arminius
Actually, the article misrepresents the whole Peak Oil concept and shows little concern for the impacts of surface extraction. Bikers who enjoy riding through wild country will be seeing a lot more nasty scars if shale production ever gets big.
Shale oil, falsely included in that article as "conventional oil," can only be extracted at great cost to the landscape. It's essentially a strip-mining operation that would affect large parts of Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Nevada, Idaho and Alaska, plus a number of eastern states if enough farmers would let their land be torn up.
The article also falsely claims that the Hubbert Peak ignores non-conventional oil sources (like shale and tar sands). Hubbert was well aware of those "new discoveries" and their higher cost was all part of the Peak scenario.
Tar sands, like the vast Alberta Canada deposits, require extreme amounts of water for extraction. Anyone who cares about wilderness and land aesthetics shouldn't support those methods, except as a last resort if no alternatives seem practical. They shouldn't be used as a green flag for more mindless consumption.
Pursuing shale and tar sands also means more global warming; a big reason NOT to stay the course. Rush Limbaugh is not a scientist and we can't waste time basing public policy on right-wing greed. Huge amounts of ice are retreating near the poles and from mountain glaciers at all labreastudes. Remember when the "conserv"atives first claimed it wasn't even happening? Now they're claiming it's just not Manmade. Their excuses keep getting thinner like the ice itself.
It's a shame more people can't think beyond grabbing more oil for the gluttonous herd. A real conservation ethic and stopping mindless population growth are vital to our energy future. We can't just keep feeding more demand, especially with China in the loop. It's time for more self control and birth control in this finite world.
E.A.
If any other species behaved like Man we'd call it a plague.
