Will sex or tombstones sell electric vehicles?

Gee, I not sure I would be so cavalier about the science of global warming!

First we should recognize that the term:

"Global Warming"

...is considered an obsolete term. The "newer" phrase is:

"Climate Change"

...this was done because the scientists realized that "Straight Line Global Warming" (the "hockey stick") is unlikely and the first replacement idea was that the "Tipping Point" to cooling would come sooner because of man's input.

However, the most recent perspective goes more along the line of:

"Climate Cycle"

...in recognition of the fact that every 100,000 years for the last few million years there has been a cycle of warming and cooling and all the data points presently show compliance with that cycle.

Back 20,000 years ago man lived in caves. In Germany they found artifacts of humans in caves and a flute was discovered there. This suggests that even at the last Ice Ace bottom that man was able to adapt and find ways to express culture even with cold weather. (this means the early Germans began with music at least 20,000 year ago)

The "bottom line" is that the "Climate Cycle" is going to continue on it's merry way whether humans exist or not. You can't stop the cycles of nature.

--------------------

One last thing... in the last Climate Cycle from 100,000 years ago they also found a "CO2 Lag" of about 30,000 years. So it's actually historically normal for CO2 to remain high even though the ice caps melt and the ocean currents slow down. It takes the 30,000 years of lag time for the CO2 to be reabsorbed by the oceans.

So far there is no data that suggests abnormal (outside expected range) activity. The earth naturally cycles like this... we just were slow to learn about it.

There are people today that still are believing in "Straight Line Global Warming" even though the scientists are saying that's not what will happen. People's knowledge often lags behind the facts.

(Dreading to look how crazy this argument has gotten in my absence.)

:BLINK:

SAFE!! EXCELLENT! Not only on topic, but such cool in the face of trolls who are more interested in heaping abuse than in the subject itself. I guess you could say that government intervention is a singular aspect of the tombstone part of the original post: "Go electric now, or the government will FORCE you to."

So let's get to a past government intervention into getting people cars; not here, but once again in Nazi Germany, this being the idea of bringing about what we call the Volkswagen Beetle. But they called it the Porsche Type 60, nicknamed 'KdF-Wagen,' (Kraft durch Freude) meaning "Strength Through Joy Kar." Kraft durch Freude was the Socialist German Labor Front leisure organization. What I understand of the program was that there was only one way an average German citizen was going to get the car. Yet many never got theirs.

What you were supposed to do was sign up to have 5 marks deducted from your paycheck. ("Five marks a week you must put aside - If in your own car you want to ride.") At this rate, it would take 150 weeks to pay the 750 mark pricetag of the Beetle. I don't remember the exact numbers, but at something like 375 marks the purchase order went to the factory, putting you in line for your Bug. Theoretically there was an amount (600 marks?) that would trigger the delivery of your car, and you would finish paying off the car as you drove it. Sounds good on paper, but things happen.

Some say the government never intended to see people getting their cars this way, that it was always intending to divert the money to war production. Others say it wasn't that the government took the money, it was just that the factory couldn't keep up with the orders, then production shifted to military transports. (The basic Beetle design proved itself desert ready in Africa.) If the government is involved, political expediency will always interfere. Just one more example of how if you want your electric car, you have to keep the government OUT.

But the Germans progressed much farther with their "Peoples' Car" philosphy (Beginning years before the Nazis came to power) that most government every would have. How ironic that it was Jewish automotive writer/designer Josef Ganz whose efforts to build a car for the price of a motorcycle led to both his Maikäfer (May Beetle) and some biting satire against the heavy, unsafe existing cars. Bringing lawsuits, advertising boycotts and the resulting fame to him and the publications he worked for, as well as employment with companies he ridiculed. Plus the ideas he published, the manufacturers used, making him the Godfather of the Volkswagen. Béla Barényi desinged the first car intended to be so cheap the average man could own one in 1925, a car considered to be an ancestor to the Beetle we all know, getting him the role of Grandfather. Other German manufacturers went to work on variants, including the Porsche "Auto für Jedermann" (car for everybody). The influencial Standard Superior by Ganz established the familiar egg shaped look.

