Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius
You are rebutting claims that we are claiming any of these things is going to be an end to oil.. that's your strawman. You are trying to make a claim that anyone agreeing with Shell is claiming oil is done. No one even remotely claimed that but every second post from you is ridiculing opposing positions as outrageous claims that oil demand will be 0 in the near future. There is a very real difference between peak oil and demand reducing and an end to oil. After peak it might be 100 years before demand reaches 0, if ever.
You do realize that Greenpeace's bias would be to discrediting any green energy initiative right? Them providing a report praising China's move to green energy is the same bias as the CTF praising the NDP's tax policies.
The arguments being put forward are the combination of many different initiatives are contributing to a reduction in oil demand in the next 5-15 years. These also aren't made up arguments as many of them are echo'd from energy companies like Shell, not crazy boy scout environmentalists.
Bury your head in the sand, plug your ears and drill baby drill because that $100/bbl isn't going to drop. That really worked for Alberta's energy industry.
|
I agree with you. Tying peak oil to no oil is extreme.
But so is extrapolating a small subset of data in China, an article from Shell, a misinterpreted statement from Exxon, and an article from Greenpeace into a definitive conclusion about oil markets 5-15 years in the future.
I am also in no way creating a strawman. The premise of peak oil is the eventual decline (over a long period of time) of the demand for oil to negligible levels as oil becomes un-economical to produce.
What I am rebutting is a cherry picked set of articles that vaguely tie together a world view of declining oil demand (when every major energy forecasting service I know of projects demand increasing by >1MMbbl/d/y for the foreseeable future). So I’m guilty of sarcastic hyperbole, most certainly, but not a strawman.
Demand for oil is primarily driven by transportation, a subset of which is consumer vehicles. Thus, "peak oil" and the point at which oil production becomes no longer economically viable is directly tied to changes in driving technology. That technology is no-where near cost effective or prevalent enough to materially impact global demand for oil from consumer driving, let alone all the myriad other demand sources for oil.
People have been calling for "peak oil" for decades. In fact, Shell, the very company you are trumpeting, in a paper by M. King Hubbert in 1956, called for peak oil production to occur in the U.S. in the 1970's. He might have been off by a few decades, but no matter. Shell is TOTALLY going to nail their prediction this time around.
I am not the first person to challenge certain posters. This is just the latest iteration of the peak oil and EV discussion that occurs every 2-3 months (just look back through this thread), quiets down, and then appears again when it is convenient.
Questioning Greenpeace’s biases should be the first thing done before taking anything published by them as a legitimate source. The fact that you continue to rely on them as a source is concerning.