, for me, the answer is obvious.
Imagine an escaped virus destroying the Earth's oil reserves and its whole industrial potential?
Such a bug, were it possible to develop, would be a boon to mankind and the West in particular. Destroying the earth's oil wouldn't destroy our industrial potential, just force us to switch to the many other available energy sources a few decades sooner than we otherwise might (since the oil supply will be used up eventually in any case).
Obviously the transition would be wrenching, but the benefits would be great. Global warming and air pollution would be greatly reduced, and, equally critically, the vast revenues that currently accrue to countries that are net exporters of oil would end. Since most of these revenues go to countries that are strategic competitors of the west and supporters of terrorism (Iraq, Saudi Arabia), ending them would be a good thing for us.
Slashdot Mirror
Solar, wind, etc. are MORE EXPENSIVE than burning oil for energy, at least when you don't take the hidden environmental and social costs into account (as our current social structure doesn't). This does not mean that those alternative forms of energy are "UNREALISTIC," just that in order to start using them on a large scale we would need to make a social adjustment.
Yes, there would be consequences from making such an adjustment. We might need to drive smaller cars or use public transportation more; pay more for electricity and for goods that take a lot of energy to manufacture, etc.
But there will also be consequences from continuing to rely on oil. Doing so sends tens of billions of dollars every year to our deadliest enemies (Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya) who use the money to finance terrorism and develop weapons of mass destruction. If these weapons should one day be used against us, they could cost the world tens or hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars worth of damages, and tens of millions of lost lives. The chances of this actually happening are substantial, and are substantially enhanced by our providing our enemies with tens of billions of dollars each year.
The environmental risks are also significant. There is at least a significant possibility that our continued use of oil would contribute significantly to changing the global climate in ways that could be catastrophic.
As I said in my original post, making the transition would be wrenching in the short term, but highly beneficial in the long term. The question is, would it be worth it? Since I don't care so much about driving an SUV, and I do care about avoiding arming our enemies and seeing our coastal cities flooded, for me, the answer is obvious.
Such a bug, were it possible to develop, would be a boon to mankind and the West in particular. Destroying the earth's oil wouldn't destroy our industrial potential, just force us to switch to the many other available energy sources a few decades sooner than we otherwise might (since the oil supply will be used up eventually in any case).
Obviously the transition would be wrenching, but the benefits would be great. Global warming and air pollution would be greatly reduced, and, equally critically, the vast revenues that currently accrue to countries that are net exporters of oil would end. Since most of these revenues go to countries that are strategic competitors of the west and supporters of terrorism (Iraq, Saudi Arabia), ending them would be a good thing for us.