Comments on: The Energy Crisis of 2007

By: JJ Joseph

JJ Joseph — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 08:07:29 +0000

Anyone with enough patience to sit through Al Gore's nonsense on global warming has my admiration. Rarely has the world seen such unsubstantiated rubbish marketed as 'science', and rarely has the world seen so many gullible diletantes lining up to take it all in. My only observation is that Gore's vain and deceitful piffle only confuses and muddies any rational discussion of energy issues, as you can plainly see from the mindless comments of his socialist claque!

By: fire2

fire2 — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 04:54:20 +0000

Dan Denning,
This was a real surprise coming from you as I was a former subscriber to one of your newsletters and I had a much better opnion of you.
The fact that you cannot appreciate a simple fact and you demean the man who has always spent his time trying to advocate changes to protect the environment, shows that I was indeed better off cancelling. Shell recently acknowledged global warming was a real threat citing"98% of scientists agree". But of course you have 18 phds and a brain from Krypton and hence know that we are headed for the ice age in 10 years right?

By: Dagny Gromer

Dagny Gromer — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:40:47 +0000

It took about 100 years for the oil based economy/civilization to reach its present state, and will likely take at least half that long for the decay phase. Peak Oil does not mean there will be none, rather it says production will start to decline. Econ 101 says this will drive the price up until some demand is destroyed, resulting is a lower standard of living.
The real threat is goverment response to all this, which I fear will be authoritarian and draconian.

By: John

John — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 13:16:18 +0000

Why does everyone automatically assume a slight rise in tempatures is going to be a disaster of biblical proportions. There have been other times, in recent history mind you, where the earth has warmed and it seems there was no mass die off. See the Viking settlements in Greenland for example. There is no doubt that the tempatures have risen lately. Whether this is part of a normal cycle or not is the question. The disturbing part is how the statists like Al Gore have jumped on the subject as way to advance their personal agendas for higher office. Why is the answer from these statists always more government control?

By: Roderick McGahon

Roderick McGahon — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:47:15 +0000

rebellious liberals that you are...one hint of authority and
out comes grandmother sucking eggs!!!!!

By: jerry verducci

jerry verducci — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 07:23:56 +0000

I was at first appalled at your article and depiction of Al Gore. Mr. "T" has an expression which best describes my second reaction to your comments-" I Pity The Fool". But, you cant blame folks when they just dont have the common sense to comprehend the big picture. The like of Georgy Boy Bush and his henchman 'Old Baldy' the oil man, have blown alot of smoke up Americas wazu. The republican arch type of being on the gymmee and more interested in the ' the take' than ' the give', u know, me me me. You sir are nothing but a self serving bird of a feather. This earth that sustains us was not put here, evolved over millions of years, to serve only us. You are in a word most descriptive in nature, an ingrate. The entire world sits on a precipice, our fiendish addiction and exploitation of this marvel of a planet, all will go down in history,( to be read by some martian because we wont be here any more) as a civilization of people to instinctively lazy and selfish, to use their God given abilities to correct their mistakes. If you did your home work young man, you would see that you missed something. Your attitude of having all the answeres and none of the questions is obvious. Al Gore on the otherhand would be the first one to tell you, that though he doesnt have all the answeres, at least he has the open mind, unswayed by washington lobbyists, and whether he runs or not, knows what it means to be of service to his country. As far as I can tell, there may be a company on the brink of something major. Thanks to the Aquatic Species Program, Petro Sun Inc. and the folks at M.I.T.are giving its all to bring Microalgae to the table. It is capable of producing the cleaner burning fuel at 30 times greater than ethanol without putting a strain on agriculture for food.And their close to the production of a viable product that just might replace oil and gas as a fuel. Someone out there cares whether their grandchildren see the stars at night for future generations and is willing to do what it takes, not sitting on their collective butts playing the violin or stickin their heads in the sand.

By: David Loneragan

David Loneragan — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 02:59:58 +0000

Concerning China's purchase of the Kazakhstan oil field, with "proven reserves of over 340m barrels", I'm sure you're aware that if the world is using 84m b/d, this represents 4 days supply, or 16 days supply for the US. I'm no expert, but it seems to me they'll need to be seeking "overseas energy assets" a lot more aggressively than this in the future........

By: stewart rendell

stewart rendell — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 02:36:28 +0000

yuo are right , but aust. and in particular vic. govts drag there feet on biofuels. bracks election platform was for 400 million litres biofuels in the system by 2010. from where? aust. exports starch ( in the form of wheat and barley) not oil ( in the form of canola or soyabean ) therfore the fous must be on ethanol and the production of ethanol in the regional areas. let us see how all levels of govt. handle the next oil spike.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 02:29:39 +0000

Dan,

Not having been to the LaTrobe Valley, I don't know how the brown coal units there look, but in NSW and Qld, the only thing you can see coming out of the power stations is steam from cooling towers. So in a sense, by efficient use of technology and selective coal use, Australian consumers are minimising SOx and NOx emissions already. And they still enjoy competitive electricity tariffs.

CO2 is another big question, and it looks like the political imperative will demand a response in the current political cycle, even if some of us remain 'quizical' about the science and climate prognostications.

One forecast I can confidently make is that the cost of carbon mitigation in whatever form will ultimately be born by joe-schmuck consumer/taxpayer, no matter where the cost is applied in the process.

And if you really want your libertarian credentials challenged, have a look at the serious proposals from the UK Environment Minister for implementation of individual carbon rationing by use of smart cards. This is being touted as easy and equitable encouragement to frugal energy and hence carbon use.

Frankly I can think of no better way to impose a totalitarian system by stealth than to implement a rationing system for energy and products and services dependent on energy, centrally monitored by Big Brother. The chaps from Barclay's Wealth may be less pessimistic than you think.

Rgds
Kevin

By: Zeke Putnam

Zeke Putnam — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 01:07:13 +0000

I've watched Al Gore's presentations. Odd, I appreciated someone attempting to present an issue that is, typically, trivalized as you have done. Many millions of the people watching it don't have the sophistication you apparently have. Far, far too many people are treating global warming and insufficient energy supplies as an issue that will be solved with simple solutions and we can all go on living happily ever after. Frankly, your thinly disguised cynicism tells where your opinions lie.