Sear---You've got it precisely backward Druid.
Science must be questioned.
I just thought that this (original = "The science is beyond dispute") was funny in a new light of sciences infallibility. Still do
Innovation and critical (sometimes antagonistic) peer review are major cogs in the scientific engine.
But questioning scientific assumptions, and acknowledging scientific consensus are two different things.
How so?
If you can quote a recognized body of accredited scientists that assert that oil consumption can NOT be reduced, I'll retract my statement.
Until then, I stand by it.
What statement? What you said was
The barrier is not scientific possibility, it's economic disincentive, and societal status quo.
I don't agree with your statement that there is a "societal status quo"(at least in any one particular country) and I did agree (with your assumption) that because Global marketing politics are driving oil consumption to outer limits oil production can not maintain the pace for world consumer demands and consumers seem disinterested in forcing a change.
You can't possibly disagree with me about that; IF you hold the position you claim.
I think we should do more than "attempt" it. I think we should DO it.
My whole theme has been in trying to show how reductions in plastic use would slow down energy (Oil, shell, coal, Hydro, wind, N-Gas ,or any other kind (stored or otherwise) use.
To paraphrase Yoda:
- There is no try. There's only doing, or not doing. -
I assumed (erroneously I suppose) that is what I was TRYING to do. (show how to reduce oil consumption) image