Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What if Fossil Fuel Haters Got What They Wanted?
What if the radical environmentalists really did get what they wanted: removal of all 'so called' fossil fuels? Here is what professor Deming has to say about it.

And note that I am not really a fan of Ayn Rand by a long shot, like some, for several reasons.

Quote:What If Atlas Shrugged?

by David Deming

Atlas Shrugged is the title of Ayn Rand's 1957 novel in which the world grinds to a halt after the productive segment of society goes on strike. Tired of being demonized and exploited, the world's innovators and entrepreneurs simply walk away.

What would happen to the US today if the fossil fuel industry went on a strike of indefinite duration? What would happen if we gave the environmentalists what they want? Instead of nibbling around the edges, what if we just went all the way? What would be the consequences if Atlas shrugged?

Within 24 hours there would be long lines at service stations as people sought to purchase remaining stocks of gasoline. The same people who denounce oil companies would be desperately scrounging the last drops of available fuel for their SUVs. By the third day, all the gasoline would be gone.

With no diesel fuel, the trucking industry would grind to a halt. Almost all retail goods in the US are delivered by trucks. Grocery shelves would begin to empty. Food production at the most basic levels would also stop. Without gasoline, no farm machinery would function, nor could pesticides or fertilizers be produced on an industrial scale. The US cannot feed 315 million people with an agricultural technology based on manure and horse-drawn plows. After two weeks mass starvation would begin.

Locomotives once ran on coal but today are powered by diesel engines. With no trains or trucks running there would be no way to deliver either raw materials or finished products. All industrial production and manufacturing would stop. Mass layoffs would ensue. At this point, it would hardly matter. With virtually all transportation systems out, the only people who could work would be those who owned horses or were capable of walking to their places of employment.

Owners of electric cars might smirk at first, but would soon be forced to the unpleasant reality that the vehicle they thought was "emission free" runs on coal. Forty-two percent of electric power in the US is produced by burning coal. With natural gas also out of the picture, we would lose another 25 percent. The environmentalist's favorite power sources, wind and solar, could not fill the gap. Wind power currently generates about 3 percent of our electricity and solar power accounts for a scant 0.04 percent. The only reliable power sources left would be hydroelectric and nuclear. But together these two sources could only power the grid at 27 percent of its normal capacity. With two-thirds of the electric power gone, the grid would shut down entirely. No electricity also means no running water and no flush toilets. When the bottled water ran out, people would drink from streams and ponds and epidemic cholera would inevitably follow.

Hospitals could continue to function for a few days on backup generators. But with no diesel fuel being produced, the backups would also fail. Emergency surgeries would have to be conducted by daylight in rooms with windows. Because kerosene is a petroleum byproduct, lighting by kerosene lamps would not be an option. Even candles today are made of paraffin, another petroleum byproduct. It is doubtful if sufficient beeswax could be found to manufacture enough candles to light the 132 million homes in the US.

With no electricity, little to no fuel, and no way to transport either people or commodities, the US would revert to the eighteenth century within a matter of days to weeks. The industrial revolution would be reversed. The gross domestic product would shrink by more than 95 percent. Depending on the season and location, people would begin to either freeze or swelter in their homes. My academic colleagues who think human progress is an illusion would have to face the bitter reality of reverting to a time when life expectancy was less than half of what it is today.

But I'm wrong. Reversion to the eighteenth century is not what would happen. It would be much worse than that. In eighteenth-century America, about eighty percent of the population lived on family farms and were largely self-sufficient. They had horses and blacksmiths. People knew how to work and relied upon valued networks of family and neighbors. Today, less than two percent of our population is engaged in farming. And virtually all modern agriculture depends on machinery powered by petroleum. People today could not survive in a world that lacks fossil fuels.

The picture I paint is grim, but it is nothing less than what environmental activists want: to put all fossil fuel companies completely out of business. If you don't understand or accept this, I can only suggest that you acquaint yourself with the philosophy of biocentrism. Groups of college students are now demanding that universities divest stock holdings in fossil fuel companies – as if the production of fossil fuels was the moral equivalent of apartheid. And every March environmentalists celebrate "Earth Hour," an hour in which they literally turn off all the lights.

Our industrialized and technological civilization does not run on rainbows and moonbeams. Nor is it likely to at any time in the foreseeable future. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are not viable replacements for fossil fuels. It is not a question of politics, but limitations imposed by the laws of physics and chemistry. Instead of apologizing for the use of fossil fuels, we ought to be damn glad we have them.

February 7, 2013

David Deming [send him mail] is a geologist, professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, and the author of the series Science and Technology in World History.
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
It would be much like One Second After

Oddly enough, I just finished reading this. (An EMP takes out almost every bit of electronics in the country.)

Personally, after reading the book, I think the death rate would be much greater than they say.
There would have to be mass starvation simply because almost no one provides food for themselves anymore. It would be way worse than the 18th century cause we're dependent on modern technology to eat and heat homes.

I think you'd end up with 95% of us dead in 2 months myself.
Wouldn't that be just what the Environmentalist population kooks would like to see happen?
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
I'm sure they'd change their mind when they're gnawing the bark off of trees just to *try* to stay alive.
(02-08-2013, 02:50 PM)Pixiest Wrote: I'm sure they'd change their mind when they're gnawing the bark off of trees just to *try* to stay alive.

The problem with these kooks dear is that they are convinced that they are going to be amongst the elite few, who will not only survive, but prosper from all this.

The classic example is the French president's socialist wife/partner(whatever), who is enjoying her position as one of the select few. She may tell you she is equal before the law, but she is really more equal than everyone else.

After all, these folks are entitled, and you are not "P". That's the main difference here. Do you believe that Robert Ehrlich, who wrote the "Population Bomb" and preaches the downsizing of human numbers, actually believes he should be part of that downsizing?

Do you think that Algore, who is preaching the new eugenics, actually thinks he should lead by example and be one of the first ones eliminated, so as to 'fix' his perceived world problem?
“Socialism always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.”
Oh the elites will always have power. I was thinking of the run of the mill environmentalist. Not Al Gorzeera.

After the third day without food the biggest anti-gun, environmentalist, better-to-die-than-kill type will pick up a gun, shoot you, and roast your corpse over a burning tire given half a chance.
Since they're all malthusians, they would like it if they could figure a way to be the survivors. Maybe they could store away tons of food somewhere and make it through the mass death cycle, then start anew as farmers, they'd have lots of free fertilizer.

Since they're all elitists, they'd need some farm slaves doing the work.
I would love to take away iPhones and any power or electricity from anyone who doesn't like oil, coal, or natural gas. I would drive them out into the cold, make minarets of their skulls, and use their women as my playthings. Environmentalists who use power like they do are the largest and most horrible hypocrites you could ever imagine.

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Biofuels emissions worse than fossil fuel? JohnWho 9 2,822 03-24-2014, 06:39 PM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Fossil Fuel Subsidies Six Times More Than Renewable Energy quadrat 5 1,910 09-19-2012, 09:23 AM
Last Post: sunsettommy
  Welcome to Geos, the first fossil fuel free community Aurora Moon 3 1,054 08-08-2008, 09:49 PM
Last Post: Frantic Freddie

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)