Would you?

[circa02]

I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this.
If you had the power to destroy or otherwise neutralize all the undriled oil in the world, like literally all of it, which would leave governments no choice but to move to alternative energies, would you? It's not even eligial, as far as I know. If you wouldn't, how many do you think would?

 

[jehoiakim]

if you are talking about instantaneously we'd be in a lot of trouble... not only do cars run on oil, but think about it all farming equiptment does as well the price of commodities and food would sky rocket immediately. Even if there were food on the shelves no one could afford it and then everyone would have to grow locally... better hope it isn't winter or or fall in those places... even summer is too late to plant the crops you need. Sadly oil is in almost everything we use... no more plastics, most of a car itself is made out of oils... what would we use to make our tires?... no more plastic anything... and what energy sources is as efficient as oil.. ethanol is a joke it takes far more energy to make then it provides. You would also destroy the economies of the middle east and likely cause riots, revolutions on top of the mass starvations... very bad news.

If you were talking about implementing something much slower that gave them warning, I might be with you, of course power hungry elite will take that over as well... either way the end is coming soon

 

[Satt]

Since computers and circuit boards are made using the stuff AND the fact that the power grid would be dead without fossil fuel, I would say we wouldn't be able to get back on the forum to find out how you felt afterwards.

 

[circa02]

OK, what if you had the power to only leave enough oil for, say, 3 years?

 

[Saving Hawaii]

OK, what if you had the power to only leave enough oil for, say, 3 years?

Still too short a time. The transition from a fossil fuel economy to one that relies on cleaner forms of energy takes a long time. There's a tremendous amount of infrastructure that needs to be built and another tremendous amount that needs to be retired. A realistic transition probably involves keeping most coal plants and oil refineries operating for the remainder of their useful life. It's when they've reached their life expectancy and need to be replaced that you make the transition to clean energy. Some plants are nearing retirement right now and could be replaced tomorrow but others were built recently will still be pumping out pollution decades from now.

Nor do we need to completely eliminate fossil fuels as a source of energy. We just need to get away from what we're doing right now.

 

[circa02]

I'd do it.

 

[Staccato]

If you did it instanteously then, and I don't think I'm exaggerating here, the world as we currently understand it would cease to exist.

Even if you impose an arbitrary deadline, it's facile to think that such a move would be in any way positive. Yeah, okay, we're not using oil anymore...so instead we're going to have rolled back our technology by a few decades and reliant on even more sparse fossil fuels. Oh, and because the comfort blanket of oil reserves has been ripped away, countries are very likely going to go to war over these resources.

The utopian situation where we all clap our hands together and buckle down as a species to shift to renewables would be amusing if it wasn't so depressingly unrealistic.

 

[jehoiakim]

Don't get me wrong I am all for green stuff, as Christians we of all people should be the best steward of this earth and honor God by taking care of the creation he gave us, that was our first responsibility...

that being said, I really believe there are just a lot of people trying to make a buck of all this and some of it is plain stupidity... for isntance take the new energy efficient light bulb, sure it is energy efficient but it also contains mercury! So throwing it out is far more toxic, then they decided they needed to make incandescent lights illegal, but as an artist I rely on indecent bulbs for accurate light, photographers are in the same boat... all for a more toxic "green" light bulb.

Personally I'd be far more interested in stopping Monsanto and their 'Frankenfoods' then neutralizing oil

 

[circa02]

If you did it instanteously then, and I don't think I'm exaggerating here, the world as we currently understand it would cease to exist.

That would be the point in doing it.

Even if you impose an arbitrary deadline, it's facile to think that such a move would be in any way positive. Yeah, okay, we're not using oil anymore...so instead we're going to have rolled back our technology by a a few decades and reliant on even more sparse fossil fuels. Oh, and because the comfort blanket of oil reserves has been ripped away, countries are very likely going to go to war over these resources.

Or we could be like humanity has always been like, until recently, and evolve, adapt, innovate. We went from a world where there was no infrastructure for cellular phones to one which there was in like 5 years. Imagine what could be done if there was no choice.


The utopian situation where we all clap our hands together and buckle down as a species to shift to renewables would be amusing if it wasn't so depressingly unrealistic.

Well, at least we would no longer killing the earth.

 

[Staccato]

That would be the point in doing it.

A child destroys something because they don't like or understand it.

An adult wonders how they can make it better without damaging what they already have.

Or we could be like humanity has always been like, until recently, and evolve, adapt, innovate. We went from a world where there was no infrastructure for cellular phones to one which there was in like 5 years. Imagine what could be done if there was no choice.

Because we built off the back of technology that already existed. If you gut the technology and logistics network that is the precursor and necessary prerequisite for further technological advancement, we're not climbing back so quickly.

Well, at least we would no longer killing the earth.

No, we'd be killing each other. I don't consider that a good trade.

 

[jehoiakim]

so damaging, not killing, but damaging the earth is more of a concern then wiping out literally 85%-95% of the world's population?

 

[circa02]

so damaging, not killing, but damaging the earth is more of a concern then wiping out literally 85%-95% of the world's population?

Since that's such a ridiculous thing to say, I'll answer you in kind; yes it is.

 

[jehoiakim]

how is it such a ridiculous thing to say? We were just telling you the problems and the results of what would happen if you made the transition too soon and you still said "I'd do it." So I don't understand how it is a ridiculous thing to say at all.

 

[disciple2011]

No I would not do it.

When you take too little action or too much action you are going about problem solving in the wrong way.

Moderation is the key, even in behavior.

 

[circa02]

Humanity isn't really good at moderation.

 

[jehoiakim]

I'm not a fan of big oil at all... I think they are pretty evil, taking advantage of us and manipulating our politics along with damaging the earth, but until we learn how as a society we can survive without them(because we have made ourselves dependent on them like an addiction) it would be really dangerous to act too quickly

 

[Blackguard_]

I wouldn't do it.

What I would do is ease restrictions on nuclear power, so we wouldn't have to rely on dirty fossil fuels or just plain not presently viable alternative energy sources.

. Yeah, okay, we're not using oil anymore...so instead we're going to have rolled back our technology by a few decades and reliant on even more sparse fossil fuels.

Change "oil" to "fissionable material" and you have the present situation.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

Since that's such a ridiculous thing to say, I'll answer you in kind; yes it is.

If you don't want ridiculous answers perhaps you should stop offering ridiculous proposals (like immediately stopping all oil production).

People are honestly responding to what you asked. If their responses sound pretty crazy, it's only because what you asked was pretty crazy.http://www.christianforums.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=58438481

 

[disciple2011]

Humanity isn't really good at moderation.

No they are not.

Because they still wish to be more like animals.

Sad really.

 

[chaz345]

ethanol is a joke it takes far more energy to make then it provides.

I'm far from being an ethanol advocate but the above is untrue. Ethanol FROM CORN is about a break even proposition, slightly leaning toward positve currently. But ethanol from other sources has a much higher return. From sugar cane the return is roughly 5 times the energy we put in. And there's some still largely experimental methods using algae where the return is upwards of 20 times.