Peak Oil.

With oil prices seeming to settle in around $100 a barrel – an alarming number, but not all that surprising when you consider the dollar’s weakness – perhaps it’s time for some contrarian thinking on the arrival of the so-called “Peak Oil” state.

The World Has Plenty of Oil.” Mr. Saleri’s conclusion:

Sufficient liquid crude supplies do exist to sustain production rates at or near 100 million barrels per day almost to the end of this century.

His strongest point, beyond the straight recitation of statistics on what we know is in the ground and how much we actually consume, is that high oil prices will tend to create incentives for alternatives, both alternative fuel/energy sources, but also alternative extraction techniques. Oil that was not profitable to extract at $50 a barrel may be quite profitable at $100 barrel, and if oil prices remain high, previously untapped sources of oil will come on line. (A 2005 study by the RAND corporation said that a “surface retorting complex” for extracting oil from shale “is unlikely to be profitable unless real crude oil
prices are at least $70 to $95 per barrel (2005 dollars).”)

All in all it’s a rather different message than what you might read in your daily fishwrap or what you’ll hear from any environmental group. Oil will run out eventually, but it’s not likely to happen in our lifetimes.

Sugar addiction.

So the American sugar cartel is at it again, trying to get the government to prop up their industry, which should long since have either disappeared or shrunk into niche status. For those of you who don’t know, Americans pay three times the world market price for sugar because the government restricts sugar imports – true corporate welfare. NAFTA was supposed to put an end to this bullshit, but the sugar lobby is now trying to get Congress to do an end-run around the free trade agreement by forcing the government to buy Mexican sugar imports to keep them off of U.S. shelves.

That pisses me off to begin with, but here’s the thing that should bother everyone: This asinine, smoothawleyrific policy is exacerbating the rising rates of heart disease in the United States. Mass-market food manufacturers, notably the soft drink companies, use high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener – even though anyone with a functioning tongue can tell you it doesn’t taste as good as sugar does – because it’s significantly cheaper than real sugar. This makes the corn lobby happy, but the problem for consumers is that fructose has a major downside: It reduces the levels of two enzymes critical to heart health,, leading to enlarged hearts and increasing the likelihood of heart disease. A diet high in fruits isn’t likely to cause this problem, but a diet high in high-fructose corn syrup – you know, corn syrup that is HIGH IN FRUCTOSE – is. What’s the better course of action: Using government money to keep Mexican sugar off the market, gouging American consumers while raising heart disease rates; or letting the market dictate prices and getting sugar back into soft drinks?