# Commuting Cyclists Decrease the Carbon Footprint



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

Fossil fuel is a non-renewable resource. That means that once that energy resource has become completely exhausted, it will exist no longer. That will spell the end of life as we currently know it, today. The world now consumes over 95 million barrels of crude oil per day. There are 42 gallons of crude oil contained in one barrel. However, only about 10% of that crude oil can actually be distilled and refined into gasoline for motor vehicles. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to determine our ultimate human fate, if we continue on our current course of fossil fuel dependence.

As our Carbon footprint increases, the life light of future humanity dims. The world will become gradually warmer. Ice caps will continue to melt and recede at an alarming rate. Human existence will drastically decline as the rate of ecosystem change, will be greater than the rate of human adaptation.

Let's all hope that the cycling community continues to increase and that we will continue to do our part by commuting by bicycle more often, and encouraging others to do the same. Let's decrease our Carbon footprint.


----------



## Chris_T (May 7, 2007)

Carbon frames aren't great for commuting anyway.


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

Chris_T said:


> Carbon frames aren't great for commuting anyway.


 :cryin:


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

Zeet said:


> Let's all hope that the cycling community continues to increase and that we will continue to do our part by commuting more often and encouraging others to do the same. Let's decrease our Carbon footprint.


Some Republicans will dispute this


----------



## chudak (Jul 28, 2012)

Deleted


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

Kerry Irons said:


> Some Republicans will dispute this


_Yet, most claim to be pro-life!_


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

Zeet said:


> Human existence will drastically decline as the rate ecosystem change, will be greater than the rate of human adaptation.


we can always hope so...it's the only real fix.


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

Oxtox said:


> we can always hope so...it's the only real fix.



Somewhere in your karmic future, I predict serial catastrophes!


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

Reducing air pollution and conserving energy are some of the many reasons that I commute. It also saves me gas money, parking fees and reduces the wear-and-tear on my vehicle. My biggest reasons for commuting, however, are that it provides an easy way to ride more on weekdays and stay fit.

BTW, the website that I use to track my cycling mileage (My Cycling Log) also calculates your "CO2 emissions," or the lbs of CO2 emissions that you avoided by commuting. My total is 12.89 tons since I started bike commuting 6 years ago.


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

tarwheel2 said:


> Reducing air pollution and conserving energy are some of the many reasons that I commute. It also saves me gas money, parking fees and reduces the wear-and-tear on my vehicle. My biggest reasons for commuting, however, are that it provides an easy way to ride more on weekdays and stay fit.
> 
> BTW, the website that I use to track my cycling mileage (My Cycling Log) also calculates your "CO2 emissions," or the lbs of CO2 emissions that you avoided by commuting. My total is 12.89 tons since I started bike commuting 6 years ago.


Good for you, Tarwheel2! :thumbsup:

Now if we could only convince a billion more people...


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

My car saw 1,000 miles last year and got washed twice. I commuted over 6,500 miles last year by bicycle and saved over $1,400 dollars in bus fair. I think between tires/tubes and chains, I put $400 into the commute bike. I ride with a pretty dedicated group of lads that logged over 65,000 miles in 2012. We're pretty proud of that. I get the OP and am trying to do my part. Just saw Chasing Ice last night and am even more dedicated to my commute now!!

It's worth finding and renting:
Chasing Ice


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

Fogdweller said:


> My car saw 1,000 miles last year and got washed twice. I commuted over 6,500 miles last year by bicycle and saved over $1,400 dollars in bus fair. I think between tires/tubes and chains, I put $400 into the commute bike. I ride with a pretty dedicated group of lads that logged over 65,000 miles in 2012. We're pretty proud of that. I get the OP and am trying to do my part. Just saw Chasing Ice last night and am even more dedicated to my commute now!!


The world needs more of us who are willing to commit to health, environmental concerns, and our futures. We are supposed to be the guardians of our ecosystem, not the destroyers of it!

I thank you for your cycling contribution, my friend!


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

Zeet said:


> As our Carbon footprint increases, the life light of future humanity dims. The world will become gradually warmer. Ice caps will continue to melt and recede at an alarming rate. Human existence will drastically decline as the rate of ecosystem change, will be greater than the rate of human adaptation.


