Hey Libs: Pay Attention. School Is In Session.

Something I notice all too often in discussions with lefties about environmental issues, economic issues, whatever, is that they are abysmally ignorant of their own standpoints' valid arguments.

In other words, even when they're right, they don't know why.

Admittedly, that's not often; they're wrong about practically everything.

But that's ok; we have the right to disagree.

I have this notion, however, that if you're GOING to disagree, you ought to know how to do it.

So: I'm going to teach you how to argue for oil conservation PROPERLY, since you don't know how to do it yourselves. With oil prices still over $125 a barrel, despite OPEC saying it should be $78, well:

So pay attention, dammit, I'm only gonna hold your friggin' hand once.

Class is in session. Prepare to get schooled.

The primary reason - at least at this point in history - that most wacko moonbats cite as a justification for conserving oil is the theory of anthropogenic - human-caused - global warming.

So let's get that out of the way first.

Forget about the axial precession cycle of the Earth, or our current position in it.
Forget about the actual climate scientists, saying that the evidence does not support it.
Forget about the mountains of evidence against it.
Forget the fact that the global temperature dropped so much in the last 12 months that it erased the entire preceding century of rising temperatures.

Forget that even if global warming continues unchecked, blah, blah - its effects will likely be beneficial to humans.

Ignore it; disregard it; whatever it is you guys do when there's no actual way to support a theory of yours.

Let's instead look at Greenland.

"The Ice Sheet is melting!"

That's right, it's receding. As it has done in the past, naturally, with no human help.

How do I know this?

Because as the ice recedes, it's revealing human habitations to archaeologists.

Oh, wait, not just houses; FARMS.

Not just FARMS, but VINEYARDS.

Because - before the invention of the internal combustion engine, before the Industrial Revolution, before the planet's population hit ONE billion, much less six - it was hot enough, through natural processes, to grow grapes in Greenland.

There's no evidence to support human-caused global warming. But even if there were, it doesn't change the fact that a global increase in temperature in line with what the IPCC hysterics are raving about would be GOOD for humanity.

Sorry to disappoint you.

Now, that out of the way, let's turn to the subject at hand, shall we?

Are you ready to learn how to justify oil conservation? Good.

First, let's define it. "Conservation" of oil, in my terms, means never, ever, ever, ever, evereverevereverever using it for propulsion or power generation or any application at all that involves burning it up.

I've been accused of using "reductio ad absurdum" - the logical argument of reducing a statement to an absurdity, then claiming that the absurdity disproves the original point. In this case, that doesn't apply; you'll see why.

The first primary reason for never using oil for propulsion or power generation at all, in any quantity whatsoever, is:

Plastic.

You see, modern plastics can only be made from petroleum.

If you're reading this, you're using a computer; computers could not exist, at this point in our technology, without plastics. Neither could ball-point pens. Or your car. Or your clothes. Or your food containers; your cosmetics containers; your bottled water. Most industrial machinery would go out the window.

Compact discs? Gone. DVD or Blu-Ray? Gone. Movie theaters would go back to the 1930s, and use flammable celluloid for film. Conveniences of all stripes would vanish. Necessities of all stripes would vanish; we would magically be transported back to the first Roosevelt Administration.

Because modern plastics can't be made out of anything else.

Fuel? Fuel can be made from tons of things; basically any plant - if you really want to be honest about it - can be broken down for either ethanol or biodiesel; most organic material in general, regardless of source, can be made into biodiesel, right in your back yard.

Hell, you can even recycle dead hippies into fuel cells.

But modern plastics come from petroleum, period. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it; no oil = no plastic, and the global economy, and all the technology we've developed in the last 80 years goes *poof* like it never existed.

The second primary reason to "conserve" oil, as in never, ever burning it for propulsion or power generation, is:

Lubricants.

There are only three ways available to our current technologies to lubricate all the billions of tiny moving parts that power the millions of machines driving industry; manufacturing, automotive, hell, even MAIL-SORTING machines: petroleum, silicone, and plant oils. So-called "diesters" and other "synthetic" lubricating agents are manufactured from a single raw material; if you guessed "petroleum," pat yourself on the back. You cannot make something from nothing; the companies hawking "synthetic" oils - particularly for cars - are trying to sell you their product based on your misunderstanding of the word synthetic.

"Synthetic" is a descriptive form of the infinitive verb "to synthesize," meaning "making something from one or more other things."

A synthetic oil is still made of something; that something is petroleum.

Plant oils go rancid; petroleum products do not. Rancid plant oils must be laboriously cleaned away and replaced, where petroleum derivatives not only don't require this, but can be impregnated with detergent agents to continuously clean away residues.

Plant oils fail much more quickly under heat and friction than do petroleum products.

Silicone-based lubricants hold for a much greater temperature range than even petroleum derivatives, but they're not nearly as good as lubricants.

Petroleum derivatives are, far and away, superior to all the so-called "alternative technologies" for lubrication of moving parts. So much so that no real alternative in fact exists; again, without oil, you are facing a world in which, based on the knowledge we currently have available, our entire way of life is unsupportable.

But this one is actually worse.

See, plastics became widely available during World War Two; losing them would bring us roughly back to pre-WWII technology, but that's still an acceptable living standard for most people.

But petroleum has been the world's lubricating agent for a long, long time.

Like, since the Industrial Revolution began in the first place.

As in, if we lost petroleum as a lubricator, we'd be back to the 1830's or so, technology-wise.

So, what are our alternatives for power generation and propulsion?

Biodiesel is a mature technology; it's simply not widespread, because diesel vehicles aren't in wide circulation in the U.S. But if biodiesel starts to gain traction, that's going to make a quick turnaround.

There's an Indian company that is producing an $8,000 car that runs on compressed air; no emissions whatsoever, and a range of about 150 miles on one "tank."

New-generation modular thorium fission reactors literally are incapable of melting down; they produce - thanks to the modular design ensuring that all the fuel in use is burned - far less (70% less) dangerous waste than old designs; and there's enough thorium available to allow every person currently alive to spend energy at current U.S. per-capita rates for the next 165 years - just from what we've already mined and have sitting available. Based on estimated world deposits, there's enough to supply the world at U.S. rates for the next 618 years. That assumes, of course, that in 600 years we will still be stuck with that single energy source.

India has been using thorium as a fuel source for nuclear reactors since 1995.

Thorium reactors can actually burn up old nuclear waste from plutonium and uranium reactors, rendering it harmless.

It is worth considering for a moment that the thorium required to fuel the entire world's electrical needs would fit in a reasonably sized room, and the thorium required would only be about 2% of the mass of uranium mined today.

So.

Am I using a reduction to absurdity?

Absolutely not. I think the global economy needs to run, not walk, away from oil as a means of generating power or fueling propulsion. Our oil consumption for fuel and power needs to be ZERO, not 22 million barrels a day for the U.S. alone.

Imagine what a world without plastics and industrial lubricants would be like.

Think hard.

NOW you know how to argue for conservation.

THOSE are actual arguments to support your position.

Class dismissed.