Archie Bunker & Al Gore = Best Friends

[justintempler]

Imagine Archie Bunker and Al Gore being best friends. Impossible you say? This is what our future can look like. It looks at peak oil, carbon taxes and a return to manufacturing in America.

30 minute speech + 15 minute question and answer

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wYuLjGQQ-jg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed>

Jeff Rubin, the former Chief Economist of CIBC World Markets and the author of Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller built his reputation as one of Canada's top economists based on a number of successful predictions including the housing bust of the early 90s and the rise of oil prices. In his recent book, Mr. Rubin predicts $225 per barrel oil by 2012 and with it the end of globalization, a movement towards local sourcing and a need for massive scaling up of energy efficiency.

[sgreger1]

Re: Archie Bunker &amp; Al Gore = Best Friends

In his recent book, Mr. Rubin predicts $225 per barrel oil by 2012 and with it the end of globalization, a movement towards local sourcing and a need for massive scaling up of energy efficiency.

Let's hope he is correct. I would love to see all those things happen. If it takes $225 gas to fix this mess and collapse the oil driven economy, than so be it.

[Mordred]

Re: Archie Bunker &amp; Al Gore = Best Friends

In his recent book, Mr. Rubin predicts $225 per barrel oil by 2012 and with it the end of globalization, a movement towards local sourcing and a need for massive scaling up of energy efficiency.

Let's hope he is correct. I would love to see all those things happen. If it takes $225 gas to fix this mess and collapse the oil driven economy, than so be it.

I think you may find that a collapse of the economy is the last thing you want Its consequences would be pretty disastrous. On a very small scale, we'd see dramatic increases on prices of all imported products, such as, oh, I don't know, snus from Sweden?

But more globally, it would cut commercial ties that have begun to knit countries and cultures together. The best way to ensure peace between two nations is to make sure they have such strong commercial ties. If I get a product from you that I need, and you get a product from me that you need, then for us to go to war would deprive us both of products we need.

So really, rather than wish for a collapse, you should hope for a gradual transition away from fossil fuels towards other energy sources.

[tom502]

I think mass importations and job outsourcing is what has ruined America. People need jobs, but when we get literally about everything from a foreign country, and the jobs and factories move to foreign countries, that only makes more unemployed and more poor.

[RedMacGregor]

80% of american programmers suck, and aren't worth their paycheck. they coast along on the coattails of the other 20%, and bitch about more benefits, bonuses, and pay raises much louder than the 20% actually doing the work.

this is the reason I went freelance, and also the reason it's soo easy for a decent freelancer to find work. we regularly do 4x the work in 1/2 the time, and it works without a lot of bugs or "features". Costs the employers a lot less too...

too many so-called "programmers" got into software because they saw the dollar signs if you don't love it, if you wouldn't do it for free, stay out of it please. cleaning up your crap pays well, but i'd rather not.

[justintempler]

Re: Archie Bunker &amp; Al Gore = Best Friends

But more globally, it would cut commercial ties that have begun to knit countries and cultures together. The best way to ensure peace between two nations is to make sure they have such strong commercial ties. If I get a product from you that I need, and you get a product from me that you need, then for us to go to war would deprive us both of products we need. .

I agree with that goal.

The only reason the economy is not in worse of a mess (than it already is), China is dependent on an export market to keep their factories humming along. So when the Fed puts up T bills for auction, the Chinese buy them out of their own self interest, not because they like us.

The problem comes in when China develops enough of a domestic market that it no longer needs an export market and stops buying T-bills to prop up the US dollar.

Reuters - China car sales top U.S.

At the same time they become less dependent on the export market there is going to be increased Chinese consumption and competition for oil resources. While Americans are cutting back on the use of oil, the price of oil will continue to rise and with it the cost of everything we buy that is dependent on petroleum (plastics, medicines, fertilizer to grow food, fuel for farm machinery.....)

[sgreger1]

Re: Archie Bunker &amp; Al Gore = Best Friends

In his recent book, Mr. Rubin predicts $225 per barrel oil by 2012 and with it the end of globalization, a movement towards local sourcing and a need for massive scaling up of energy efficiency.