I'm with you on commuting (I do 22km each way to/from school twice per week). I wouldn't be so sure on the human adaptation thing though- we are right up there with rats and cockroaches. Population will likely decline (which would be good) but I don't see the species' existence in peril.


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

Bill2 said:


> I'm with you on commuting (I do 22km each way to/from school twice per week). I wouldn't be so sure on the human adaptation thing though- we are right up there with rats and cockroaches. Population will likely decline (which would be good) but I don't see the species' existence in peril.


Hopefully, you're correct, and the Wheel of Samsara will more resemble a roulette wheel than the one that doles out our collective karmic future.

Thank you for both recognizing and playing a more responsible role in this most important environmental ordeal.


----------



## Art853 (May 30, 2003)

Implementing end-use energy efficiency along with clean energy and reducing the emissions of global warming pollutants is the most important issue of our time.

I'm not concerned, however, about our world supplies of fossil fuels. We have enough fossil fuels to destroy a livable climate a few times over. 

Now at 395 ppm CO2 today and rising fast! 280 ppm CO2 pre industrial age.
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

A few helpful links about climate and global warming.

RealClimate: Keystone XL: Game over?

RealClimate: Start here

Climate Progress | ThinkProgress

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined


----------



## mustang1 (Feb 7, 2008)

I thought buildings (air conditioning/ventilation/computing needs/lighting/heating etc) causes a higher carbon footprint than motor vehicles do.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

mustang1 said:


> I thought buildings (air conditioning/ventilation/computing needs/lighting/heating etc) causes a higher carbon footprint than motor vehicles do.


Spoil-Sport


----------



## dirttorpedo (Feb 20, 2009)

Art853 said:


> Implementing end-use energy efficiency along with clean energy and reducing the emissions of global warming pollutants is the most important issue of our time.
> 
> I'm not concerned, however, about our world supplies of fossil fuels. We have enough fossil fuels to destroy a livable climate a few times over.
> 
> ...


It would depend on the source of the electricity and heat for the buildings, but if its wood, gas, coal, or oil they probably do emit more carbon. For most people deciding if they are going to drive alone, car pool, take transit, walk or ride a bike for transportation is more within their controll.


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

Art853 said:


> Implementing end-use energy efficiency along with clean energy and reducing the emissions of global warming pollutants is the most important issue of our time.
> 
> I'm not concerned, however, about our world supplies of fossil fuels. We have enough fossil fuels to destroy a livable climate a few times over.
> 
> ...


You're most probably correct about our nonrenewable energy resource of fossil fuels. However, the fact that the supply is limited merely highlights the urgency of human intervention with respect to our comprehensive world restrictive use of coal and petroleum. Most energy plants in American still use coal as a major energy source. This method continues to release all kinds of toxic gases and pollutants, including mercury, which is ruining the marine ecosystem, along with our food chain. That's not to mention the tons of CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere that is currently contributing to global warming.


You're a great person Art, and I feel honored sharing the planet with you!

Loved this post, and thanks for the links! :thumbsup:


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

mustang1 said:


> I thought buildings (air conditioning/ventilation/computing needs/lighting/heating etc) causes a higher carbon footprint than motor vehicles do.


True. That's why we must urgently search for alternative methods of clean energy distribution. Meanwhile, cycling is just one more drop in the bucket of atmospheric CO2 and pollution reduction.


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

dirttorpedo said:


> It would depend on the source of the electricity and heat for the buildings, but if its wood, gas, coal, or oil they probably do emit more carbon. For most people deciding if they are going to drive alone, car pool, take transit, walk or ride a bike for transportation is more within their controll.


This is oh so true, DirtTorpedo!

Thanks! :thumbsup:


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

Zeet said:


> . Most energy plants in American still use coal as a major energy source.


Not quite the majority, but coal is still the biggest source. From the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Energy sources and percent share of total for electricity generation in 2011:
•Coal 42%
•Natural Gas 25%
•Nuclear 19%
•Hydropower 8%
•Other Renewable 5% 
•Biomass 1.38%
•Geothermal 0.41%
•Solar 0.04%
•Wind 2.92%
•Petroleum 1%
•Other Gases < 1%

Many developing countries, especially China, depend even more heavily on coal, the dirtiest energy source. There's a lot of work to be done.


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

JCavilia said:


> Not quite the majority, but coal is still the biggest source. From the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
> 
> Energy sources and percent share of total for electricity generation in 2011:
> •Coal 42%
> ...


Quite true, JCavilia!

We truly appear to be in over our heads in impending environmental detriment. I sometimes wish we could depend upon some kinda divine outside force, to saves us from certain peril.

However, I am always left with the thought that we are here alone to fend for ourselves. It is therefore incumbent upon the human species to unite, plan, and work together as an organic machine of precision, as we strike continual blows to the backwards, pollutive, and ignorant technology that provides energy to the world's population today. 

Thank you for your contribution, my friend! :thumbsup:


----------



## dirttorpedo (Feb 20, 2009)

I was very pleased to see in the paper recently that the costs of equipment for solar and wind power generation has decreased so far that the cost of generating clean energy is now very competitive with other high carbon emitting sources. Unfortunately there appears to have been a possibly related drop in the rate of development of green power generation projects.


----------



## tom93r1 (Jul 19, 2009)

dirttorpedo said:


> I was very pleased to see in the paper recently that the costs of equipment for solar and wind power generation has decreased so far that the cost of generating clean energy is now very competitive with other high carbon emitting sources. Unfortunately there appears to have been a possibly related drop in the rate of development of green power generation projects.


Did that article say if the competitive cost was a result of government subsidies or is green power actually competitive on it's own now? I wonder because I am seriously considering solar panels for the house, a paid in full up front 20 year lease seems to be the best thing going right now. I just wonder how much government kickback the solar companies get to make that possible


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

You can decrease your carbon foot print even more if you walk instead of riding a bike; for you see, the carbon foot print to make your bike is quite a bit larger then making a pair of walking shoes, not to mention the constant chain oiling, tire replacements, and parts replacements. So if you really want to be the anti global warming hero stop riding your bike and walk.


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

froze said:


> You can decrease your carbon foot print even more if you walk instead of riding a bike; for you see, the carbon foot print to make your bike is quite a bit larger then making a pair of walking shoes, not to mention the constant chain oiling, tire replacements, and parts replacements. So if you really want to be the anti global warming hero stop riding your bike and walk.


I wouldn't refer to people who are merely environmentally concerned, as "heroes". To some, your statement here could be interpreted as being sarcastic. However, I do see the truth in your statement, because our technological assault upon the ecosystem does indeed appear to be profoundly irreversible. Perhaps working to remove one quill from a victim who has been attacked by a million porcupines seems just a tad too futile for certain members or our population. That is indeed comprehensible. However, that would also convey a pessimistic attitude. An attitude that tends to cast a shadow upon the entire future of our kind. I, on the other hand, would prefer to remain optimistic, by thinking, acting, working, and truly believing that there is certain hope for our childrens' children. A hope that humanity has not sewn the seeds of absolute and total destruction upon our own species. A hope that profound stupity has not been the singular gene marker that confirms our own DNA, as the type of life forms we truly represent, as humans. Unlike some, I truly abhor the feeling of shame.

Thank you for your very thought-provoking comment, Froze...


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

dirttorpedo said:


> I was very pleased to see in the paper recently that the costs of equipment for solar and wind power generation has decreased so far that the cost of generating clean energy is now very competitive with other high carbon emitting sources. Unfortunately there appears to have been a possibly related drop in the rate of development of green power generation projects.


Since energy can be transformed. All forms of sustainable energy generated with minimal negative impact upon the ecosystem can be consisered as "green". Therefore, any advancement in one form of "green" energy production can be interpreted as an advancement in them all, in my opinion.

Therefore, Bravo to our side, anyway! :thumbsup:


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Zeet said:


> I wouldn't refer to people who are merely environmentally concerned, as "heroes". To some, your statement here could be interpreted as being sarcastic. However, I do see the truth in your statement, ..


It was both, sarcasm and truth. It's kind of like a guy I met at a Target store soliciting signatures to prevent the killing of animals for food, clothing etc. I asked him if he was wearing anything at all that came from an animal, which he proudly said no, to which I replied Great, so all that man made fabrics that took tons of oil to produce that will then set in landfills for thousands of years is better then animal hides that take very little oil and will decay in a land fill in about a year is somehow better for the environment and the carbon footprint? Then we get to eat the animal where the hide came for leather shoes for food but we can't eat where the plastic shoe came from. He looked at me dumbfounded with about a dozen or so people standing around trying to sign the petition all looking the same way. I waited for him to speak, and when he didn't I asked what he was thinking, he said he didn't know what to say!

I think a lot of people get into this stuff about carbon footprint and don't realize that they don't even know what that means and how much they actually use. Not saying to be reckless but when someone "proudly" exclaims their reducing their carbon foot print when in reality if they were really serious about it they would walk and then be at least more honest in their proclamations.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

froze said:


> ...animal hides that take very little oil and will decay in a land fill in about a year.../QUOTE]
> 
> modern landfills are designed to allow minimal levels of air and moisture to contact the contents which greatly reduces the rate at which things degrade.
> 
> your animal hides will still be intact decades from now.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

froze said:


> You can decrease your carbon foot print even more if you walk instead of riding a bike; for you see, the carbon foot print to make your bike is quite a bit larger then making a pair of walking shoes, not to mention the constant chain oiling, tire replacements, and parts replacements. So if you really want to be the anti global warming hero stop riding your bike and walk.


Though I get your point, I'm not sure the math actually works that way. You have to calculate more than simply the manufacturing effort, but also the life of the mechanism and the efficiency of the activity. Certainly it takes more energy to manufacture a bike than a pair of shoes, but my bike has gone more than 20,000 and could easily go that much more. If I walked 20,000 I'd probably wear out 10 pairs of shoes, if not more. And even tires, which last 3000 miles or so, last longer than a typical pair of shoes.

And because of the greater efficiency of the bicycle (3-4 times the distance with comparable effort compared to walking), walking a given distance will require more food, respiration, etc. than cycling, thus re-balancing that equation a little.

Anyway, I think the important point is not to compare fine points of one form of human-powered locomotion and another, but to recognize that there is some impact from large changes. Compared to driving solo in a car, cycling or walking or taking public transportation will reduce your impact on the environment. It would be good to structure things so that more people would do that.

My daily bike commuting does not, I will have to admit, reduce my metaphorical carbon footprint, because I'd most likely take public transportation otherwise, rather than drive. 

On mornings after a rain, my Sidis do leave actual carbon footprints in my driveway, but that's not really relevant.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Oxtox said:


> froze said:
> 
> 
> > ...animal hides that take very little oil and will decay in a land fill in about a year.../QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

froze said:


> Oxtox said:
> 
> 
> > Even if it takes decades, say 5, which I know it won't, but just for argument sakes it takes 50 years, is that better then 1,000's of years for various plastics? I guess so according to you.
> ...


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

froze said:


> _* It was both, sarcasm and truth...
> *__*
> I think a lot of people get into this stuff about carbon footprint and don't realize that they don't even know what that means and how much they actually use. Not saying to be reckless but when someone "proudly" exclaims their reducing their carbon foot print when in reality if they were really serious about it they would walk and then be at least more honest in their proclamations.*_


 I don't really see the need for sarcasm, when it's fairly plain to see that our children's future is at stake here. That really means that the entire future of humanity is imperiled due to our own ignorance being constantly expressed via our obtrusive chemical interferrence with nature. 

I predict that there will come a time in the not too distant future, when all will become much more concerned about balance within our ecosystems, and sarcasm will appear to be more like an insult to existing environmental injury.

At this time, wealth, greed, and financial power, seems to drive all of our thinking (or not thinking) and we appear to be collectively helpless concerning our environmental ordeal. It's like we're pebbles compacted within a rolling snowball down a snow covered mountain. We just keep gaining mass (ignorance) and inertia (complacency) as we continue to roll in time, as we get closer and closer to our most inevitable end.

Sorta reminds me of a story where a driver becomes asleep at the wheel, crosses over the line, as he then suddenly realizes that just about fifty yards ahead, an 18 wheeler is quickly approaching. Instead of remaining calm, cerebral, and methodically reactive by dodging the truck, he simply places his hands over his eyes and awaits his fate.

_...Just like the proverbial Ostrich who buries his head in the sand..._


----------



## andleo (May 30, 2009)

tom93r1 said:


> Did that article say if the competitive cost was a result of government subsidies or is green power actually competitive on it's own now? I wonder because I am seriously considering solar panels for the house, a paid in full up front 20 year lease seems to be the best thing going right now. I just wonder how much government kickback the solar companies get to make that possible


That would be tricky to determine because you would have to factor in subsidies for coal, oil, gas and etc into the equation.


----------



## andleo (May 30, 2009)

I live in Santa Cruz, CA. To drive to work on the weekend or early am it takes 8-10 min however to get to work at 8am on a weekday it takes 20 min and to get home it takes 40 min at times. Riding my bike on weekdays is a no brainier, it takes less time, has less stress and the commute is enjoyable.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Oxtox said:


> froze said:
> 
> 
> > not really arguing over the use of animal products, just correcting your concept of how landfills work.
> ...


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

The environment will fix itself when we're all dead.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

velodog said:


> The environment will fix itself when we're all dead.


Yes that is true, then billions of years will go by a new human species from some monkey gone wild will arise and start the whole process all over again. so you see? the monkeys are the ones to be blamed for all of this!


----------



## testpilot (Aug 20, 2010)

Zeet said:


> Fossil fuel is a non-renewable resource. That means that once that energy resource has become completely exhausted, it will exist no longer. That will spell the end of life as we currently know it, today. The world now consumes over 95 million barrels of crude oil per day. There are 42 gallons of crude oil contained in one barrel. However, only about 10% of that crude oil can actually be distilled and refined into gasoline for motor vehicles. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to determine our ultimate human fate, if we continue on our current course of fossil fuel dependence.
> 
> As our Carbon footprint increases, the life light of future humanity dims. The world will become gradually warmer. Ice caps will continue to melt and recede at an alarming rate. Human existence will drastically decline as the rate of ecosystem change, will be greater than the rate of human adaptation.
> 
> Let's all hope that the cycling community continues to increase and that we will continue to do our part by commuting by bicycle more often, and encouraging others to do the same. Let's decrease our Carbon footprint.


What a ****ing crock of ****. Go bury yourself. That'll take the carbon out of the environment for awhile.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

froze said:


> Yes that is true, then billions of years will go by a new human species from some monkey gone wild will arise and start the whole process all over again. so you see? the monkeys are the ones to be blamed for all of this!


Damn monkeys!


----------



## testpilot (Aug 20, 2010)

froze said:


> Oxtox said:
> 
> 
> > I just found out on the internet that a pair of leather shoes will take somewhere between 25 to 40 years, and throwaway diapers 500 to 800 years, plastic soda bottles take forever in landfills.
> ...


----------



## Zeet (Mar 24, 2013)

testpilot said:


> What a ****ing crock of ****. Go bury yourself. That'll take the carbon out of the environment for awhile.


So ah...Is that supposed to be some kind of intelligent response or something?

Please don't tell me that's your very best, professor!


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

testpilot said:


> What a ****ing crock of ****. Go bury yourself. That'll take the carbon out of the environment for awhile.


I agree with you. Things are dying on a constant daily basis and all of that stuff is renewing. It may be true that humans are using it faster then it can renew and thus we could deplete it, but once it's "gone" and we stop using it it will simply return slowly over time. There is also huge reserves of fossil fuel under the oceans, but at this time technology doesn't exist to go down in deeper areas to get it out.

I remember in the 70's all the media doomsayers were screaming that we were about to run out of fossil fuel in 3 to 5 years, obviously that didn't happen, and I don't see panic going on with the car companies or oil companies today either, so I doubt we're going to run out of the fossil fuel we can reach for another 100 years at least.


----------



## Bill2 (Oct 14, 2007)

froze said:


> I agree with you. Things are dying on a constant daily basis and all of that stuff is renewing. It may be true that humans are using it faster then it can renew and thus we could deplete it, but once it's "gone" and we stop using it it will simply return slowly over time. There is also huge reserves of fossil fuel under the oceans, but at this time technology doesn't exist to go down in deeper areas to get it out.
> 
> I remember in the 70's all the media doomsayers were screaming that we were about to run out of fossil fuel in 3 to 5 years, obviously that didn't happen, and I don't see panic going on with the car companies or oil companies today either, so I doubt we're going to run out of the fossil fuel we can reach for another 100 years at least.


It will never run out. The earth is constantly creating more: What If Crude Oil Is Likely NOT Fossil Fuel! Not Created From Dead Dinosaurs and Plant Life? Likely Is Available In Continuous, Almost Endless Supply


----------



## bayAreaDude (Apr 13, 2012)

[And QUOTE=froze;4337904]


Oxtox said:


> Even if it takes decades, say 5, which I know it won't, but just for argument sakes it takes 50 years, is that better then 1,000's of years for various plastics? I guess so according to you.


Who isn't recycling plastic? My garbage man freaks out and he looks like He-man.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Bill2 said:


> It will never run out. The earth is constantly creating more: What If Crude Oil Is Likely NOT Fossil Fuel! Not Created From Dead Dinosaurs and Plant Life? Likely Is Available In Continuous, Almost Endless Supply


That's why I said, it is constantly renewing. Question I'm not sure about is whether or not we can exhaust our reachable supplies, at which point when we stop using it the oil would simply continue to slowly build back up. And note, even in your headline it does say "ALMOST endless supply". So I think if there is enough human beings on this earth we could run out, but it would restore itself over time.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

froze said:


> It was both, sarcasm and truth.


Ah... logic. Like my friend who bought a Nissan Leaf and was so proud of it until I pointed out to him that 80% of the time is was actually a coal powered car, not to mention the energy that is lost in wire friction getting the electrons from the plant to his $4000 charging station at his house.


----------



## Chris_T (May 7, 2007)

velodog said:


> Damn monkeys!


Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape! - YouTube


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Fogdweller said:


> Ah... logic. Like my friend who bought a Nissan Leaf and was so proud of it until I pointed out to him that 80% of the time is was actually a coal powered car, not to mention the energy that is lost in wire friction getting the electrons from the plant to his $4000 charging station at his house.


But the funny thing is, actually it's not all that funny! is that you and I helped your friend, as well as other Leaf owners, to buy their car with our taxes! Same is true with the Tesla those wealthy folk drive around in, they can afford the car straight up but we help them anyways...does that make any sense? Yup, we kick in $7,500 per Tesla (and Leaf) sold thru federal taxpayer money...PLUS, depending on what state the buyer lives in they could get an additional $2,500 in rebates from the State thru taxpayer dollars.

I think that is just wrong, plain wrong.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

velodog said:


> The environment will fix itself when we're all dead.


^This. Things will only progress fast when the narrative changes from "Save the Planet" , "Save US".



froze said:


> so I doubt we're going to run out of the fossil fuel we can reach for another 100 years at least.


Thing is, 100 years is *nothing* and when it runs out, it will not be overnight. Supply will fall gradually until the 3-4 most powerful countries in the world are at war fighting to hold the remaining sources. It'll be really ugly.

Right now oil and energy are heavily subsidized. There is no good reason not to subsidize alternative energy transportation and energy. There is no downside to reacting to a perceived energy crisis as if it were an emergency. If it turns out we were wrong we'll still get renewable energy, more efficiency, energy independence and possibly global leadership in what will absolutely be the most important industry in humanity. All worth doing without a crisis for a reason.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

davidka said:


> ^This. Things will only progress fast when the narrative changes from "Save the Planet" , "Save US".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No it won't turn into chaos, you're being over dramatic fueled by cheap sci Fi movies. Before a 100 years are up there will be a different alternative fuel source we'll be using, a fuel source they've been looking at for years but with Big Oil Corp and politics in control it won't happen until the end of currently found oil is almost depleted. OR, they have found huge stores of oil, so huge they make the known reserves look like small fry, under deep ocean sea beds, but the technology to go get it is not available at this time; thus they can always make a way to get that oil.

That's not to say that someday there won't be a big war in the mid east because I believe there will be, but it won't be over oil mainly.


----------

