Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
Thanks for telling us we don't need to focus on issues of strategic concern. Most of us thought we had a role in predicting the probable locations and causes of conflict or instability that the military may be asked to respond to, which is why the military in concert with others in the government, academia and private industry explore issues like climate change (a reality), energy, food, and water security.
Oh c'mon Bill. How are those predictions working for us? Some good, some not so good. However, jumping on the political bandwagons of Peak Oil and Global Warming is a stretch. I don't want my tax dollars wasted like that by DOD.

For example, due to the hype associated with energy security, the U.S. government offers incentives (criminal in my view) to farmers to grow corn for ethanol production, which in turns equates to higher food prices and less food being grown, because it is more cost productive to grow corn for ethanol. Another example of where the market failed because it was over rode by dumb government policies in this case.
I agree with the above and keep in mind that ethanol is a net energy loser. However, it is the anti-development psychosis that is pushing ethanol. The same people who brought you Peak Oil, Global Warming, etc. Another backfired program. It takes more energy to produce ethanol than what ethanol provides when it is burned. Brilliant!

Excerpts:

To meet even the conservative growth rates posited in the economics section, global energy production would need to rise by 1.3% per year. By the 2030s, demand is estimated to be nearly 50% greater than today. To meet that demand, even assuming more effective conservation measures, the world would need to add roughly the equivalent of Saudi Arabia’s current energy production every seven years.

A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India. At best, it would lead to periods of harsh economic adjustment.
Same old stuff Bill. Alarmists without a real basis for the predictions. Same horse, different saddle blanket.