Later Hitler himself would see the Czech Tatra T97 and declare it "The kind of car I want for my highway," and his own Peoples Car effort was underway. As Ganz fled the Gestapo and Germany, Ferdinand Porsche is said to have borrowed from these two designs. Most notably Tatras air cooled engines were considered advantageous in northern Europe at a time of no antifreeze. The Tatra lawsuit was ended by the invasion of Czechoslovakia, and so was the T97. Ganz was similarly stymied in his attempt to build his own Peoples Kar project in Switzerland.

Stadt des KdF-Wagens, 'the City of the KdF Kar,' grew up around the factory near Castle Wolfsburg. This became an area of heavy military/industry.

What civilians did get their cars had trouble getting gas during the war, causing the development of a wood gas generator used right under the hood. Variations on the car included the Kübelwagen, Schwimmwagen and Kommandeurwagen.

The British had intended to ship the equipment from the plant back to England to help rebuild their own industry, but no British carmaker wished to take over the KdF Wagen. After former U.S. President Herbert Hoover toured Europe and declared the policy of stripping Germany of nearly all industry and setting them back to the 18th century, the British concluded they could use the KdF Wagen as a military vehicle, so the factory was reopened after an unexploded bomb was removed.

Stadt des KdF-Wagens was renamed Wolfsburg after the castle, becoming home to what was regarded as the highest performance economy car in Europe. Other designs were built in places that had no Autobahn. The original 1.1 liter engine would grow to 1.6 liters. Germany had been unable to conquer the world, but the People's Car concept would. Even after the Tatra lawsuit would finally cost them a 3 million mark restituion, Volkswagen survived by eliminating the development of other designs and focusing on the Beetle. More than 21 million Beetles were produced, plus millions of varoamt Porsches that upgraded the design. (Including the 911.) Béla Barényi went on to invent crush zones, the collapsible steering wheel, among other innovations that brought him a nomination for Auto Engineer of the Century. Had he lived, would he have been irked to see Ferry Porsche take the title away from him?

The Beetle may not be a green car itself, but it's an excellent role model for the industry. Including the lesson to tell the government HANDS OFF! The Beetle for it's time was a fast, fun to drive car; continuing to be a big seller after time had past it by. It created jobs, built a community, resurrected a people from the dumps. And wasn't even an original design when Ferry Porsche cane up with it. It just goes to show you that the right car, at the right time, can work wonders. Now if we can just stop the loudmouths that want to rush things, we can come up with an electric that people will love even after it has become a pathetic relic, such as the Beetle and the Model T. Someday they'll build hotrods out of abandoned Volks Elektrisch. (Peoples' Electric)

Interesting, 12 months ago if anyone dared to question the scientific methodology of Global Warming (or climate change) on any forum such as this, an army of irate GW supporters (true believers) rushed to attack any heresy with real venom.

My mild criticism of the more ardent climate change followers, and defence of the rights of sceptic's to challenge "climate change science", was met with a barrage of abuse that ranged from labelling me a climate change denier, to a highly paid employee of the oil industry. (I wish I was!).

Yet, I notice that just as the climate change concept has achieved mass acceptance and support, interest would appear to have waned. 18 months ago this thread would have resounded to the fanatical cries of the adherents of the Church of Global Warming. Long posts of highly scientific theory would have been posted as evidence of my ignorance and arrogance for daring to question the faith, yet here is SAFE, happily posting views, vastly more sceptical than mine, but not a peep from the C of GW crowd.

Odd..

So far there is no data that suggests abnormal (outside expected range) activity. The earth naturally cycles like this... we just were slow to learn about it.There are people today that still are believing in "Straight Line Global Warming" even though the scientists are saying that's not what will happen. People's knowledge often lags behind the facts.

