Are the Chinese Rednecks in white felt hats? You realize that their oil consumption is growing by leaps and bounds, to the point that they are actually buying out the US oil industry, right?

This more than anything is a golden example of "Neccessity is the mother of invention." Right now it is cheaper for us to deplete the oil than to find other means. Welcome to high school economics.

When the demand is vastly greater than the supply, and it is more lucrative to supply an alternative, they will. Oil is, well, oil. It isn't some endangered species we are going weep for when it is gone. IF you think humanity is going to grind to a halt because the oil dries up you don't know much about humanity.

P.S. I think you mean "deer", unless they are hunting your loved ones...

Humanity will never grind to a halt parting nuclear winter, but even then we will probably bitterly keep on somehow. I dont think that we need to stop oil now, only perhaps think about other ways for the future. Perhaps get a head start on it. Did YOU know that several different oil drilling companies have bought out many things that would research things like fuel cells. Big names like United technologies are still doing that research. Just for planes. And thank you for pointing out my typo, because the rednecks have of yet to come for my family. This was helpful, though.

yes, I knew they were researching it, which was one reason I was a bit skeptical about the gloom-and-doom tone of your article.

The main problem I have is your charicterization of "redneck". I think it is crass and bigoted, and really doesn't apply to the oil industry anyway, for reasons I already stated. Obviously, ignorance isn't confined to rednecks.

I supposse it is. At the time I felt strongly about it and needed a fairly strong word to describe what I viewed as the stereo-type of oil companies owners. As my opinions never truly change but the intesnity of them does, I will admit that Its a bigot statement to make and that I was being a bigot. I still feel that they hold back alot of good because of the money they make, and that will not change. I will always be angered by it. But I will also admit that they are not necessarilly 'rednecks', but are in fact ignorant. I am sorry that I chose a crass and bigoted word, for it generalizes to the point where my feeling about it is covered by my own ignorance in useing the word.

Oh, i'm not disputing that there are rednecks involved with the oil industry, nor am I alleging that the oil industry isn't a greedy business. Most businesses are.

Where I differed was with the idea that the oil business is a "redneck business". The main threat from unbridled commercialism and environmental damage isn't in Texas, it's several thousand miles to the east in China. Sure, there is a 'Texas' wing of the oil industry, but that's only one slice, and most of them aren't rednecks.

I think that is one thing that blinds a lot of people about Bush. He isn't a Redneck, never has been, never will be. Most of the modern oil barons, even from Texas, are the pampered grandsons of wealthy people who were barely rednecks themselves.

When you call them rednecks, or ignorant, you mischaracterize your opposition, which is a fatal mistake. Profiting on a resource while you still can isn't ignorant. Shifting to costly alternatives too early and giving up profits IS ignorant.

Nothing wrong with exploring them in a cost-efficient way, scaling up as the need looms larger. That's exactly what they are doing.

I supposse I have once again done an ignorant thing myself. There is ignorance in the descision to hold back such research, not ignorance in their descision to stay in the oil trade. I do not suggest that everyone jump off of the proverbial boat and try to swim back to shore, but that they stop trying to keep the other boat from leaving. In the end they will still get to where they are headed, just like the other. I fully support the oil trade in its current ventures of allowing me to drive to work and have power to type this responce on the computer right now. It is entirely legitimate that they would stick to what works while it does, but why hold back the next best thing (or even just the next thing) when anyone can see that there is an end in sight (even if not now.). I do not say they SHIFT, only that they prioritize over the money... even if it means that the same oil tycoons and their children are the owners of name brand fuel calls 60 years from now. My arguement at this point is not that they are wrong for what they do with oil... only wrong for what they dont do with other things.

Would it be wrong of me to assume that you differ with, say, pharmacutical patents, too? It's hard to judge corporations on the same moral standards you judge people. We have different jobs.

Take me, for instance. I have a responsibility to mankind, but then I have a responsibility to my family. If I were single, I could become a recluse and give everything I make away to charity. With a family, though, that kind of charity becomes neglect.

In that light, I don't think the shareholders of major corporations share the idea that corporations should shift into a mode that gives more profitability to their competitors. If you own stock in an oil company, and you find out that they are pouring billions into research into solar or hydrogen, what would you say?

Me, I'd say, "I thought you were an oil company when I bought your stock." There will be a shift toward "energy" companies eventually, but right now people buy oil stock based on the health of the oil economy, and speculation of such.

It's easy to think of these businesses as a little room full of cronies, but in reality they are made up of tens of thousands of employees and stockholders. They just can't make a big shift that cuts profits without answering for that.

Think of it this way, if a major oil company announces tomorrow that they are going to hereby put 25% of their profits into alternative energy, what do you think would happen?

My prediction? Stock would drop like a rock. People who buy and sell stocks aren't in it for the good of mankind. They are looking for profitable companies that pay dividends and whose stock will be worth more than less later.

The stock drops, the shareholders lose their savings. Would you like to get letters about old Joe Public whose retirement just went into the crapper because you torpedoed the value of his stock in your company? I wouldn't.

While thats true, I dont necessarily think that those companies in and of themselves NEED to shift. It is an alternitive to letting others doing so, one that I agree in saying is not likely. On that note however, my original statement was that because of the money it makes it holds back such research, and that is what annoyed me. You make valid statements that the companies do so for a good reason, because researching it themselves would result in nothing immidietly good for them even if it is for the ultimate good of humanity. That in itself supports my original gripe, that stockholders and the people in the company are not in it for the good of humanity (or can be assumed). Like I said, you make valid points, but points that in the end are exactly what I was ranking on. I understand that allowing other forms of energy would provide unneeded (from their point of view) competition, and is from a buisiness standpoint not a good thing. These people are as you say, and that is as I said at first; in it for money. That is not so different from people in any other corperation, but ultimatly I was not even complaining about big oil itself; only that it holds back the future of our energy, not 'why they would'. On that I will say that you have made your points which are true, but I will not move from this point. They hold it back, and that cannot be denied. That is what I have said, even though there is no incentive for them to change. THAT is the problem. And that is why I bothered in the first place.

I don't think I was clear on that. I don't think for a moment that ANY alternative form of energy is going to be competitive, not for 10 or 20 years.

When I say " profitability to their competitors", I mean accepting lower profits for the good of mankind, allowing their competitors to soak up their share of the market. That's practically rewarding people for bailing on them.

I guess we differ on the whole idea of the oil industry suppressing these technologies. I've heard that argument, but if they were I think you'd see people in the educational or research communities showing startling results. Instead you see claims that never pan out in practice.

From an oil company's perspective, though, I think they owe more to their shareholders and employees than to research and mankind. Sure, their employees will suffer from fuel shortages, BUT they didn't sign on with them with the assurance the company would solve the world's ills. They signed on because they were a successful oil company.

To each his own. I think this is a matter of expectation, not moral right or wrong.

the time will come...

I guess I can only say that money blinds many people to the future, but I myself cant say that I know what the future holds. And on that I will concede, as I presume you arent hiding a little crystal ball. It IS a matter of expectation.

I presume you arent hiding a little crystal ball.

--How'd you know! LOL J/K