in the next 6 months, I'm wagering Mr. Tierney $1K.  The blind faith in technology and markets is the problem.  

Via Atrios, I just came across Max Sawicky's critique of a similar viewpoint that seems about right. (http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/001540.html)

the best measure of a resource's value: how it compares with the average worker's wage.

Sounds like some kind of quasi-Marxist labor theory of value. And these people are supposed to be conservatives?

Haven't they heard of supply and demand?

I couldn't resist trying to see what the real relationship between oil prices and wages has been over the years:

Here's a graph of oil price vs the U.S. unskilled real wage since 1861:

See any relationship between oil prices and wages? Sure, wages affect the demand for oil, but so do other things (like the availability of alternatives, or technological changes that increase energy efficiency in processes or products that use oil), and of course so does supply (determined mainly by oil production costs and technology).

So if you had taken the bet in 1861-1871, you would have won. If you had taken the bet in 1970-1980, you would also have won. If you had taken the bet in 1980-1990, you would have lost (as Paul Ehrlich did).

Gas compared with the price of litres (or pints) of common liquid commodities.

gas
v
milk
beer
bottled water
wine
coke

Check it out in your shop!


You can't be me, I'm taken

It should also be pointed out that the Industrial Age
is still very young in terms of the scope of human history. It used to be that only a small part of the
world lived, and desired to live, energy intensive
lifestyles.

Wastefulness on a small order can and has been
supported by the planet. We have yet to try the
experiment in which every family in China has a
refrigerator and a car -- that is a much taller order.

etrans.blogspot.com