Be that as it may, you are still left with the finite limitations of 80% of the world energy supply!

So, I repeat, Are you suggesting that oil is not a finite resource? In fact, are you suggesting that the taxpayer has no right to require the government to invest his tax money in providing for a post-fossil fuel era? Are you really suggesting that the government should not regulate to maintain the pressure both nationally and internationally to prepare for a post fossil fuel world?

Would you advocate total deregulation? What then would happen to consumer confidence? What about investor confidence? Without forward regulatory planning, how could credit be created? How could a free market economy function?

Green Investment, needs to operate on a equal playing field. Governments already heavily subsidise, with taxpayer money, the fossil fuel industry. Since you don't like the concept of 'Green Economy incentives', perhaps you would prefer that government exercises it's other option, by imposing heavy and punitive taxes on the fossil fuel industry, with all the attendant economic downside?

These issues remain, with or without, climate issues. These are the issues which attracted many members of this form to the concepts of renewable energy, a long way prior to 2006!

Some environmental issues cannot be left to the market place. Maritime traffic is 97% fuelled by bunker oil. This is a devastatingly harmful product. But cheap! As long as the governments of the world fail to act to protect the maritime environment form this product, disaster looms. Recently, the Australian Great Barrier Reef was nearly destroyed by the grounding of a PRC bulk ore carrier.

Despite this, the Australian Government failed to make any moves to prevent this reoccurring. The British oil company BP spent billions of dollars, over many years, developing a Biodiesel alternative, only to fail due to a total lack of interest by even one government to support the creation of such an industry.

Much of BP's forward thinking of Lord Browne, was undermined by Tony Hayward's drive to maximise shareholder dividend returns.

"Dreading to look how crazy this argument has gotten in my absence!....but such cool in the face of trolls who are more interested in heaping abuse than in the subject itself.

I must confess, you are an enigma! Y'know, it's not abuse for people to express different views, and possess opinions different from your own! Despite the rather egotistical nature of your long diatribes,(sometimes just plain weird), I must confess to finding them irresistible reading!

The popularity of VW has always been a testament to the capacity of human delusion. Why this noisy, dangerous, uncomfortable little car, created at the behest of A.Hitler, and an unrepentant NSDAP gold badge holding engineer, should become the darling of the '60's left, and a symbol of anti capitalist western counterculture, just goes to show how far youth will go to annoy their parents!

But more on topic. The only thing that will sell EV's, is when EV's can compete directly with ICE, in the important areas of price, reliability, comfort, and convenience. This is not, as one contributor wrote, greed. Just commonsense.

Evidence can be witnessed in the demise of Vectrix. Setting aside the later bad management, the product, although sexy, was simply to slow, too limited in range, too expensive to appeal to anyone but a narrow base of loyal fans. These owners really got a bargain, since the real cost of each Vectrix was probably close to $200,000 each!

Likewise, Ford Motor Company have been very canny in limiting EV development and production to primarily Commercial vehicles. This eliminates many of the negative aspects of EV marketing.

In Australia, the population voted nearly 14% in the recent federal election for 'Green Candidates'. Opinion poles revel that more than 61% of the population accept the validity of the science of climate change. Australia was the only industrialised nation not affected by the GFC. Now you maybe forgiven for thinking that such a prosperous,environmentally aware nation, with the most urbanised population in the world, would embrace a locally produced EV.

Sadly, you would be mistaken! Despite overwhelmingly positive press reviews, several international awards, superior size, performance and a lower price than the iMEV, the Hyundai based, locally produced Blade Electron EV, has sold less than 30 cars after 6 years of production in Australia!

Governments, could assist EV acceptance by reducing tax on EV's, compelling ICE manufacturers to limit the speed of ICE vehicle to the speed limit, etc...

Such measures are not unfair EV subsidies, these measures simply redress the imbalance existing in favour of ICE vehicles.

Oh, and BTW, former US Pres. It's a dreadfully inaccurate libel to say, " After former U.S. President Herbert Hoover toured Europe and declared the policy of stripping Germany of nearly all industry and setting them back to the 18th century."

