Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:35 pm Post subject: Survivor Peak Oil: Outwit, Outplay, Outlast.
I haven’t posted in a while, so here’s my current take on things. The main problem we are facing is that peak-oil is tomorrow in planning terms. This is where the “doomers” have the upper hand in the argument, all alternatives aside. The debate over "Peak Oil" itself is already over, in my opinion. It no longer matters whether peak oil theory is proven or disproven, because there isn't time left to do either, much less powerdown or come up with a techno-fix. Events in the world are revealing to us the only truth that matters: that a desperate resource war is emergent, one that will not be won by trade sanctions, saber-rattling, or technology. This is the only issue which should now be under scrutiny by those who wish to “Outwit, Outplay, Outlast."
The oil futures market has already accepted the long-term "bull market" in oil prices due to increasing demand. What they don't yet grasp is the coming "supply" problem. When this begins to dawn on them, and it could absolutely happen as quickly as within the next few months—given the current shortfall projections I have been reading as of late—then seemingly overnight the world will start to come apart at the seams. Crude oil prices will go through the roof. The commodity traders live solely by anticipating conditions and events, not by debating them.
Two other factors will have a major effect on the near future:
1) URR (ultimate recoverable reserves) there must be more transparency so that hard numbers can be run. If not, it is anybody’s guess here.
2) What will the rate of depletion be? Will it be exacerbated by “technology” and fools who will just steepen the curve through desperate water-injection or other production fixes? What if they blow-out Ghawar with this strategy? This really concerns me….
Energy investment banker Matthew Simmons put it quite succinctly: "The problem is that the world has no Plan B." After all, no one of any power significance (primarily the USA) is addressing the threat which most scientists/ecologists see to the future of the planet with regard to energy use, global warming, and their interrelationships with a growth-based economy. There is no grand scale movement to power-down or institute energy efficiency or conservation. There is no grand scale movement to develop alternative energies. We can debate this until the cows come home, but on a global scale, it is not happening. Locally, it can mean everything.
My best argument, that I suppose makes me a “doomer” is that the physical and chemical versatility of oil, combined with its high energy density, are such that no other known energy source can serve as a full or even adequate substitute. Energy density is the ratio of available energy per pound. For example: Gasoline’s energy density is 13,500 Wh/Kg (watt hours per kilogram) Ethanol, the often toted “replacement” is 7,850 Wh/Kg . Not nearly the bang for the buck as gasoline. The tide will turn on this fact alone.
Like I have been saying since I started posting, it’s all about rate and magnitude. We can't assume that somehow a gradual transition will be effected, because time isn’t on our side. Certainly there will be efforts among the global powers/OPEC to calm the markets in various ways, but so far their comments have not caused the price of oil to decline. I think we are one news announcement away from the start of the Survivor: Peak Oil episode. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Mar 18, 2005 Posts: 2627 Location: Minnesota
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject:
My guess is that the URR numbers have already been crunched by TPTB and here was the expression on their collective faces
So there will be no "tranperancy" other than lies. Other than that i agree with everything you said. I've even planted sweet potatoes & yams, though i hate them, i don't think personal tastes in food are going to matter much in the near future (very near).
Buy your wild rice now for the fall planting season!!!
A very good post. As for transparency in URR. I just don’t see the Saudi’s or anyone else opening up and giving out these numbers. I bet the URR of Saudi fields is a closely held government secret. Especially if there is a problem.
And the same can be said about depletion. I doubt we will have any warning at all about lower production until the number of tankers coming out of the Gulf begins to drop. The Saudi’s will be like ‘Baghdad Bob’ continuing to tell us they are not suffering any depletion even when the wells are running dry.
Does that mean Iraq is suppose to serve as some type of "immunity prize", keeping us safe from being voted off by the tribal council.
If PO were to happen tomorrow then France would probably be in the best position considering it's very low energy per capita useage. France has no significant energy reserves
coal
oil
natural gas
so in a sense they've been going thru an energy crsises and preparing for it long before the term peak oil was even coined.
Japan is also like France in this regard, but it's economy is so intertwined with America, if America goes down then so does Japan. That and once the dollar crashes Japan will lose 100's billions of dollars from the devauluation of the US currency reserves it's holding.
Well MQ, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Regular visitors may have noticed a ‘mellowing’ of the optimist/moderate camp of late - everyone (apart from Bigg and Roger Savage) is becoming much more ‘Doomerfied ‘, There is a number of reasons for this.
First up, North Sea oil dropping 17% in one year was quite a shocker. Obviously it’s a slightly different situation, but nevertheless one of Mr Simmons’ concerns is Saudi oil may drop off in a spectacular way too. Apart from the guesswork that has gone into the data so far and the issue of data transparency which has be one a chief concern of any developed nation reliant on petroleum products. It seems the whole issue relies on two things, as MQ has highlighted.
1) A plan B and willingness to adopt. The optimists among us have become more pessimistic watching the political hubris over climate change targets. For example, in the UK road and particular air transport are the fastest rising causes of Co2 pollution. But there is absolutely no political will really to, say, tax aviation fuel because it would be unpopular with people looking for cheap breaks and therefore politically unpopular. Moreover, it seems the government is planning large scale airport expansion. This is happening all over Europe, India, Asia and now Africa. It seems because this provides a (short term) cheap way of travel (I’m thinking low cost airlines) that makes it okay. But why on earth are we moving to the most polluting and unsustainable mode of transport in such a major way? Either it’s a wish to crash the machine or because someone is making money and is politically popular (cash for runways scandal in the UK) but nevertheless - eminently stupid. Ice cream tastes nice, but it doesn’t mean you should base your life on eating it!
Road transport is more problematic, because most people’s way of life is based around it. From trucking to trips to the store. Because this is a comfortable way of life most people have moved to a state of denial and we can expect to see the same with peak oil. In short, there is very little, if any, impetus to adapt faced with the problems with have. (It’s the natural order of things, is the excuse). Likewise, we can conclude the attempted fix for the current oil/fossil fuel addiction will be a tech fix, which as clearly doesn’t exist, yet. This is a bet, nothing more, nothing less. The only conceivable way it isn’t a bet is if new secret technology exists in a lab somewhere, someplace. While unlikely, we cannot rule this out. However it may present its own set of problems with environmental degradation increasing at an alarming rate: From deforestation, to over fishing, from waste dumps and poising of water courses by chemicals to quickly shrinking water tables and so on. India, China, Russia and now Africa are joining the ‘demand led’ cult.
2. Everything is going to be based on the ‘fall off ‘of supply. If this is rapid (IE happens at a reasonably significant rate compared to the rise up the oil curve) we’re in big trouble. There simply isn’t going to be the time to adapt because of point 1 [The lack of willingness to adapt and forever moving in the wrong direction].
This is a bet between a technofix *which is scalable* and the need to power down, coupled with URR and depletion rate. As there is no willingness to do this, we are fast running out of time for a technofix. Given the lack of data transparency no one has any idea when this might start. There’s another catch. With the current financial system, even if there was data transparency, a power down would require an immense change in the way we do business and live. A lot more sustainability, less mobility and would require a co-operative, educated public, collectively willing to make scarifies – such as less personal and foreign travel, luxuries and so on. Highly unlikely unless the evidence is very obvious, by which time even that hope might be in vain.
This is a game, a bet and a risk, no one is sure of the outcome but from here it doesn’t look good, but then no-one really knows.
The dearth of news suggests that RonMN's conclusions are correct - TPTB see no reason to discuss Peak Oil, because there is nothing that can or will be done.
Our society is structured such that we cannot gracefully transition to a different energy profile - it will be wrenching as people and resources are reallocated.
What's more, I suspect a lot of folks know that something is profoundly wrong, and more than a few have a glimmering as to what it is. They just don't want to talk about it. _________________ Dieoff. Fun to watch. Better with hot buttered popcorn!
As if we had planned it this way, I responded to an interview request today with this email: (Nice post BTW Monte)
Quote:
John,
You are quite welcome.
I too hope we can share some thoughts & ideas with the public, and help people understand what peak oil is all about.
The problem with hydrocarbon depletion issues like peak oil, is that the sound byte describing it is more than 15 seconds long. And as unsettleing as it is, this "seconds long" barrier to understanding prevents many from "getting it". It is, as you are aware, perhaps the most important issue on our radar save none. If the thoughts and predictions of some very well informed, serious scientists are correct... we have a problem which overshadows almost everything else.
Much has been written about peak oil to date, and I hesitate to restate what has already been described in intimate detail, but I will charactorize some of this thinking, and reference specific passages from others who have already made this journey.