Let's hope he is correct. I would love to see all those things happen. If it takes $225 gas to fix this mess and collapse the oil driven economy, than so be it.

I think you may find that a collapse of the economy is the last thing you want Its consequences would be pretty disastrous. On a very small scale, we'd see dramatic increases on prices of all imported products, such as, oh, I don't know, snus from Sweden?

But more globally, it would cut commercial ties that have begun to knit countries and cultures together. The best way to ensure peace between two nations is to make sure they have such strong commercial ties. If I get a product from you that I need, and you get a product from me that you need, then for us to go to war would deprive us both of products we need.

So really, rather than wish for a collapse, you should hope for a gradual transition away from fossil fuels towards other energy sources.

I hear your concern Mordred, and getting rid of the oil based economy would result in many people losing their retirement savings since most of EXXON and other companies are owned by people's 401k's etc.

But I am of the mind that we have been artificially inflating prices and overvaluing things for a too long , while at the same time wages have not increased at the same rate as the cost of living. Normally this would mean cheaper prices since people don't have more money, but the availability of credit to finance everything has allowed people to be able to "afford" more than they would normally and has therefore increased everything's value. Artificially of course.

This is why I thought the stimulis bill was a bad idea, we don't need to get the banks to start lending more money to the broke people, getting them in more debt, we need to suffer a few bad years and allow prices to deflate. This way when the dust settles the cost of things will be closer to that of their actual value.


Your idea about mutually assured bankruptcy (tm) is a good one, and it is what we currently have going on with China. Even though we aren't best friends, each other's economy depends on our trading (read as, "us buying their shit"), so no one messes up our business relationship.

But since we are not the ones who own the oil it puts us in a bad position where the countrie we are not friendly with can choose to restrict our oil or stop selling it in US dollars, both of which have profound effects on our economy. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

The reality is that we have gotten ourselve into a giant worldwide bubble, and have also adopted the habit of sending the manufacturing jobs to one end of the world where labor is cheap, then shipping stuff back over here to sell at inflated prices to westerners.... burning fossil fuels all the way.



EDIT: Justin is right, at some point this mutual business relationship we have with China will change, and if they stop buying T-Bills we could be in trouble. And like the video said, prices are only going to go up.

[sgreger1]

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/1...ew_nukes/all/1

I saw this cool article in Wired magazine, talks about using Thorium instead of Uranium in our nuclear reactors.

It can be used as nuclear fuel which creates a fraction of the waste of normal uranium powered reactors, works twice as efficiently, and is so abundant that the US could cheaply power itself in a “green” manner for the next thousand years. Also, existing reactors can be retrofitted to use it. Bonus: Cannot be used by terrorists to make bombs, 0% chance of nuclear meltdown.

It was orriginally being researched at Oakridge back int he 50's and looked promising but the US gov decided to use uranium reactors for nuclear fuel instead because it could use the byproduct to make bombs, and research ended for this much more efficient and clean technology. Until now.



If nothing else, an intiresting article on a resource we could be using today to create lots of power in a relitavely "green" way.

[truthwolf1]

If a gallon goes to to a steady 7 dollars I am buying a motorcycle for the summer months.

Actually if it hits that price within the next 15 months nobody will have a job.

[sgreger1]

If a gallon goes to to a steady 7 dollars I am buying a motorcycle for the summer months.

Actually if it hits that price within the next 15 months nobody will have a job.

That's the one benefit I have living in the CA bay area. There is a lot of public transportation and all the buses are electric or natural gas powered, so at least here they have the infrastructure to make it work without cars.

And I own a motorcycle

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats on Wednesday proposed allowing the federal government to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion to pay its bills, a record increase that would permit the national debt to reach $14.3 trillion.

Less than a decade ago, $1.9 trillion would have been enough to finance the operations and programs of the federal government for an entire year. Now, it's only enough to make sure Democrats can avoid another vote before Election Day.

We need to start preparing, this cycle will not last much longer at the current rate. We need to invent something like the internet or computers all over again to get ourselves out of this one. We need to put money into developing alternative fuels. Congress needs to grow balls and find a way to take power away from the oil companies.