It was Herbert Hoover's report that prevented any credence from being placed on the 'Morgenthau Plan' This plan was the brainchild of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., United States Secretary of the Treasury.

The 'Morgenthau Plan' was conceived (without Whitehouse knowledge or approval), by Morgantau and a secret cabal of Jewish interests, chaired by Harry Dexter White. Harry Dexter White was a jewish/lithuanian high ranking US treasury official, and Soviet Spymaster.

The plan called for among other acts, the execution, without trial of 500 senior Nazi's, or anyone accused, by any Jewish person, of persecuting Jews.

The 'Morgenthau Plan' called for the compulsary sterilisation('castration') of the majority of German males and the appointment of Jewish overseers to the remaing population. Personable german females could be sent to the soviet block as replacements for females workers or breeding stock to replace soviet losses or comfort women for soviet troops. US occupied Germany was to be devided in into small states, all industrialisation was to be forbidden, all production surplus to the barest of needs for the population to subsist was to be diverted for the betterment of the State of Israel or designated jewish betterment.

The actual 'plan' varied depending on the audience.

The leaking of this plan, at Stalin's behest, to the Germans, left most Germans who would otherwise opted for peace, fighting after D Day. It's certainly why many in the German High Command refused to depose Hitler and make peace even thogh the war was lost.The 'plan' was a godsend to Joseph Goebbels who used an even more salacious version (as if that were possible) as very effective propaganda.

Gen.George Marshall, endorsed the claim that the 'plan' was worth 30 divisions to Hitler!

Morgenthau is certainly responsible for the death of thousands of US soldiers,millions of civilians,and billions of US dollars wasted.

Morganthau made the adoption his plan a condition of 'lend lease', and although the cynical Winston Churchill agreed to the "plan', he never intended to keep his word once he received the aid. Churchill considered the plan and it's archiatect, 'the viscious snappings of a rabid dog'.

Unfortunately, the circumstances of Soviet involvement and full knowledge of the negotiations via White, made post war dealings with the Stalin much more difficult.

At the end of his life, Morganthau devised a plan for the extermination of the Arab population of 'Greater Israel', by specialist bacterial warfare.

What is truly frightening is that in 1945-1949, this appalling fanatic, was briefly a heartbeat from being acting President of the USA! .

The hero's of this sorry episode of US history are Henry L. Stimson, Cordell Hull, President Truman, Gen George Marshall and the British politician Antony Eden.

Damn, why doesn't the ignore feature work? I'd have loved to have been spared your nonsense. What I write is SUPPOSED to be riveting reading. You're SUPPOSED to be distracted from your obsession with being antagonistic, but obviously. . . .

If only there was some better MODERATION here. NO, views different than my own have nothing to do with it. It's about bad behavior, spouting ignorance, behaving as though what you just made up is some sort of fact when you only made it up to be contrary. As with your bull about "Human delusion." The Beetle did its' job at a low price, was a technolgical innovation, deserved the success it was met with, etc. And didn't deserve your hatred. The inverted logic of YOU saying I somehow have diatribes. , , ,

Did you dream up that sicko nonsense about the Morgenthau Plan yourself, or is there some wacko publication you found it in? I can't even believe you wrote that crap about castrating the men, enslaving the women, etc. Is there nothing you can feel shame over? NONE OF YOUR DEPRAVITY was in the Morgenthau Plan, for the benefit of innocent victims who might read it.

If Roosevelt didn't know about the Morgenthau Plan, how could he have offered it to Churchill (Who made the $4 billion a condition but actually would have done it without) at a war conference? I guess I can't expect you to know the difference between Marshall and Lt. Colonel John Boettiger, who wondered if a few weeks of frenzied fighting following the leak of the plan to cut Germany up into smaller countries, give their mining operations to outside countries and strip away most of their industry might have been related, if so it was worth as many as 30 divisions, yada yada yada. His was a purely rhetorical remark, no way Boettiger could really know if it did mean anything. But the egg is piling up on your face.

