Peak Oil Movement Taking a Beating

[The_Libertarian]

hey all, the PO movement is taking a beating in this thread:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index ... c=10576.15

Sign up and give them what-for!

[Such]

Peak Oil is a myth created and promoted by the socialist Club of Rome. Along with the myth of anthropogenic global warming, it is part of a strategy of hamstringing the highly competitive US economy with punitive energy taxes to both curb energy use (and economic productivity) and fund a new welfare state in the US (also curbing productivity) so that the boat anchor European socialist economies can more evently compete with the US.

Do not become a sock puppet to global socialism.

This is the level of discussion on that board...

[Trindelm]

You have to be in some serious denial to believe that website.

[turmoil]

below is how the thread started, mind you. That other post is halfway through it.

Well, this isn't necessarily a nice and cozy topic, but it is a problem that we will likely face in out lifetimes, and I'd like to see if any other free staters have any ideas about what to do about it.

We're running out of oil. The latest projections I saw were 35 more years worth of easy flowing oil. But that was at current rates of growth. Since China's growth (as measured in fuel consumption) is set to explode, the 35 year figure is probably too conservative.

The U.S. has been quietly reverting to coal power plants, but that too is a temporary fix. Hydrogen power advocates overlook the fact that it requires petroleum to manufacture the required Hydrogen.

Am I the only one who believes that solar power is the only long-term solution to the problem? If you think there are other solutions, I'd like to hear them.

Also, I'd be interested in hearing ideas about implementing different forms of energy within a Libertarian context. Bush's collectivist energy plans require government intervention. How could we, as a people, encourage alternative energy sources without resorting to government intervention. Or is government intervention proper in this case. If we can make the case that Peak Oil is a national security problem, are we justified in using government and military resources to solve the problem?

Caleb

[The_Libertarian]

Peak Oil is a myth created and promoted by the socialist Club of Rome. Along with the myth of anthropogenic global warming, it is part of a strategy of hamstringing the highly competitive US economy with punitive energy taxes to both curb energy use (and economic productivity) and fund a new welfare state in the US (also curbing productivity) so that the boat anchor European socialist economies can more evently compete with the US.

Do not become a sock puppet to global socialism.

This is the level of discussion on that board...

That's just one guy. There have been balanced PO debates on that board before. It's worth it to saturate the thread with pro-PO logic.

[rowante]

Actually this is pretty sensible stuff:

Third, I don't think we should be too reliant on "free market solutions".  Yes, the free market is very powerful in creating solutions to problems.  However, sometimes those solutions are very painful.  The old expression goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."  If we don't address this problem BEFORE it gets out of hand, then whatever solution the "free market" comes up with is bound to be painful, because all the options will be painful.  I believe in the free market as much as the next person, but I don't believe in using "the free market" as an excuse for procrastination of necessary duties.  An example will suffice to make my point:  Lets say you are a businessman who operates a factory.  You decide to spend all surpluses on dividends (since you are the largest shareholder.)  You neglect maintaining your equipment or purchasing new equipment to replace older equipment.  Your advisers tell you that you need to make adjustments in your priorities and spend more money on your equipment, but you tell them, "Nah, don't worry about it.  If my equipment starts to break down, I'll worry about it then.  Don't worry, Adam Smith said something about an `invisible hand' or something like that.  The free market will take care of the situation."

You know what ... you'd be right:  The free market WILL handle the situation.  You will go out of business.

Let's not be naive.  This is a problem, and its a problem for much more than just the petroleum industry.  It's a problem for all of us, and to fail to address the problem is not only silly, its irresponsible.

That's the best anti-free-market-will-solve-peak-oil argument I've ever come across!

[whiteknight]

That's just one guy. There have been balanced PO debates on that board before. It's worth it to saturate the thread with pro-PO logic.

When you were in school you tried to get the geeks to date cheerleaders and the jocks to date the ugly girls didn't you...

Some groups just aren't meant to blend... Besides, not to start a pissin' contest, but some of their points could be correct. Depends on what preconceived notions you bring into the arguement.

[The_Libertarian]

Some groups just aren't meant to blend... Besides, not to start a pissin' contest, but some of their points could be correct. Depends on what preconceived notions you bring into the arguement.

I never denied that some of their points could be correct. I just said that PO was taking a beating on the site. It would have been good to see PO get some support from people who know what they're talking about.

[Renfield]

Peak Oil is a myth created and promoted by the socialist Club of Rome. Along with the myth of anthropogenic global warming, it is part of a strategy of hamstringing the highly competitive US economy with punitive energy taxes to both curb energy use (and economic productivity) and fund a new welfare state in the US (also curbing productivity) so that the boat anchor European socialist economies can more evently compete with the US.

Do not become a sock puppet to global socialism.

This is the level of discussion on that board...

I've found responding to peoplewho think this way to be a complete waste of time for two reasons:
1. They will not change their ideas because they have vested personal and psychological reasons to believe the way they do that have nothing to do with facts. Any facts you present to them will be treated the way they are in the Bush administration. They will be dismissed if they do not fith their ideology.
2. These people are so fringe they don't matter anyway as reasonable people on both sides of the debate reject people like this out of hand - as they should.

[KingM]

1. They will not change their ideas because they have vested personal and psychological reasons to believe the way they do that have nothing to do with facts. Any facts you present to them will be treated the way they are in the Bush administration. They will be dismissed if they do not fith their ideology.
2. These people are so fringe they don't matter anyway as reasonable people on both sides of the debate reject people like this out of hand - as they should.

Wait, are you talking about the PO community? Seriously. The true believer syndrome you just identified could easily be applied to several people around here. Any bad news they pounce on with glee and any good news they either dismiss or sulk about; you would think some POers would like to see the complete collapse of civilization and a massive die off of the human race.

[Renfield]

Wait, are you talking about the PO community? Seriously. The true believer syndrome you just identified could easily be applied to several people around here. Any bad news they pounce on with glee and any good news they either dismiss or sulk about; you would think some POers would like to see the complete collapse of civilization and a massive die off of the human race.

I'm talking about hard core fringe elements/conspiracy theorists from both sides. Some people believe what they believe because, for whatever reason, they feel more comfortable believing it. In this instance anyone who believes that PO is a conspiracy on the part of the "club of rome" is probably heavily invested psychologically in right wing conspiracy theories and will probably go to their graves thinking that we never landed on the Moon. What's the point in arguing with them?

[The_Libertarian]

As a subscriber to BOTH movements, I can safely say that both groups have extremists and moderates.

What you saw on the FSP site was a natural, uneducated, reaction to a peak oil inquiry. FSP members typically don't shut down to an argument en masse when it falls outside their frame of thinking. They'll resist it with all the logic at their disposal, but they won't just check out and ignore you. You'll get a vigorous debate, even if it's accompanied by a snide tone.

And perhaps a little outside debate will help to reinforce the logic behind your own beliefs.

[peaker_2005]

Actually this is pretty sensible stuff:

Third, I don't think we should be too reliant on "free market solutions". Yes, the free market is very powerful in creating solutions to problems. However, sometimes those solutions are very painful. The old expression goes, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." If we don't address this problem BEFORE it gets out of hand, then whatever solution the "free market" comes up with is bound to be painful, because all the options will be painful. I believe in the free market as much as the next person, but I don't believe in using "the free market" as an excuse for procrastination of necessary duties. An example will suffice to make my point: Lets say you are a businessman who operates a factory. You decide to spend all surpluses on dividends (since you are the largest shareholder.) You neglect maintaining your equipment or purchasing new equipment to replace older equipment. Your advisers tell you that you need to make adjustments in your priorities and spend more money on your equipment, but you tell them, "Nah, don't worry about it. If my equipment starts to break down, I'll worry about it then. Don't worry, Adam Smith said something about an `invisible hand' or something like that. The free market will take care of the situation."

You know what ... you'd be right: The free market WILL handle the situation. You will go out of business.

Let's not be naive. This is a problem, and its a problem for much more than just the petroleum industry. It's a problem for all of us, and to fail to address the problem is not only silly, its irresponsible.

That's the best anti-free-market-will-solve-peak-oil argument I've ever come across!

Agreed.