Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour
Maybe this has been talked about in this thread, but aside from climate impacts, there is a supply issue as well. Based on proven reserves and current consumption we have about 50 years of both natural gas (52 years) and crude (47 years) left. I know, I know that's proven reserves and maybe there's another 150 years of unproven kicking around. However, whatever is unproven at this point will likely be expensive as #### to get out.
So, if you're not on the "climate change" wagon championing for transition to renewables, you might as well get on the "we're running out" wagon. Both wagon's end up at the same spot.
|
This is one of the worst arguments there is on this topic. Any argument that assumes what's considered resources in the current timeframe and extrapolates current consumption of said resources forward by multiple decades and concludes 'Hey in 50-100 years we're going to deplete this resource! Something must be done . . . ' is just flat out wrong think. The argument assumes nothing changes over time in response to supply and demand signals which is categorically false.
What the world values or considers 'resources', changes dramatically over the long term (My favorite quote on this is 'the Stone age didn't end because of a lack of stones') and also pricing based on supply and demand solves this problem over the long term on it's own. When supplies decline, prices go up, consumption is made more efficient, investment is made in more or alternative supply and then supply increases, prices normalize and another cycle begins. We've seen this countless times in commodity cycles, most recently in oil in the the peak-oil hysteria of the mid-2000s. The emergence of China pushed demand for oil through the roof and increased prices dramatically because current supply had not seen much investment since oil crashed in the late 90s. Oil prices spiked, many dollars were invested, oil extraction technology evolved and unlocked previously uneconomic reservoirs (Shale oil, oil sands, etc.), and extended the life of existing fields. On the consumption side, ICE engines in cars were made more efficient so that less was needed to power more. Oil prices then collapsed in 2014 because supply was again plentiful, in response companies went bankrupt, less was invested in supply which led to a stagnation in supply . . . so in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine and disrupted supply again in a commodity that has seen a lack of investment spanning years, the prices unsurprisingly spiked again. Sunrise, sunset, this is a story as old as time itself.
Solve climate change because that's a problem worth solving on it's own, not because we're scared that according to current calculations we have only 50-100 years left of resources because those calculations are locked in today's timeframe of what we understand as resources and consumption thereof. We flat out are not running out of energy, we weren't in the 70s, we weren't in the mid 2000s and we're not now. The problem is the energy we primarily consume has negative externalities that we need to address in a multitude of ways.