[justintempler]

..
We need to start preparing, this cycle will not last much longer at the current rate. We need to invent something like the internet or computers all over again to get ourselves out of this one. We need to put money into developing alternative fuels. Congress needs to grow balls and find a way to take power away from the oil companies.

It's called a carbon tax that can be used to fund wind and solar, rebuilding the electric grid, and paying for R&D for things like your Thorium reactor.

If you have a better solution we're all ears.

[truthwolf1]

We haves buses and light rail systems here also but not anything like Cali or NY. I dont understand why they dont pump more money into infastructure like that everywhere in this economy right at this time. You could have high school kids pushing brooms, the laid off blue collar/manufacturing people doing the builiding and transportaion engineers drawing everything up. Instead we are throwing more money again at the banks as more and more people each month have nothing to do. 7 dollars a gallon on top of that and nobody will be going anywhere or buying anything.

[sgreger1]

..
We need to start preparing, this cycle will not last much longer at the current rate. We need to invent something like the internet or computers all over again to get ourselves out of this one. We need to put money into developing alternative fuels. Congress needs to grow balls and find a way to take power away from the oil companies.

It's called a carbon tax that can be used to fund wind and solar, rebuilding the electric grid, and paying for R&D for things like your Thorium reactor.

If you have a better solution we're all ears.

Well we could stop the 2 wars and use that money I suppose.

I woulnd't mind paying an additional tax if it would actually lead to something happening. I have California tax syndrome wherein I am used to getting taxed and getting nothing in return for my money. If they impose a tax, will the tax directly finance R&D for alt fuels, would it be over after said fuels were discovered etc.

I think we could find the money if we just re-arrange our budget.

EDIT: Also solar won't work. For solar to be effective you have to have large solar farms and the environmental lobby is strongly opposed to doing that because it messes up the habitat for the different animals that live in these open areas. Wind can also only provide so much.

Right now we have guys already running Thorium reactor trials in Russia, it has already been proved to work. Knowing the stubborness of the US, Russia and the rest of the world will have it before us. We are too busy focusing our money elsewhere.

[sgreger1]

We haves buses and light rail systems here also but not anything like Cali or NY. I dont understand why they dont pump more money into infastructure like that everywhere in this economy right at this time. You could have high school kids pushing brooms, the laid off blue collar/manufacturing people doing the builiding and transportaion engineers drawing everything up. Instead we are throwing more money again at the banks as more and more people each month have nothing to do. 7 dollars a gallon on top of that and nobody will be going anywhere or buying anything.

The problem we have with these public transportation systems is they constantly runa deficit. They have to be cheap enough for the poor to be able to afford a bus ticket, but it always ends up with the things costing the taxpayer more than they earn unfortunately. But we do need to improve our transportation infrastructure more than anything.

[justintempler]

The problem we have with these public transportation systems is .......

They aren't viable as long as we have cheap oil.

Here's your Thorium:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

The problems include:

The high cost of fuel fabrication, due partly to the high radioactivity of U-233 chemically separated from the irradiated thorium fuel. Separated U-233 is always contaminated with traces of U-232 (69 year half-life but whose daughter products such as thallium-208 are strong gamma emitters with very short half-lives). Although this confers proliferation resistance to the fuel cycle, it results in increased costs.
The similar problems in recycling thorium itself due to highly radioactive Th-228 (an alpha emitter with two-year half life) present.
Some concern over weapons proliferation risk of U-233 (if it could be separated on its own), although many designs such as the Radkowsky Thorium Reactor address this concern.
The technical problems (not yet satisfactorily solved) in reprocessing solid fuels. However, with some designs, in particular the molten salt reactor (MSR), these problems are likely to largely disappear.
Much development work is still required before the thorium fuel cycle can be commercialised, and the effort required seems unlikely while (or where) abundant uranium is available. In this respect, recent international moves to bring India into the ambit of international trade might result in the country ceasing to persist with the thorium cycle, as it now has ready access to traded uranium and conventional reactor designs.

and your Thorium reactors:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf77.html

Thorium is no magic bullet, it's not a new discovery, its commercial application is at minimum 10-20 years away.