I wrote:There is still a lot of coal in the ground, but even coal might pose a problem 20-30 years out.

You responded: The supply of coal is not a problem on that time scale. You are exaggerating the problem of natural resources.

You are the one who is likely mistaken. This is not an exact science, of course, but there is very good cause for concern. Here is an excellent piece on coal in the US:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4061

People usually throw about a number that we have 250 years of coal supply left. There are 3 problems with this:

1) There is real concern as to whether the reserve estimates are correct - many think they have been seriously overstated.

2) These numbers (250 years) assume CURRENT RATE OF USE. But rates of continue to go up. That means that we will have something less than 250 years of supply left, probably a lot left. Even if you believe the 250 year number at current rates, if usage grows at 2% per year, then we only have 75 years left or so.

3) reserves are ultimately not what matters - the extraction rate is what matters. Just because there are 100 billion short tons of coal in the ground, does not mean you can extract all of it in one year. Well before we run out of coal the extraction rate of coal will peak, then decline. When coal extraction peaks, this will limit the amount of energy avialable to the economy, and this peak will occur well before the reserves are exhausted.

I forgot to mention that climate change may be another break on coal use. It may not be, but it should be. God help us if we burn all the coal in the ground, as we currently seem hell bent on doing. If that comes to pass, the phrase Hell on Earth could be uttered literally.

OK, I'll bite.

I don't see revenge as the reason for waterboarding, I didn't state that, didn't hint at it, I believe that there are times that it is effective. I state that because I have read of accounts where it "works". Valuable information is obtained.

You can get all kinds of information from torture. The problem is, you don't know if its any good. Torture is so painful people just want it to stop, and will say anything they think will prevent further torture. So even leaving aside the moral objection (which I strongly agree with)information obtained from torture is unreliable.

I am claiming that it is inconsistent to be Ok with putting lead into the head of suspected terrorists, but not Ok to put water in their nose.

It is not OK to summarily execute suspected terrorists. You have to make sure they are actual terrorists first, which requires a trial. This is why I think fighting terrorism is a job for the police, the FBI, and the analogous institutions areound the world, not a job for the military.

Is there ever an instance where you think military action is justified? For instance, was it Ok, or was it a war crime when the US killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? (without a trial by the way)

The answer to the first question is yes, when engaged in self-defense. The answer to the second question takes a bit of explanation. First off, the entire invasion of Iraq was a war crime - we should not have been there in the first place. Second, we killed Zarqawi by dropping a big-ass bomb on a house where he was located, causing significant collateral loss of life and property damage. That is not OK. He should have been arrested and brought to trial.

Not to sound like Bush and Obama, but it is an increasingly dangerous world, because the gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" looks increasingly like a source of reckoning. There are countless swarthy others out there who will be clamoring for their fair share (of the oil, water, food and maybe even for their so-called inalienable rights), while at the same time, there's less to go around, and various crises appear to be looming in the realm of both natural resources and nature (global warming).

Amen, brother. This reminds me of a quote from George Monbiot, easily my favorite journalist:

"If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack. In the presence of entropy, virtue might be impossible"

The whole essay, and it is fantastic, can be found here:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/10/06/no-longer-obeying-orders/

Things like liberty and a Bill of Rights probably depend on cheap and abundant resources, a condition which will very soon no longer apply.