I agree that energy is a major factor of production: no electricity, no aluminium (etc etc). Okay…I think what is getting confused here is the idea of energy independence no matter how great that usage is, and an independent energy usage that is equal (roughly). The problems you have pointed out with the idealistic ‘energy independence’ movement may also apply to energy dependence. My point is that, barring new emergent technologies (hydrogen, solar, nuclear and thorium reactors [http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348] come to mind) we are in for a bit of bad luck energy wise, so some form of change in energy policy is guaranteed (if those conditions are met, obviously).

My point on artisans is not that because they produce something their energy usage doesn’t matter, it does. I was thinking more along the lines of the carbon footprint (or energy footprint here; relatively equal since most of our energy at the present moment produces carbon). And specifically, why the west or any other group had an entitlement to more of it than others. As to exporting a problem, by example I mean my own country, Australia, exporting coal and uranium without picking up any of the costs such as increased carbon emissions. Now, they don’t burn or use it, but regardless it will be done. This is a larger point which I don’t really feel is worth tackling here, but the main point I was trying to make was that in a world of expensive electricity and energy, it will be increasingly costly to import and export (barring of course a return to sailing boats heh). I was also thinking about previous treatment of third world countries by the west, such as the Bopal incident or the current situation in Iraq where oil is sold (though nobody would be surprised if America just took the oil as ‘reparations’ for reconstruction efforts in the recession). I was not really making a wider point about the division of labor in the role of import/exporting, but was trying to imply that in an energy scarce world, as you said, people will only do what they can. Therefore, less energy equals more local activity and less dependence on foreign sellers (though historically this has been achieved of course, and it may again develop through sea-trade and land trading via something similar to the Spice Route through Asia/Europe). Anyway, I meant only to say that, to take your example, if people in Vermont were using only their share of energy ‘footprint’ or less (ie. divide approximate ‘total energy’ by 9 billion, much as the carbon footprint is something like 1.6ha) then that is just plain responsible of them to take no more than their share. I also agree with your point that globalization and capitalism works to ensure that people with oil (or products) will sell, and people without oil will buy…and both win. My view is that since oil is a finite resource, this will high-energy method of international exchange might come to an end….and then Vermont might just have to huddle, and Saudi Arabia might just have to give up on maple syrup. :) I know this is a bit strange, but it just seems to be an emerging trend to me, and if I’m wrong, well, that’s life. :) Hope this clarifies what I said.

People of course will produce less: energy is a major factor of production. When energy is harder or more expensive to acquire, people will use it less and therefore be less productive. If you suddenly made trees hard to come by, what do you think that would do to the furniture making industry?

The effect is also completely independent of whether the vast majority of people earn their keep by running enterprises for themselves, or from selling their labor to large businesses.

As to exporting a problem, what the hell does that mean? :) Think about it. I purchase the bread I eat from a grocery store. Does this mean that I am exporting the problems of bread production to someone else? I guess you could say yes, since I don’t have to deal with the problems of making bread. I can let an expert handle it and concentrate on the things I do best. this is not a bad thing but a good thing! Let the guy who wants to tackle the problems inherent to producing oil take the job on, and I can tackle the problems inherent to writing computer programs.

You seem upset with the increased demand for energy and manufactured goods. That is a good thing. It means people are getting wealthier. And no, it does not mean that one group of people are getting wealthier while everyone else stagnates. Rather people are getting wealthier across the board wherever they are not saddled with a government trying to strangle trade or in the middle of a war.

Nor is the energy being “taken”. The oil that is consumed is being paid for. The guys with the oil get a nice amount of money in exchange for selling it. Yes, the U.S. and British government have done some pretty nasty and violent things to make sure that their friends were exercising this ownership, but that can be remedied by ending governmental interference, and letting the incompetent owners go bankrupt and sell their stuff to a new crop of would-be oil producers.

Again, I can see no rational argument that would doom people in vermont to shivering around wood furnaces while people in Saudi Arabia are forced to do without maple syrup while sitting atop oil which nobody will buy.

This is a pretty negative assessment of ‘energy independence’, and considering that energy has to come from somewhere, continuing with dependence is really just exporting the problem to others. How then is this supposed to be any better than ‘energy independence’? I agree that such a move certainly would set people back a long way back in developmental terms; but, if we don’t do that, then maybe continuing with the status quo will continue what we are already seeing: global pressures on all forms of energy, resulting in increased demand across the board. So, we have the choice of doing nothing to decrease dependence on imports (not solely in America) therefore using less net energy in transporting energy itself (and therefore condoning some areas to poverty, or to have local energy independence which will probably still result in poverty, but only because that is an equal state of affairs in comparison to what you have been describing as the status quo in America and the West…taking energy (and labor) from where it is cheap (ie. mostly the third world), blessing it with the golden seal of ‘free markets’ and giving it to the rich is not a legitimate response; when an equal distribution of local energy would culminate in widespread poverty but without the coercion and profiteering that accompanies global energy supply.

but the lesson here remains that the industry is unviable absent taxpayer money for capital. that means the industry is unprofitable in the real world. but the real question now, after $37B+, is what is and what would happen with any patents ADM gained or any other subsidy recipient gained since the subsidies began.

there is no doubt that companies involved generated patent worthy items involving enzymology products and fermentation engineering products. there should have been an agreement between the govt and the companies that profits or royalties derived from these patents would themselves be taxed and sent directly to each taxpayer on a quarterly basis. otherwise, we paid for these companies’ profit.

People who whine about our “dependence” on foreign oil are almost as annoying to me as people who like to infer that somehow oil exporting countries are evil for acting in their own best interests because they’re restricting “the world’s” oil supply.