The U.S. occupation directive basically was indeed the Morgenthau Plan. Morganthau said he hoped "Someone" wouldn't know that. Much of it was put in motion, but darn my sentence on Hoover wasn't complete. (I guess you understood it. Ridiculous of you to call it libel.) I meant he was AGAINST taking Germany's industry away, others would increasingly agree. Hoover is credited with putting an end to break Germany down completely. I don't really want to go on about it here, you drifted way too far off the topic.

I'll say right here in public, your post should be considered actionable by the modertors. That sort of deranged talk just doesn't belong here. Actually, pretty much all you have to say doesn't belong here, not just for lack of value but for the fact you only write it to be snide and irritating. Even without that last sickness, you are a discussion killer. I feel cheated by the false promise of the ignore function that doesn't work, though I guess it's just as well that I had the chance to set everyone else straight, I'd hate to think someone might BELIEVE the evil your wrote there. If they see it before the board takes it out, as they should. And you shuold go with it.

Can we get back to selling the concept of electric vehicles?

Some issues have been raised:

If the climate is not forcing us to abandon oil then why should we?

The original reason for getting off of oil for vehicles was that back in 2006 the price went up and America was looking for a way to regain it's independence from a fuel controlled outside it's borders.

From my perspective that original argument still holds it's own even though gasoline is now down to $2.50 a gallon again.

America was founded on the idea of being independent from foreign control and somehow we've lost that passion over the years and now the stock market here can shoot upwards because of favorable reports coming out of China. We are so dependent now on oil and money from the outside that it's no wonder our postition is in decline.

So the real reason to buy electric is to regain control of our destiny...

If the climate is not forcing us to abandon oil then why should we?[/i]

The original reason for getting off of oil for vehicles was that back in 2006 the price went up and America was looking for a way to regain it's independence from a fuel controlled outside it's borders.

Er..not really, regardless of the climate, soon you will be forced to live in a post oil, post fossil fuel era.

It's that feeling of being "forced" by a government that is causing all the negative reaction.

Americans have a long history of being resentful of "the beast". (biblical concept)

What I write is SUPPOSED to be riveting reading.

Keep trying, one day it may be riviting...

I can't even believe you wrote that crap about castrating the men, enslaving the women, etc. Is there nothing you can feel shame over? NONE OF YOUR DEPRAVITY was in the Morgenthau Plan, for the benefit of innocent victims who might read it.

Are you actually defending the Morgantau plan? What innocent victims? The Morgantau plan, is not a secret, the castration quote is actually a quote from Roosevelt! The Morgantau plan, come in several versions, issued to different audiences. None are disputed, (except for Joseph Goebbels).The Morgantau plan appears to have its origins in a book published in 1940 by the Jewish author Theodore N. Kaufmann, titled Germany must perish. The costs of publication were secretly funded by Assitant US Treasury Secretary, (and Soviet Spy)Harry Dexter White. Copies of this publication are available.

Where you are confusing yourself is that only some sections, and only a very modified version of those sections was officially adopted. (JCS 1067). The more lurid proposals were dropped as official policy, but are still contained in the original draft. Nevertheless, these policies prevented aid organisations from sending food to starving German children, since the Allied commission would not allow distribution. When Roosevelt was asked in Morgantau's company, would he prefer to see German children starve, he replied "Why not?" Morgantau was delighted and the Washington Post reporter observed Morgantau appeared " estatic" at the prospect. Morgantau confided his hope that the situation in Germany would deteriorate to a point that soon there would be no more German children.

No, I feel no shame for exposing these creatures for their evil deeds.

Like most of your inaccuracies, the Lend lease was $6.5 billion, not $4B, and the plan was leaked in 1943, not a "few weeks fighting".

