Display:
"Our lifestyle depends (1) the cheap production of oil, (2) the cheap products cheap oil creates..."

I'm not sure this is quite true, because of the availability of massive amounts of coal. The main need for oil is for transportation, and most of this can be replaced by some combination of electric cars and trains, ultimately powered by coal.

This means that the conflict comes down to the imbalance between coal-rich and coal-poor regions, and the side effects of burning so much coal. Ideally, the West should take these into consideration, but to do so would be a big change from how we've done things in the past.

by asdf on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 12:20:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
RBBooks has saved me the trouble of responding in detail.  (Thanks and a tip o' the hat.)

See the Perfect Storm diary and the linked article therein.

Simply put, the US doesn't have the funds to painlessly shift from oil to coal when

  •  the coal can be bought in €s rather than worth-ever-less $s.

  •  the debts of the last 50 years have to paid, rather than rolled-over

  •  consumer consumption moves from credit-based to cash-based

  •  and deal with ever higher oil prices in the chemical, pharmaceutical, and consumer products industries whose factories would need to be redesigned and retooled to handle coal tar rather than crude oil.  

(I'm not a Chemical Engineer, nor much of a Chemist, so I cannot say what the effects of the last will be.  In fact I only mention it in the hope someone or In Wales will comment and eliminate my ignorance.)
by ATinNM on Tue Dec 11th, 2007 at 01:15:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series