Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
I think we mess with this natural feedback loop at our own peril.
Right now, if you listen to the global warming crew, we're using too much fossil fuel. We spew too many combustion byproducts into the air.
But, when fuel oil and natural gas start to hit the equivalent of $8/gallon, and we see what it takes to heat our homes and factories, global warming is going to start looking good.
But the price will keep usage down, thus impeding the beneficial effects of the global warming.
So, economists are going to have to figure out the optimum price for fossil fuels - the price at which we will be able to afford fuel, and will be able to generate sufficient global warming such that overall downward fuel consumption results from the decreased heating needs, but that takes into account the increased fuel needs for increased water transportation along the coasts (Manhattan water taxis?), but that won't allow the cycle to swing too far to the warming side such that the increased AC needs in the south wipe out the heat savings. It's a vicious cycle that I think is too complex to trust to politicians.
|
Saudi Arabia has long been aware that if oil prices get too high, there will be more pressure for efficiency and alternatives that will be detrimental to oil prices in the future. Since Saudi is one of the few countries that is likely to continue pumping at current volumes for a long period of time, this is their particular concern, and so they have long worked to manipulate prices to find the right balance point.
In other words, you already trust this process to politicians -- but to Saudi politicians, who are likely serving a different constituency with different concerns.
I'll leave the comment about the entire community of non-oil financed climate scientists (what you call "the global warming crowd").
