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!)

[MailAdministratorNYC <Admin@nyc.mitsui.com>]

	-----Original Message-----
	From:	Jason Aamodt [SMTP:Jason-aamodt@utulsa.edu]
	Sent:	Wednesday, August 12, 1998 5:56 PM
	To:	quattro@coimbra.ans.net
	Subject:	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!)

	>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.