I'm not much of an activist really... I'm a veteran technology guy, and single dad, which about frames the edges of my life. I'm not much for "bandwagons" and causes, although I have passively ($) supported many I felt were worthwhile.
Peak oil is a horse of a different color.
I hope I can shead some light on this complex topic, and encourage people to look into it themselves.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Johns" <somethingcoolca@hotmail.com>
To: <aaron@peakoil.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 6:44 PM
Subject: Re: Canadian Media Request: Peak Oil - SomethingCool.ca
> Aaron,
>
> Thanks for your quick reply. I've listed some questions below for you to
> answer - please feel free to answer in as much detail as you like. I
> appreciate you taking the time to do this interview - I really think we are
> going to open some eyes.
>
> 1. Tell us a little bit about yourself and how you became involved with
> PeakOil.com.
Quote:
My name is Aaron Dunlap, and I'm a technology consultant & energy news publisher from Houston Texas.
I became involved with peakoil.com in February of 2004 to help support the growing awareness of hydrocarbon depletion. As a technology/Internet specialist, I felt my greatest contribution to this issue would take the form of supporting an Internet resource like peakoil.com.
Since that time, I have focused on facilitating & fostering an international community of people who understand peak oil, and see the same need I do... to spread the word.
Peakoil.com is a non-profit, member supported website and the staff are 100% volunteers... including myself.
>
> 2. How worried should we really be about the end of oil? We've obviously
> heard from the doomsayers and from those that say there is no oil crisis -
> what should we believe and what are the official numbers?
Quote:
Peak oil does not speak to the "End of Oil".
Peak oil is exactly what the name (coined by Dr. Colin Campbell) indicates; "peak" production.
The midpoint of global conventional hydrocarbon production.
To quote from our site, (Special thanks to Mike Black for the concise explaination)
What is peak oil?
Peak oil theory states: that any finite resource, (including oil), will have a beginning, a middle, and an end of production, and at some point it will reach a level of maximum output.
Oil production typically follows a bell shaped curve when charted on a graph, with the peak of production occurring when approximately half of the oil has been extracted. With some exceptions, this holds true for a single well, a whole field, an entire region, and presumably the world. The underlying reasons are many and beyond the scope of this primer, suffice to say that oil becomes more difficult and expensive to extract as a field ages past the mid-point of its life.
In the US for example, oil production grew steadily until 1970 and declined thereafter, regardless of market price or improved technologies.
In 1956 M. King Hubbert, a geologist for Shell Oil, predicted the peaking of US Oil production would occur in the late 1960's.
Although derided by most in the industry he was correct. He was the first to assert that oil discovery, and therefore production, would follow a bell shaped curve over its life. After his success in forecasting the US peak, this analysis became known as the Hubbert's Peak.
The amount of oil discovered in the US has dropped since the late 1930s.
40 years later, US oil production had peaked, and has fallen ever since.
World discovery of oil peaked in the 1960s, and has declined since then.
If the 40 year cycle seen in the US holds true for world oil production, that puts global peak oil production, right about now; after which oil becomes less available, and more expensive.
Today we consume around 6 times as much oil as we discover.
If we apply Hubbert's Peak to world oil production we estimate that approximately half of all oil that will be recovered, has been recovered, and oil production may reach a peak in the near future, or perhaps already has.
"Understanding depletion is simple. Think of an Irish pub. The glass starts full and ends empty. There are only so many more drinks to closing time. It’s the same with oil. We have to find the bar before we can drink what is in it."
Campbell
What peaking does mean, in energy terms, is that once you've peaked, further growth in supply, is over. Peaking is generally, also, a relatively quick transition to a relatively serious decline at least on a basin by basin basis. And the issue then, is the world's biggest serious question.
Simmons
>
> 3. There is a book out called "Beyond Oil" that predicts Thanksgiving 2005
> as the day when we cross the point of no return - how much credence do you
> give this and if not, what is your personal opinion of when we will start to
> see theories turn into reality?
Quote:
There are a number of different predictions for when midpoint oil production, (peak oil), will occur.
The US Geologic Survey says 2030 (http://usgs.gov )
The Association for the Study of Peak Oil says 2007 (http://peakoil.net/)
"Beyond Oil" by Ken Deffeyes says Thanksgiving 2005.
And the list goes on.
The important thing to note, is that NOBODY, (with a few fringe exceptions), claim peak oil won't happen....
We argue about when it will happen.
Professor Deffey's point is perhaps even more ominous than peak oil itself. That there is a point in time, preceeding peak oil, where we lose the ability to steer clear of the most potent consequences of midpoint oil production; and that this happens long before the actual peak.
A sobering thought.
>
> 4. Oil reached a record high price of just under $60 US a barrel last week -
> what does this say to you?
Quote:
This issue is a different one than peak oil.
Oil's meteroric climb is a clear indication that demand has met supply, and there is little or no marginal supply of oil in today's market.
Our world consumes 85 MIllion Barrels of oil per day and rising.
We simply cannot produce more than we do now...
>
> 5. A lot of people - including the media - are not taking the threat of peak
> oil too seriously. Whydo you think this is?
Quote:
The business as usual attitude is pervasive thoughout our world. As my father likes to say, "What you are doing today, is most likely what you'll be doing tomorrow."
It should be noted that many economists don't take oil shortages seriously because historically these shortages solve themselves as higher prices provide an incentive which encourages increased production. Absent peak oil, they are correct. For the last 150 years this has been the case...
>
> 6. On the other hand, a lot of people believe the End of Oil will bring
> about Armageddon - what is thier problem?
Quote:
It depends on what you mean by Armageddon.
And it's important to avoid using the "End of Oil" as a description. We probably will never see the actual last barrel. Peak oil is about the halfway point.
The problem with making predictions, is that the furthur into the future you try and predict, the worse your predictions tend to be. Unexpected things can & do happen.
This applies to predictions of armageddon and to predictions of utpoia.
As a favorite author has written, "When times are tough, table manors change."
The real question here should be, "Do nations fight over scarce resources?"
A brief study of western civilization's history provides the answer.
At the end of the day, I'm much more worried about how my fellow humans will react to oil depletion, than of depletion itself.
Be aware of depletion.
Be afraid of how our world will react to it.
>
> 7. What's the best way someone can do some research and come to their own
> educated view?
Quote:
This is the mission statement of peakoil.com in fact.
"Exploring the issue of hydrocarbon depletion."
I suggest googling peak oil.
What you will discover is a wealth of information which details this argument. If you're like me, after learning the basic idea of peak oil, you will be filled with a desire to "debunk" peak oil theory. It's not the tin-foil hat websites which endorse peak oil which scare me... it's the growing list of geologists, scientists, industry insiders & serious researchers who subscribe to peak oil theory that frame the real debate.
>
> 8. What precautions/lifestyle changes should the average person start making
> right now, today?
Quote:
This depends on your individual situation of course.
For the average person, I'd set a list of priorities:
1) Get out of debt.
2) Get out of debt.
3) Get out of debt.
We won't be conserving or recycling our way out of this situation, and absent some new breakthrough in energy technology, we can expect economic consequences as oil prices climb higher & higher. If you feel the need to build a bunker and stockpile supplies go right ahead... but don't go into debt to do so. http://www.peakoil.com/forum8.html
>
> 9. Given the opportunity to be ignorant again and not know anything about
> PeakOil or be as educated and aware as you are today - which would you
> choose?
Quote:
"If I gotta choose between this and the Matrix... I choose the Matrix."
As far as I'm concerned, peak oil should be headline news every day. And although I do miss my ignorance in some ways... you can't go home again.
>
> 10. What advice would you give someone who was planning to take their family
> and move into the mountains as the end of oil approaches?
Quote:
My advice is to practice first. You are not Grizzly Adams & this is not Little House on the Prairie.
Bring a gun & a shovel... you'll need both.
What advice for a
> person planning to buy an SUV or two?
>
Quote:
Go right ahead.
SUV's are not the problem.
>
> Please feel free to add any additional comments you think are relevant. If
> you wish to send along a pic of yourself, that's cool too, but if not that's
> fine as well. (We have plenty of pics.) Again, thanks for taking part in
> this interview and I am really looking forward to your replies.
Quote:
In my mind, peak oil is about depletion rate.
Historic depletion trends would indicate a 3% - 4% decline in production over many decades, as seen in the depletion of the lower 48 US oil producing states. If this trend holds true for world depletion, then we probably have the time to invent our way out of this mess.
