Who Was On Watch As the Dark Age Approached?

Yes, other energy sources will certainly be invented to make up for the missing oil--but there will be a horrible dislocation beforehand with an almost certain collapse of the global economy and the resulting deaths and misery. All of which could be avoided by energy-replacement efforts as intense as, say, the space program of the 1960s.

The author does not really understand that markets also include foresight on the part of their participant. The catastrophic dynamics that he predicts are completely without foundation.

He ends the thought with a typical socialist drivel into which many intellectuals tend naturally: HE knows best what it would cost to find by now the alternative sources of energy. Markets, you see, are too dumb: all the millions of people, including geologists and other scientist, who stood to make billions from the invention --- all they were too dumb to see it. He, the author, is demigod who simply knows.

In the meantime, he misunderstands simple economics: Energy is a private good, not public; government simply cannot do better than the private sector providing it.

In sum, it's a socialist rant.

While I mostly agree with you, and OSC talks about oil from his Democratic background, there are some points to note.

Governments including ours meddle in economy. We don't have completely free markets. Regulations increase the cost of energy production. Uneven distribution of regulations skew the picture. Nuclear energy is more expensive also because the enviro-activists litigate to the death all proposals about new nuclear generators. There are NO plans to build NEW nuclear plants in US, only to replace the old ones. Concerns of safety are legitimate and paramount. But when safety questions are answered, it still does not mean that something is going to be built because of this threat of endless litigation. And nobody can commit billions of dollars without hope to get a return on investment in their lifetime.

No hydroelectric plant will be built if the habitat of a smallest bug will be affected.

Which leaves us for the moment with fossil fuels that are indeed ultimately limited. Nevertheless, I disagree with OSC here for the reason that the fossil fuels won't just end sharply and catastrophically. A growing difficulty of getting them WILL let to the higher prices and will give entrepreneurs the incentive to develop the alternatives.

What he is not talking about, and I see it as a more legitimate reason for concern, is that fossil fuels can become sharply and catastrophically more expensive IF huge oil fields of Middle East fall in hands of Islamic radicals who can care less about wellbeing of their population that will starve without oil revenues but will bring down the world economy.

That leads to my conclusion: as long as the government is involved in the energy strategy and there is a risk of energy market collapse from the hands of Islamists, the government should: first balance back overregulated energy business and limit litigation; and second provide incentives for the development of alternative energy sources. From conservative point of view Manhattan and Apollo projects are too bureaucratic (even they indeed were successful). A better model is very high prize money for development [fill in the blanks]. Similar to a recent reward (of only 10 mln dollars) for private space flight.

I cannot agree with you more: everything you said is accurate, scientific, and stated with great precision.

I am very much concerned about over-regulation --- and not just in the energy and power sectors. This happens to be one of the reasons the jobs are moved out oversees: it is companies, as you know, that are on the front of ridiculous lawsuits. The tort reform is badly needed.

I also think that the strategic aspect makes fuel partly a public, and not entirely private, good, in which case government has a legitimate role in its provision. And I agree with the means you pointed out: incentives. What we have is the opposite --- impediments and disincentives for alternative fuels.

I think that the problem is deeper than you suggest. While it may seem that the government can simply issue a new rule on regulation, in reality it is drawn from the population. And that is where the problem lies: environmentalist extremists are few, but most of the population apathetically supports them. That is why the noise from these extremists is not drowned out by any competing voice. And the elected officials vote that which the loudest voice says --- to do so most of the time is their job, isn't it? In sum, it is not just the government but the population in general that is against new nuclear plants, etc. Well, now that gas is $2/G, that may change in time...

I happen to disagree with your position on Manhattan and Apollo. As you know, markets under-provide public goods, and both projects were defense works, a classic example of a public good. You can even see the mechanism by which Manhattan would've failed in private hands: none of the prominent physicists would work for it or give support otherwise had it not represented the _country_. These are different incentives, and no prize can provide them. But that was not your main point, I know.

Thanks for your nice post, Tolik (as well all the great posts you ping me on)

You are too kind. Don't let it get into my head. :^) (reaching out and patting your back too for the nice discussion)

You bring an interesting point about "the elected officials vote that which the loudest voice says.." It reminded me an old adage that "people deserve the government they have". I take an exception with it in cases of totalitarian and tyrannical regimes when people are held hostage by overpowering repressive machine of the state. But it's undoubtedly true for our free society. We see the results of letting different loudmouths to get away with their agenda. The only question is if we are indeed fed up with that and will swing the pendulum back, or we are not there yet, or maybe went beyond the point of no return? I have a totally unscientific feeling that its the first one, and we will recover. ( republican optimism :^) ?)

A civilization is truly dead, she says, when “even the memory of what has been lost is lost.”

I would apply this principle in areas where, as a true Leftist, she would not dream of applying it: For instance, we have now raised a generation that does not even expect that marriage will precede sexual union and cohabitation because they have never seen it work that way. We have spent a generation trivializing the family, debasing it and undermining it until it doesnâ?™t have as much practical value as a stock certificate.

Hedonism?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.