Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> What you seem to want is to be able to explore common goods for free (that
> doesn't mean "free for the end user" but "free for the one who takes it out
> of the common goods and puts it into the assets of his oil exploration
> company") and force your use of common goods on everybody else. How would
> you call that?
>
> Start talking about what you really mean with "production of energy". You
> thought that was a not very funny joke, but maybe start thinking... What
> you mean with "production of energy" is that somebody can take out oil from
> under other peoples properties, incorporate that into his own assets, and
> should be allowed to do so for free. Or at least without having to buy that
> oil from the people that have it under their property.
One factor that clouds the energy issues (nuclear energy, oil etc) is 
that there are some VERY powerful
interests that control these decisions.

For example: The primary reason nuclear electricity ever happened is 
because making electricity is a convenient
way to obtain plutonium for making nuclear bombs. I remember seeing 
issues of Scientific American with adverts
for nuclear power saying "so inexpensive it's too cheap to meter", an 
obvious lie. But the government was hellbent
to have nuclear power, and lies were the least of it.

Oil has a similar pedigree.Its a terrible fuel to generate energy by 
combusting it. But oil is now used to make plastics,
pharmaceuticals, illegal drugs, and a million other things, too numerous 
to identify.  If the primary use of oil is dropped
(gasoline) the other items will all go up in price, because presently 
they are "waste byproducts" created at the making
of gasoline.

and so it goes.

--Bob
 
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist