All of the fear-mongering about Peak Oil and Global Warming are really funny when you stop to think about them. People have such a tremendous lack of perspective about things. You see, these problems are, in the end, market problems. Peak Oil to a much greater degree than global warming, of course, but they both fit in there.
The thing about market problems is that they don’t always get solved quickly, but they do get solved. And most of the work done to solve them is completely invisible to the average person. Only someone with a solid understanding of economics, who lacks irrational fear of the free market, understands that where there’s money to be made solving a problem, there are plenty of people trying to solve it as quickly as possible.
See, for example, crude-oil-producing bacteria. They eat agricultural waste and shit crude oil. Before you hippies start screaming about gas-guzzling SUVs or something silly, take a look at another great feature of those little guys:
What is most remarkable about what they are doing is that instead of trying to reengineer the global economy – as is required, for example, for the use of hydrogen fuel – they are trying to make a product that is interchangeable with oil. The company claims that this “Oil 2.0″ will not only be renewable but also carbon negative – meaning that the carbon it emits will be less than that sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made.
Predicted reactions for people who actually care about destroying capitalism more than they care about saving the environment:
- “But, but, but… GENETIC ENGINEERING IS DANGEROUS!”
- “But it’s still producing CO2! EVIL CO2!”
June 15th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I’m going to err on the side of skepticism, and say that “bugs shitting oil” sounds suspiciously like “cold fusion” (or maybe a group of lab-techies looking for investment capital).
June 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Yeah. It is unusual to hear about bacteria producing organic waste.
…wait a minute…
June 15th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I produce organic waste too, but to date, I haven’t had any offers from the mainstream petrochemical industry.
I read this article, and I see a “former software exec” — gee, there’s a nebulous category if I’ve ever heard one — and a guy who ran Shell’s European distribution operations (as opposed to, say, Shell’s chemicals research division).
Is a guy (or gal) in a white lab-coat too much to ask for here? The article promised scientists, and all I see are Dilbert characters.
(Of course, it goes without saying that if I can stuff bacteria-poop in the Grand Cherokee for $1.50 a gallon, I’m all for it.)
June 15th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Intriguing. Possibly more practical than hydrogen as a fuel source… of course the practicality lies in the costs involved and the issues with quantity produced at what rate etc. I imagine we’ll be depending on fossil fuels for quite some time yet (the ones generated from fossils that is)… and regardless of the practicality, I love the fact that there can be more options available!
June 27th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Yes, very interesting. The bacteria idea sounds brilliant… perhaps a little too brilliant… so I guess I’ll believe it when I see it! But I do wholeheartedly agree with the general idea of your post. As I learned when I spent a month with two broken arms, humans have an incredible capacity to adapt to a situation and to solve problems when the incentive is there (money, being able to function normally, or whatever).