The pernicious influence of the vicious fanatic Morgantau and his traitor henchmen, created the great cruelties inflicted on the civilians and children of a hapless and destroyed nation. If it were it not for the great vision, courage and humanity of Cordell Hull, General Marshall and Henry L. Stimson.
these actions would remain a crime against humanity, and be remembered as a stain on the American people!

I guess I can't expect you to know the difference between Marshall and Lt. Colonel John Boettiger.

Actually, I do know the difference, Gen Marshall was not only quoting from one source (Boettiger),but also from Thomas Dewey, Gen Sir Bernard Freyburg, Gen Omar Bradley, Antony Eden, Albert Speer, J.Beria W.MacKenzie King, R.G. Menzies, and a great many others.

.... but darn my sentence on Hoover wasn't complete. (I guess you understood it. Ridiculous of you to call it libel.) I meant he was AGAINST taking Germany's industry away, others would increasingly agree.

I see, of course, how stupid of me, I should interpret not what you write, but what you mean to write, if you had, but didn't!

It's indeed sad to find anyone in this day and age that would defend the policies of such a monster as Henry Morgantau and his traitorous lackeys. It's one thing to attack me, with your invective, but to defend the actions of a traitor and his genocidal master is unforgivable an unforgivable slur on the memory of the hundreds of thousands of Allied servicemen who died putting down one monster, only to have you praise the actions of another Monster who contributed to the death of millions and whose henchmen were traitors to the nation those servicemen were fighting to preserve.

Shame on you!

Can we get back to selling the concept of electric vehicles?

-

So the real reason to buy electric is to regain control of our destiny...

That would be good, but he's determined to drift off topic to better argue idly. He's knows he's lying when he disputes things you say, he knows he's lying when he says those sick, inappropriate things about the Morganthau plan, (And that post still hasn't been moderated yet) but cares nothing for how offensive or distracting he is. There's no directing him out of that behavior, lord knows I've tried. If you want to discuss the concept of selling electric vehicles, you need to have the discussion with people who care about it.

The only time you see anything close to his sort of talk about the handling of postwar Germany is when the virulently antisemetic start in about "The Jewish Plan," and Morganthau gets dragged in, but I've never even seen those people spout the nonsense about castrations and sex slavery, he has been the worse of all.

Meanwhile, new people to the board can read that and wonder just what sort of psycho behavior is allowed here. That post should already be gone, that poster should be gone with it.

So selling electric vehicles... how to do it well...

------------------------

As I see it the first thing is to transition out of this politically minded "thrust" we've seen so far and move into the technology and usefulness phase. For example, no one is debating the existence of the electric toaster for making toast (not anymore) because that concept has been introduced and has been accepted long ago.

People seem willing to get an electric vehicle if it fits into the standard free market conditions:

Does it look good? (the sexy angle)

Is it affordable?

Is it practical?

How reliable is the battery?

...if we sort of "transcend" the "Going Green" dogma and move forward into the free market aspect of electric vehicles I suspect they will sell of the basics are addressed well.

This is not so much an issue of "selling" but of "perfecting" the technology. A really good product is GOING to sell no matter what the politicians say.

He's knows he's lying when he disputes things you say, he knows he's lying when he says those sick, inappropriate things about the Morganthau plan.

The only time you see anything close to his sort of talk about the handling of postwar Germany is when the virulently antisemitic start in about "The Jewish Plan," and Morganthau gets dragged in, but I've never even seen those people spout the nonsense about castrations and sex slavery, he has been the worse of all.

I can understand why none of your your neighbours can get along with you.

It is not anti-Semitic to criticise the Historical actions of Individual members of any race or religion. just as it is not anti-Catholic to critique the actions of those who perpetrated the evil deeds of the inquisition, or any other evil. No race, religion or creed, is free from its fair share of monsters and traitors.

Unlike you, I accurately document my sources. Some of the sources I quoted in opposition to the Morganthau cabal were Jewish. I cannot recall a single serious historian of any persuasion who would defend such an evil plan.

Only those with something to fear cry out for censorship.

However, this is neither the appropriate forum, and you are not a sufficiently rational person to conduct a debate into such a topic.

People seem willing to get an electric vehicle if it fits into the standard free market conditions:Does it look good? (the sexy angle)Is it affordable?Is it practical?How reliable is the battery?This is not so much an issue of "selling" but of "perfecting" the technology. A really good product is GOING to sell no matter what the politicians say.

There is no disputing that the above is correct. If it was just a matter of sitting waiting for advancing technology, then under normal conditions, the free market mechanism would eventually work and the adoption of EV's is eventually assured.

I suppose that could be described as the sexy side of the debate.

However,the vast majority of the members of this forum would question whether these are normal conditions.

The tombstone side of the debate would argue that the existing energy market structure, along with vested interests, needs urgent government intervention. They would argue that without government action, a free market collapse is inevitable due to a tardiness to convert to new technology in time. The validity of these concerns to the world economy and environmental health, are the subject of passionate debate by legislators around the world.

You seem to arguing that climate factors and energy depletion factors are either erroneous, or don't require government intervention.

The tombstone's would disagree. Their argument is that governments should reverse the enormous assistance given to existing energy providers, and actively assist new technologies before it's too late. This, the environmentalist would say, is the duty of legislators acting as trustees of the commonweal.

The fly in the ointment is that alternate energy technologies are frustratingly slow and expensive to develop. Massive capital investment is required, much of it very risky, with very uncertain return. In order to make that capital investment attractive, I may require substantial government incentives and regulatory support.

Bunker Oil, is a good example. This is an extremely dirty, pollutant energy source for shipping, difficult to handle and awkward to accommodate in ship design. It has three advantages, cheap, plentiful and a sort of waste product of the oil industry.

Without government action, the maritime shipping companies will not provide the massive long term capital investment required to find a environmentally positive bunker oil replacement. To it's credit, BP under Lord Browne tried, but without international governmental support faced a shareholder backlash.

So while on the face of it your 'sexy' analysis is reasonable and accurate,this is only true if you ignore the tombstone argument.

The problem , as I see it,is what if the tombstoner's are correct?

What are the fears?

Climate? - It's pretty clear that the climate is going to cycle between Ice Ages and warm periods whether man is here or not. The argument that man effects climate doesn't hold much strength and can be largely dismissed as something to worry about.

Shortage? - Oil fields tend to produce the cheap oil first because it's under pressure and comes out on it's own. The more expensive oil requires lot's of pumping to remove. Apparently about 2/3 of a typical well is of the higher cost pumping variety. So at present prices the expensive pumped oil is not economical, but it's still there, so we will not suddenly run out of oil. I'd expect that prices will simply begin to rise as the easy oil is harder to find. We still have 20-50 years of easy oil.

Embargo? - This is probably the most significant fear. We get oil from people that might decide to suddenly cut off the supply, so the national security angle is probably the strongest argument. Shortages can be "created" because of politics even when resources are plentiful.

What are the fears?

Climate? - It's pretty clear that the climate is going to cycle between Ice Ages and warm periods whether man is here or not. The argument that man effects climate doesn't hold much strength and can be largely dismissed as something to worry about.

Wow, a real live man made climate change denial! Not even a sceptic, just straight denial!

Shortage?[/b] - Oil fields tend to produce the cheap oil first because it's under pressure and comes out on it's own. The more expensive oil requires lot's of pumping to remove. Apparently about 2/3 of a typical well is of the higher cost pumping variety. So at present prices the expensive pumped oil is not economical, but it's still there, so we will not suddenly run out of oil. I'd expect that prices will simply begin to rise as the easy oil is harder to find. We still have 20-50 years of easy oil.

There can be no dispute, even among the most optimistic, that the age of oil is entering its last epoch. Marginal oil will prove expensive and very environmentally risky to extract. Public safety and resource management are appropriate issues for government regulation.

Embargo? - This is probably the most significant fear. We get oil from people that might decide to suddenly cut off the supply, so the national security angle is probably the strongest argument. Shortages can be "created" because of politics even when resources are plentiful.

Yes, but this is a concern only relates to certain nation states. (the USA tends to think of itself as the entire world). Energy supply and environmental impact are of global concern. We all live in the same Biosphere.

Either we have a impending energy crisis on a global scale, or we do not! Either we have an environmental crisis or not!

Since the overwhelming consensus of respected scientific thinking, and simple logistical mathematics, concur that the planet is entering the beginning of an energy crisis, the simple "denial" approach contains an irresponsible element of risk for governments. More difficult to dispute and deny, is the planet is certainly facing a rapidly deteriorating environment.

I note you brush aside the subsidiary, but vital, issues of environmental pollution, such a fish stock depletion, bunker oil, toxic waste, deforestation, desertification,species eradication etc..

How can the free market rectify or self manage these issues?

Put legally, governments would be failing in their 'duty of care' not to impose and develop regulatory mechanisms to deal with these problems.

I presume you agree that it's proper for corporations to be held accountable for "duty of care'. So why should governments be exempt?

The development and adoption of such basic infrastructure as personal transport,EV, without massive social upheaval, is essential. This is a wise governments "tombstone' motivation. Failure to plan for the impending crisis will have undesirable political, economic and social ramifications. A prudent government plans for a stable market transition through regulation.

Is this not a legitimate role for Government intervention?

Wow, a real live man made climate change denial! Not even a sceptic, just straight denial!

Higher Education?

You missed my point!

In the beginning the phrase was Global Warming because the belief was that things would go like a "hockey stick" straight up. The scientists realized that was wrong and switched over to the idea that Climate Change would alter the natural cycle of the climate, the Climate Cycle.

So the more educated person about the science knows about the repeating cyclical pattern of Ice Ace, Global Warming, Polar Ice Melt and then back to Ice Age and understands that so far the data points are not out of line with normal. (even CO2 tends to lag which was a startling revelation)

My point was that the SMART people have moved on to something more along the Climate Cycle model and away from "Straight Line" warming.

----------------------

You have to admit that the phrase Global Warming is now considered obsolete.

----------------------

I agree that there is a Climate Cycle, but I disagree that we (man) can control it because it seems to occur naturally.

(let's not forget that man was living in caves back at the last Ice Age bottom 20,000 years ago and we've been experiencing "Global Warming" ever since)

Climate Cycle... okay, so what is it?

Let's assume someone fell into a coma in about 2006 when the concept of out of control Global Warming first hit the news. What would you have to do to educate that person to bring them up to the present day?

First you might show them the Climate Cycle itself:

You can see that every 100,000 years we cycle through and hit either the Ice Age bottom or a Melting Ice Caps top.

What you might do is explain that back a few years people had not done the research to know about this cycle and that they can be excused for not knowing. But from now on if you wanted to sell something like electric vehicles you CANNOT rely on the concept of "straight line" Global Warming to sell it because history shows that the pattern of Global Warming and Ice Ages is normal.

The Climate Cycle is certain... it creates Climate Change of which one aspect of that change is Global Warming, but the other half is cooling.

At this point the person coming out of the coma says:

"Okay, that's easy to understand... I get it."

Government dollars spent on "Going Green" actually crowd out private sector dollars that might be used for advertising. (sexy girls)

Like with the ancient art of bloodletting the patient used to eventually get better anyway most of the time and the doctor would take credit for that if it happened. If the patient got worse the doctor would increase the bloodletting until the patient eventually did die. The doctor might have said something afterwards like:

"Yes, the real problem is we didn't let the blood early enough or long enough. Had we drained the blood sooner the patient would have survived."

...you laugh, but that's how things worked back then.

Vmoto riders seem to wear very little protective gear: http://www.vmoto.com.au/2010/VMOTO-SECURES-OEM-SUPPLY-AGREEMENT-WITH-VECTRIX.html