Jeff Rubin, the former Chief Economist of CIBC World Markets and the author of Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller built his reputation as one of Canada’s top economists based on a number of successful predictions including the housing bust of the early 90s and the rise of oil prices. In his recent book, Mr. Rubin predicts 5 per barrel oil by 2012 and with it the end of globalization, a movement towards local sourcing and a need for massive scaling up of energy efficiency. www.thebusinessofclimatechange.com
SeminarWealth.com
Learn to be Wealthy with Property, Shares, Finance, Business and Internet Articles…
Your arguments are all strawmen.
There is nothing that says we need to encourage or allow the use of nuclear technology in unstable countries, which tend to not be industrialized and thus have low CO2 outputs and oil usage anyway.
Similarly, there’s no reason any county not already industrialized and stable would need breeder reactors.
Nuclear terrorism concerns are nothing but a mix of alarmism and ignorance.
Replacing oil and coal with nuclear would mean a vast number of new nuclear stations world wide in every country, stable or not. Breeders would make proliferation of fissionables much more of a problem, multiply terrorist targets etc
Fuel reprocessing can extend uranium reserves up to 50 times. Breeder reactors can extend this number many times over and the use of thorium fuel further extends that number three to four times.
The oceans contain 4.6billion tonnes of dissolved uranium. Because fuel costs are so small for nuclear power, even if the extraction costs were 10 times that of mined uranium it would not make nuclear power unfeasible.
There is no shortage of nuclear fuel, just a shortage of political will to use it.
@ductonius Check your facts ductonious. There is a very limited supply of uranium!
The world will, by necessity, embrace nuclear power. The technology is well understood and the fuel is – for all intents and purposes – unlimited. The difficulties seen with nuclear power are for the most part a result of ignorance and irrational fear.
The global economy can function without the presence of cheap oil, it cannot, however, function with the presence of thoughtlessness.
and you’ll never see any of this on TV. nobody wants the “real reality” on tv.
Scientists=Used car Salesmen.
This is a really enlightening and fascinating lecture. What an exciting time to be living in the world.Thank you for putting it up.
right, i call that a right of reply. however, i still would like to know whether you take my historical point of view as true or possible.
Me whining? Look at yourself!! You’re going on a BIG rant here and you don’t know me or my circumstances!! Tell you what, go fuck yourself ASSHOLE!!!!
right, just look at the great depression and new deal. do you believe that mr. roosevelt could have passed those legislations if he didn’t preside over a country full of unemployed? i’m just saying, look at the historical trends – at what has happened. our economy is not unpredictable.
Sorry but I don’t believe in faith in anything! I used to but that’s long gone! What happens happens!
I am under the impression that uranium is LONG lasting, is that not true?
have faith, for business cycles cut the long trends of usurpation. opportunity arises from the unsustainable position of the closely guarded flow of money from the pores of the manufacturer.
We actually already pay around seven dollars per gallon in Sweden, but that is of course with added tax. But having it trippled? Help
@topcat113 Why not? It already exists in Europe. Its called energy tax.
All the talk is on the supply side.
China, if it continues on its current growth path, (impossible in the long run) will, in 30 years time, itself require as much oil as the world now produces -if its consumption patterns mirror those of the US.
Read Lester R Brown’s book Plan 3.0 or google him and watch one of his talks on the subject.
The people will not put up with carbon taxes. This guy is demented.
@acric5 Let’s see, and you are currently or have been the Chief Economist where?
Windbag! You have nothing substantial to offer in rebuttal so you do what you do best – offer the empty reply of a pompous ass.
nice beginning, however he loses all credibility and actually looks very foolish with his conclusions. He wants the market to control emissions by regulating with taxation ( force ). Never in history has government regulation improved productivity………..never. He’s an idiot not worth any discourse. Critical tipping points exist only between the ears of those who have no means to prove causation. The old because God wills it answer.
Humanity needs a change of heart!
Check out William Tarkovsky’s youtube eco-video The Book of New Creation…
Our country could become FAR less dependent on oil. HOWEVER, the that’s not in the monetary benefit for the (at least presently)elitists who are invested in oil. So long as there’s plenty of oil(and or greed) things will remain the same!
I’m sorry to tell you that what you say it is correct, but only for very few peolple and a very short period of time. To cover actual, and, above all, future cosumpiton of energy only for transportation, all the sources you cited wouln’t be minimally sufficient.
Moreover uranium supplies have the same problem of the coal and oil supplies. The solution you suggest would be feasible only by increrasing efficiency in energy consumption and by REDUCING energy consumption. LESS TRANSPORTATION
“What do you think that electricity is mostly produce from?” Much of it is produced from Nuclear power plants and more and more from wind mils and other NON oil methods!
What do you think that electricity is mostly produce from? Coal and oil. And the situation with coal reserve is not much better than that of oil.
Regards