<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Should oil get more expensive?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hooversbiz.com/2008/05/30/should-oil-get-more-expensive/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hooversbiz.com/2008/05/30/should-oil-get-more-expensive/</link>
	<description>Individuals &#8212; Companies &#8212; Industries: How We Work Now.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:25:04 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: dblwyo</title>
		<link>http://www.hooversbiz.com/2008/05/30/should-oil-get-more-expensive/comment-page-1/#comment-8140</link>
		<dc:creator>dblwyo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:29:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hooversbiz.com/?p=876#comment-8140</guid>
		<description>A fascinating question - to which one might add should it ? And why didn&#039;t back when we had a chance to control our futures ? Those aren&#039;t separable. I recently tried to compile a compressed set of readings, charts, assessments etc. in two parts looking at the range of factors: P1: http://tinyurl.com/5wxuo9 and P2: http://tinyurl.com/5jcah5 
So my opinion is a fairly public record. That said we have the problem that there&#039;s plenty of oil available but it is behind political barriers and the oil reserves in front of those barriers are aging and grossly under-invested in. Did you know for example that Indonesia has turned importer, Russia&#039;s output is falling, the North Sea and AK. fields are about done for, Mexico&#039;s output is falling, usw. Which suggests that we need a strategic transition plan, otherwise known as a national energy plan. Actually we have one and it&#039;s quite good - ignoring the minor detail of implementation, political sponsorship and public support. Which means that we ought to raise the local market prices of both oil and gas to at least partial world levels while using those funds for new R&amp;D. A new regime will take at least two decades though and in the meantime we need to be looking at conservation, nuclear and coal. BtW - just for the record most green alternatives are not economically viable given the range of available under-developed technologies. More pain now or enormous pain later - let us assume an exponential curve if you will :) !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A fascinating question &#8211; to which one might add should it ? And why didn&#8217;t back when we had a chance to control our futures ? Those aren&#8217;t separable. I recently tried to compile a compressed set of readings, charts, assessments etc. in two parts looking at the range of factors: P1: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/5wxuo9" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/5wxuo9</a> and P2: <a href="http://tinyurl.com/5jcah5" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/5jcah5</a><br />
So my opinion is a fairly public record. That said we have the problem that there&#8217;s plenty of oil available but it is behind political barriers and the oil reserves in front of those barriers are aging and grossly under-invested in. Did you know for example that Indonesia has turned importer, Russia&#8217;s output is falling, the North Sea and AK. fields are about done for, Mexico&#8217;s output is falling, usw. Which suggests that we need a strategic transition plan, otherwise known as a national energy plan. Actually we have one and it&#8217;s quite good &#8211; ignoring the minor detail of implementation, political sponsorship and public support. Which means that we ought to raise the local market prices of both oil and gas to at least partial world levels while using those funds for new R&amp;D. A new regime will take at least two decades though and in the meantime we need to be looking at conservation, nuclear and coal. BtW &#8211; just for the record most green alternatives are not economically viable given the range of available under-developed technologies. More pain now or enormous pain later &#8211; let us assume an exponential curve if you will :) !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seth Gottlieb</title>
		<link>http://www.hooversbiz.com/2008/05/30/should-oil-get-more-expensive/comment-page-1/#comment-7757</link>
		<dc:creator>Seth Gottlieb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 21:30:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hooversbiz.com/?p=876#comment-7757</guid>
		<description>The best thing would be to raise the tax on fossil fuels and use that money for programs to reduce our dependency: better/cheaper public transportation, rebates for fuel efficient cars and home heating/cooling systems, etc.

Of course, it is not going to happen :(</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The best thing would be to raise the tax on fossil fuels and use that money for programs to reduce our dependency: better/cheaper public transportation, rebates for fuel efficient cars and home heating/cooling systems, etc.</p>
<p>Of course, it is not going to happen :(</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
