Fast-moving turbines do indeed kill birds that try to fly through. The new generators are both more efficient and avian-friendly, so that issue won't last too much longer. I also have doubts as to the ability of wind turbines to make significant non-local climate changes; even the densest wind farm has far less effect on wind flow than any city or forest. Additionally, the percentage of the atmosphere affected is utterly insignificant (compare to carbon dioxide, which has already increased in full percentage point terms as a portion of the atmosphere).

On the nuclear side, there are generators on the horizon which run on the waste products of existing generators, promising a vastly increased efficiency from the original fuel, and dramatically reducing the final waste costs.

Frankly, I find the environmental movement's technophobia distressing. Any potential solutions to the worst crises facing our future are viciously attacked by the same people theoretically most concerned with the original problems. Anybody who's willing to overlook the consequences of rising sea levels to save a few birds has a screw loose.

I agree with alarajrogers. I can't help thinking that polygamy might very well be one of the primary reasons there's so much violent sentiment in the Middle East these days.

Perhaps he was persuing somebody else. In fact, I would say that is highly likely, and didn't pan out. I don't see why that's anything mysterious; especially since the ball was essentially left in his court after you asked him to try again and he refused (quite possibly in favor of courting someone new).

Anyway, I don't see any big, red flags here from him. (From you, well, the "couple-days-later-regret" is often an emotional but illogical response. I did that once, and, well, regretted my regret.) Give it shot, if you really liked him.

I'm not saying it's Armaggedon, but it sure as hell isn't an issue to dismiss or make fun of.

-- James P. Levy

Nobody here is dismissing the issue - just criticizing the idea of the necessity of armaggedon. As far as I'm concerned, the environmentalists who claim that we shouldn't push for new technology are just as bad as the oil tycoons who argue for the exact same thing from the opposite perspective.

Anyway, I think this ties into what I wrote earlier about a technophobic element in the environmental movement. I think these people really want us to go back to the stone age. I see a lot of overlap (in ideals and individuals) with the groups that lionize ancient subsistence cultures.

Studies have shown that people who are heavy and fit are far healthier than people who are thin and never exercise.

That's nice and all, but fat fit people aren't exactly a norm, y'know. Basing any kind of reasoning on a insignificant proportion of the population is silly.

The truth is, the existence of 6.5 billion people is the direct result of fossil fuel usage and way past the natural carrying capacity of the earth.

That claim fails the most basic sanity check: oil use is inversely proportional to population growth.

Yes, conservation could slow things down; and yes, biomass and other low-yield energy systems are possible and in use today.

So, basically, you concede every relevant point. What, exactly, are you trying to say, then? It looks like you're far closer to Andrew Leonard's position than the position he's criticizing.

And we have built a global economic system dependent on oil, both in production and shipping and the money system itself.

It's not so dependent that it cannot adjust to different energy sources.

I think it's dangerous and irresponsible for pundits and journalists to chime in on peak oil until they've really studied its implications in-depth.

You could say that about anything. I don't see something special about peak oil predictions that should exempt them from scrutiny - and criticism.

...but to just say 'wow that's a dark prediction' and say technology or innovation will rescue us is human arrogance at its best.

How is that any more arrogant than claiming that technology won't be able to deal with the situation? I'll happily split the difference - I predict that new technology will mitigate (but not completely abate) the economic crunch caused by rising energy prices.

...I would suggest signalling a warning, getting off the train and building new tracks.

Well, Andrew Leonard is actively writing in favor of developing new energy technologies. What are you doing other than complaining about said writings?

Please don't talk about peak oil if you don't understand it.

Take your own words to heart.

There's a lot of energy sources that will become more feasible as prices rise. (Unfortunately, most will still be fossil fuels.) Similarly, a lot of our energy use is at a far lower efficiency than we already have the technology to achieve. Together, that does not make a formula for the sudden, catastrophic wall that the dire peak oil predictions herald. Rather, it suggests a gradual slowing of the global economy as prices slowly rise.

Off hand, I'm much more worried about global warming in general and the eventual rise in sea levels in particular.

When someone makes a prediction based on these discrete computer metaphors...

Pardon, but when was the purpose of metaphor - or the purpose of layman descriptions of highly technical fields - to be predictive? Such an expectation is absurd on the face of it.