The world could kick the oil habit in a decade.
Yes, it could.
Side Score: 14
|
 |
No, it could not.
Side Score: 2
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
It's funny you should mention the "Man on the Moon" in 10 years because I was just thinking that the other day. We could have kicked the oil habit years ago but didn't. 30 years later we have done more studies than ever on alternates fuels and other sources so yes, it can and should be done. While I'm not a fan of the hybrid (Electric/Gasoline) automobiles there is certainly another alternative that could be used. Where I live the price of electricity is so high that I don't think the cost factor would be less expensive than pure gasoline or gas and a viable alternative energy source. We need something that will be cost effective, environmentally safe and economically sound. The vested interests have prevented and blocked a reliable alternative out in their "best" interests, which means money and the bottom line...profits. Side: Find the way
The world inevitably will have to go cold turkey but before then, I think a highly concerted educational and technological endeavour to change perceptions and end our total dependence on oil is possible. The challenge is large: to replace oil for fuel and oil for manufacturing with perhaps an array of options all of which must be implemented without oil (or a with a diminishing reliance) in the long run. If the world-wide political and scientific community could commit to this goal, it could be done. I feel like I'm arguing for the other side now... Side: Yes, it could.
Theoretically, yes, the world could become independent of oil. However, realistically, I don't see that happening in the next century. Too many industries rely on petroleum-based resources. What it would take for the entire world to rid itself of this addiction would be a MAJOR crisis. We're talking epic, biblical, massive crisis. Barring that, it's unlikely. Side: Theoretically yes
1
point
If - for some reason - we as humans found ourselves in a situation where in 10 years we could not use a drop of oil, we would overcome the obstacles. It wouldn't be easy or cheap, but with a population of - I don't know - I'll say about 7 billion people, humans would be able to invent, discover, or improve the energy sources that would be needed. Most people underestimate the power of the world as a collective group because the world's population has never been forced to innovate on this big of a scale. If it is a choice, then it will always lead to a slow, drawn out conversion from one mode of doing things to another. But, if there is no choice but do 'this' or die, then, in eleven years, we would still be around. Side: Yes, it could.
'eleven years, we would still be around.' Some of us. I agree that if we stopped killing each other for a few minutes (only a few minutes - don't panic) we could make hydrogen power, tidal power, nanotube synthesis and other neat stuff a reality and I also agree that it might take a major threat/catastrophe to kick-start the process. Side: Yes, it could.
1
point
|
There's no way it could happen within ten years. For starters, the oil companies would do everything in their power to prolong the introduction of a newer resource, otherwise their whole multi-million industry would be obsolete. Not only would the fat cats up top lose out, but the simple workers in the oil industry would become redundant, resulting in a considerable amount of unemployment. The result would also be world-wide. Secondly, you cannot exploit a resource that simply doesn't exist. What I mean by this is that you cant solve a problem that simply has no solution. Assuming that "scientists could do it in 10 years if they all concentrated their efforts" is a little bit over hopeful. You could say that scientists could build a time machine in a decade but it wouldn't hold any truth. There very well could be a solution, I don't know. Obviously, the time machine example was an exaggeration but you just can't make answers appear from nowhere. Even if an alternative fuel is ever found, I believe it would take more than a decade from now to kick oil habits. Not only for scientific research but for economic issues as well. Side: No, it could not.
1. If the oil really is running out, then the oil companies will be more than interested in alternatives - they'll want to control them. 2. You assume there is no solution. This is the point of having the finest brains spending 10 years exploring the possibilities. Off the top of my head, I can imagine a refined, possibly organic means of converting the mindblowingly vast amount of solar energy into electricity which can then be used instead of fuel and to process the vast seams of waste materials in a recycling process. Imagine a solar collector in orbit - it could collect energy from the sun which would have completely bypassed the earth - totally free, non-detrimental energy collection. 3. I think it can be done, we just need a seriously concerted educational strategy and/or a major catastrophe - the credit crunch is shaping up to scare people into action. Side: Yes, it could.
1. As I said, they would want to prolong the new resources, they would want to get ever last penny out out their industry before they can. I do agree that they would want to control them. 2. I don't assume that there is no solution. I just think that if there is a solution, it would take more than a decade to figure out, build upon, and put in use. The scientists wouldn't just be exploring possibilities for ten years, they'd have to put ever idea to an experiment, when they did actually find a solution they'd most probably have to build plenty of constructions that could range from factories to as you say, an orbital solar collector. Your idea is interesting but how would a solar collector up in space send the energy back to earth? And all this research, construction and distribution would all cost a lot of money. 3. I think it can be done, it would just take more than ten years for the whole thing to be complete and to kick the oil habit. Side: No, it could not.
|
