English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

World oil production has already peaked and will fall by half as soon as 2030, according to a report which also warns that extreme shortages of fossil fuels will lead to wars and social breakdown.
"The world soon will not be able to produce all the oil it needs as demand is rising while supply is falling. This is a huge problem for the world economy," said Hans-Josef Fell, EWG's founder and the German MP behind the country's successful support system for renewable energy.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,2196435,00.html
Mexico has just recently came clean and admitted they are headed into an oil crisis and the peso steadily falls against the dollar.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/22/bloomberg/bxatm.php?WT.mc_id=rssbloomberg
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=79942

2007-10-23 13:22:10 · 11 answers · asked by Enigma 6 in Politics & Government Politics

11 answers

One would think this issue would have been handled....oh....back in 1973. However, a total lack of political will has left the US in a precarious position. Other countries - especially in Europe - are consistently moving away from individual transportation (the auto) to mass transit. But here, because our political system is owned by corporate concerns, we keep on driving like there is no tomorrow. But soon enough we will rue our folly. Biofuel won't help. Tar sands and oil shale - won't even come close. We are in for a world of hurt very very soon. Read the link. It's bad.

2007-10-23 13:30:39 · answer #1 · answered by spay&neuter-all-republicans 3 · 3 0

The Hubbert Oil Curve indicates that we somewhere near the peak production for oil.

2016-04-10 00:52:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Canada has tar sands and the US has mountains of oil shale that can be used to produce oil but are only economically viable at a relatively high price (near where we are now). They have the additional problem that they require more energy for refining, so development will contribute to environmental problems. Renewable energy would be ideal but expensive oil sources are available and are a better alternative than wars and social breakdown, Things are rarely as bad as pessimist claim they will be nor are the as good as their detractors claim. Mostly we just muddle through.

2007-10-23 13:39:30 · answer #3 · answered by meg 7 · 2 0

The same concerns were expressed by the Club of Rome in the early 1970's. Those reports sighted that the decline of oil production and the shortage of natural resources would lead to world wide famine the end of all industry by 1990. People seem to forget that every time we encounter these kinds of reports, it isn't long after that we develop new technology that decreases the usage of these natural resources and therefore, the predictions which are greatly exaggerated in the first place, never come true.

2007-10-23 13:32:37 · answer #4 · answered by big_dreamer2005 2 · 0 1

It is time for the government to realize we are sitting on enough coal and new techology to cleanly burn it to completely put OPEC out of business. We have enough coal to last until new sources of renewable energy can be perfected. And lets quit this Ethanol lie. I come from a farm family and I can tell you two things even a "dumb country hick farmer knows". 1. Ethanol does not burn cleaner than gas. and 2. The lie about price is just that, the only people making money are the oil companies - they own the ethanol refineries like ADM - the farmer will never make any more money than he/she does now. But, "us dumb country hick farmers" especially down here in So. Illinois happen to be sitting on one of the largest coal deposits in the country. We would MORE than gladly let you "long wall" or strip mine or what ever to get "our" minerals. We would finally get a decent amount of money for living. Long walling and strip mining can often result in not only mineral leases for our families but often the companies buy the top ground also. Enough for our families to raise our living standards to more comparable levels with the rest of the country. Afterwards, the ground can be re-sourced back into usable property or NOW LISTEN TO THIS GREEN LOVERS --it could become huge amounts of new state and national parkland. You really want to see America seriously work towards GREEN - then the PEOPLE better start thniking about the COAL and NATURAL GAS we already own that can last until true renewable and clean energy can be developed. This carbon credit crap "ain't gonna cut it"

2007-10-23 21:06:17 · answer #5 · answered by Gabriel Archangel 3 · 0 1

Well if peak oil is here, then what difference does it make if the government admits it. Currently there is not a viable replacement and we're far from finding one. Unless we're ready to crank out the coal again or build nuclear plants. I'm sure that will be opposed. The other sources are not ready for large scale use.

2007-10-23 13:37:43 · answer #6 · answered by JohnFromNC 7 · 3 0

The oil shortage is BS, we have at least 300 yrs worth of oil in known deposits. Tearing up and destroying pristine wilderness that would take hundreds of years to regain in order to extract 1 yrs worth of oil is short sighted and stupid.
The real reason for the brouhaha is a) profit, and b) global warming.
Never forget the record profits the oil companies are raking in hand over fist. Or the fact that global warming is going to cause killer storms that will cut into profits.

2007-10-23 13:33:31 · answer #7 · answered by texansis 4 · 2 1

Well it explains the sudden interest in alternative fuels.
They now have the very best scientists in the country (possibly the world) working on this issue.
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2007/biofuel.html

2007-10-23 13:27:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

This survey did not include oil from coil or shall oil which is now cheaper to make than natural oil is per barrel. Oil traders need oil to be scarce. Don't fall for the BS.

2007-10-23 13:26:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Part of the reason is the limits put on oil companies to drill in different places, like the permafrost in Alaska. Which is basically a wasteland but has oil, but, cannot be drilled to due to, regulations.

2007-10-23 13:26:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers