does peak oil cause intelligence to drop?

[natedogg]

It sure seems like it.

In this Boston Globe editorial we see that JOHN B. HEYWOOD, Director of MIT's "Center for 21st Century Energy" has outlined a specific plan for how we should address Peak Oil as a society.

No surprise that it includes a bunch of socialist command and control nonsense. I guess the dream will never die. No matter how many times the socialist experiment fails, we can always hope that god has sent angels down to govern us and rule only with goodwill, never making mistakes, knowing all and reacting to it for us with brilliant insightful policies. And then we can just put them in charge and we'll all skip off into the sunshine.

And santa clause. Don't forget Santa Clause.

Heywood's prescription for Peak Oil?

"an integrated set of fiscal and regulatory policies that would spread the responsibility for taking action among (everyone)"

and

"The intention is to provide reinforcing messages at each stage in our transportation system: vehicle design and production, fuel supply, vehicle purchase, and vehicle refueling. "

Never mind that we already have something that does that. It's call the pricing signal.

"This set of policies would include restructured and more-demanding vehicle fuel economy regulations, significant fees on high-consuming vehicles, and rebates on low-consuming vehicles at the time of purchase, substantially higher fuel taxes at the pump, and required supplements (e.g., biofuels) to our gasoline and diesel fuel supply."

Unbelievable.

Let's see, Dr. Heywood, I can think of a better way to spur consumption reduction, increased development of alt. energy, improved vehicle design and efficiency, and more use of alternative transportation:

Can you guess what it is?

$60/barrel for oil. Record investments in new drilling, record investments in alt energy, record achievements in alt energy, record sales of hybrid and other fuel economy models, a sharp drop in oil demand in China, but don't let that stop your dream, sir. No, we need the government to take control.

natedogg

PS: Note to Il Mostro. These crazy types are not as fringe as you claim. In fact, every peak oil voice I have read is pretty uniform in their call for tight, comprehensive measures and full control by the government. This guy heads up a department at MIT for gods sake. He should know better.

[sam h]

If you think these regulations amount to "socialist command and control" then you don't know much about the history of planned economies. You might not agree with the regulations he's suggesting, but they don't seem to be that different from current regulatory structures mandating certain levels of fuel-efficiency, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's see, Dr. Heywood, I can think of a better way to spur consumption reduction, increased development of alt. energy, improved vehicle design and efficiency, and more use of alternative transportation:

Can you guess what it is?

$60/barrel for oil. Record investments in new drilling, record investments in alt energy, record achievements in alt energy, record sales of hybrid and other fuel economy models, a sharp drop in oil demand in China, but don't let that stop your dream, sir. No, we need the government to take control.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the market is so good at shifting consumption down, then why is demand still at record levels? Selling a few hybrids might be nice, but overall demand (worldwide and in the US) for oil hasn't been decreasing.

And if the market is so good at spurring the development of alternative energy sources, then why haven't we seen more from the private sector in the thirty-odd years since the original oil crisis?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Note to Il Mostro. These crazy types are not as fringe as you claim

[/ QUOTE ]
What is your background and qualifications? If you care to share that with us?
Because it seems anyone who doesn't agree with you is "crazy", be they Nobel Price winners or heads of MIT. No matter how much thought they have put into the matter, if they don't come to the same conclution as you they are "crazy".

[ QUOTE ]
Record investments in new drilling

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure about that one, you have any references to support that? I rememeber reading a report about the 10 largest explorer not managing to find enough oil to make up for exploration costs, unfortunately I don't remember the time frame.

[ QUOTE ]
a sharp drop in oil demand in China

[/ QUOTE ]
Have any references for that? I have not been following China very closely lately, but all I've seen is that their demand is only up about 5% this year, compared to 15% last year.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Note to Il Mostro. These crazy types are not as fringe as you claim

[/ QUOTE ]
anyone who doesn't agree with you is "crazy", be they Nobel Price winners or heads of MIT. No matter how much thought they have put into the matter.


[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you are not saying that a top-down command and control approach is reasonable? I thought you had already repudiated such an obviously bad idea. In fact you lambasted me for lumping you in with these nutcases, for which I apologize.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a sharp drop in oil demand in China

[/ QUOTE ]
Have any references for that? I have not been following China very closely lately, but all I've seen is that their demand is only up about 5% this year, compared to 15% last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

My typo. I meant drop in demand growth, which is still significant. I learned about the drop from econbrowser here: linky
where he reported that China demand growth had dropped from 35% in 2004 to 1.4%

I'll look around for where I found the stats on increased drilling. ...


But the point is that $60/barrel is causing *exactly* the changes Heywood wants to achive via top-down controls. The point is that there's no way a small group of people, no matter how informed and intelligent and well-meaning they might be, could ever begin to hope to account for all factors. Meanwhile the market itself does a marvelous job of it.

Those who are not as ardenltly pro-market as I am may indeed be correct that we need things like the SEC and the FDA to protect us. There's certainly room for debate there.

But peak oil is *exactly* the kind of problem the market solves best and govt bureaucracy screws up worst. It's a purely market problem. Oil a real world commodity, with cycles of supply/demand, with competition in the form of alternatives, and with a lot of money at stake for the market winners.

All the changes that the top-down advocates want to achieve are already occuring naturally in the market, and will only continue as the price of oil remains high.

natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely you are not saying that a top-down command and control approach is reasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am saying that you cannot dismiss highly intelligent people out-of-hand.
[ QUOTE ]
In fact you lambasted me for lumping you in with these nutcases, for which I apologize.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, you can lump me in with anyone you like, but if you are discussing with me you should not attack ideas I have not put forward. Using "well, some other people are saying these other things" as an attack on my arguments is not ok.

[ QUOTE ]

My typo. I meant drop in demand growth, which is still significant.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes it is, just not as significant as an actual drop in demand would have been.
I've seen different numbers on the demand growth, both for last year and this year. But I agree with you that the demand growth has been slowing.

As for the rest of your post I will have to read the article now, be back later

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
...a sharp drop in oil demand in China.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just plain wrong.

I don't want to elaborate.

[BonJoviJones]

Good, because natedogg covered that abour 3 hours before you.