Re: synth vs. the environment (I don't think that there is any Audi content anymore, except for maybe the idea that we need to have somewhere to have Audis!)

[Jason Aamodt <Jason-aamodt@utulsa.edu>]

>Remember, we have less and less oil in reserves every day.  

Richard's Response:

Gee, I though that proven reserves were actually rising.  It's a silly way
we track oil reserves anyway; proven by the fact that we've been 20-30
years from running out of oil for the past, oh, 20-30 years.    Better
exploration/drilling/recovery techniques have made all manner of 'marginal'
oil fields into 'productive' fields in the recent past.  

I feel compelled to respond since the reply to this subject tore off into
the idea of trying to conserve our environment.  I must preface my response
by saying that I think that Richard's ideas are interesting, but maybe a
little to slanted to the $$ that would be preserved by not conserving vital
environmental processes that may be in jepoardy:

First, the post related to USED OIL AND RECYCLING, not the environmental
movement. 

Second, however, I note that Richard must agree with me concerning the use
of motor oils.  

Third, On global warming, I would reply that what we NON POLICY MAKERS, NON
METEROLOGISTS think really doesn't matter.  There have been a number of
national (US as well as the other developed countries of the world) and
international LEGAL and POLICY steps that have been taken and it matters not
a whit that we think the concept "dumb".  We might try to influence the
debate, but really, if the grand majority of the educated world thinks these
phenomena are really environmental problem areas, doesn't the counter to all
of this consensus seem a bit hollow?  SOme would say the consensus doesn't
exist, and I would cite them to the US Presidents Council on Sustainable
Development (web presence at www.pscd.gov - I think - its part of the
whitehouse server).

To submerge to the scientific principles, I would note for you that in fact,
the transformation of the atmosphere is not a totally human enterprise; we
are manipulating geologic processes, transforming the physical state and
chemistry of substances that were long ago "processed" by our earth.  And if
you don't believe that we can transform the face of the planet with our
industry, I would ask you to look at the myriads of cities and roads and
mines and railroads and . . . .

Since resource use came up, I admit that I've never heard of Simon and can
give no critique of his(?) work, but propose that those interested in this
subject shouldn't believe everything that they read - especially on the net
- even on the PCSD server.  I would propose that interested parties refer to
"Limits to Growth" by the Club of Rome or "The Path Not Taken" by Amory
Lovins.  Their theses have stood the test of even the harshest assault.  I
would cite them, and I believe that the concepts that they espouse would
prevail in any argument on the issue.

On resources specifically:  certainly the PROVEN reserves are larger today
than they were THOUGHT to be 20 years ago, but the principle (contained in
"Limits to Growth") is still valid:  The actual reserves must be shrinking
since there is only a finite amount of oil and other natural resources to
use and we are using them day by day (unless we try tapping space, but
Richard doesn't sound spacey to me).  The idea of PROVEN reserves is just a
fictionalization, a tool that we, fallible, humans use to estimate our
future.  Therefore, the whole debate that you propose is only a matter of
time.  Is it your Grandchildren, or their children that will deal with the
problem . . . or their children?  Does it matter to you?

Jason.

88 5ksq - maybe I'll bequeath it.