If Matt Simmons & company are correct, and modern depletion rates are much more aggressive, then god help us.
The problem is the maximum recovery extraction technologies in use today. By using modern extraction techniques, oil fields today produce more oil, more quickly and for longer periods than historic examples. The price for maximum extraction however, is maximum depletion rate. Modern wells deplete much more rapidly because of this MRE. One only has to look to the depletion of Ybel or the North Sea to understand the depletion rate issue. While it's true that the US lower 48 depletion rate has been around 3% for many decades, Ybel is depleting at 10% +. The North Sea at 17% +
When we consider that the oil shocks of the '70's were the result of an artificial shortage of oil of only 5% for a few weeks, and the impact that had on the US economy, the idea of losing 10% or 15% + in oil supplies world-wide, compounded annually is... well... frightening.
It can be easy to dismiss some crackpot Internet conspiracy theories.
But when noted geologists like Colin Campbell (http://peakoil.ie/) (http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/RM/2004/06/ColinCampbell.2004-06-24.mp3), investment bankers like Matt Simmons (http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2004/05/MattSimmons.ASPO.interview-JD.GPM.2004-05-26.ram), oil insiders like T. Boone Pickens (http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=10766), take this seriously... I'm all ears.
Dr. Richard Smalley, Director of Rice University's Nano Technology Lab and winner of the Nobel prize in chemistry for discovering nanotubes & buckey balls, thinks peak oil is very real. http://128.42.10.107/media/Smalley_OEF_20031101_300k.wmv (http://www.peakoil.com/contentid-6.html)
Peak oil is headed this way, and not a soul on Earth can hide from it.
Aaron Dunlap.
>
> Take care and talk to you soon.
>
> Fred.
> SomethingCool.ca
>
>>From: <aaron@peakoil.com>
>>Reply-To: <aaron@peakoil.com>
>>To: "Fred Johns" <somethingcoolca@hotmail.com>
>>Subject: Re: Canadian Media Request: Peak Oil - SomethingCool.ca
>>Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 06:17:42 -0500
>>
>>Hi Fred,
>>
>>I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Check out
>>http://peakoil.com for more depth than the blog. In addition, I have a
>>free Voice/IP application there called PeakSpeak (in the left column of
>>every page), we can use to talk if you like. The instructions are here
>>http://www.peakoil.com/contentid-9.html for getting set up. Or feel free to
>>call me the old fashioned way. 281-455-0743
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Aaron
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Johns"
>><somethingcoolca@hotmail.com>
>>To: <aaron@peakoil.com>
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 2:46 AM
>>Subject: Canadian Media Request: Peak Oil - SomethingCool.ca
>>
>>
>>>Aaron,
>>>
>>>My name is Fred Johns and I run a Canadian online news magazine,
>>>SomethingCool.ca. I discovered your PeakOil blog while doing some research
>>>on the current "oil crisis" and used it to learn quite a bit about the
>>>concept of Peak Oil, which intrigued me quite a bit. Then I got to
>>>thinking that since our website is all about talking about stuff
>>>mainstream media ignores, a story on Peak Oil and the current situation
>>>would be quite appropriate - especially since oil prices reached a record
>>>high just last week.
>>>
>>>If you have some time, I'd love to send you some questions on Peak Oil for
>>>an article on the same subject. I'd also be happy to link to your blog and
>>>other websites you think might be relevant. I can simply email the
>>>questions to you and you can answer them however you like. I'd appreciate
>>>any insight you can offer - this issue is only going to become more
>>>important and the more people we can get talking about it, the better.
>>>
>>>I hope to talk to you soon and feel free to check out our website. Take
>>>care.
>>>
>>>Fred.
>>>SomethingCool.ca
>>>
----------------------------------------------------
Well that's the $64 question isn't it?
What could happen to our world as oil begins it's inevitable decline?
The devil of that question is in the details of course; the specifics are
everything.
And it's worth noting that any predictions are simply guesses which may or
may not hold water due to unforeseen developments either way.
At this point, peak oil insiders don't really disagree with a peak coming in
the near future anymore, as it is generally accepted that the case has been
made with sufficient vigor to demonstrate this fact. The most interesting
debate is about speculating on potential outcomes. There are a blizzard of
"guesses" out there from the collapse of civilization to the dawn of a new
utopian era.
I'll not add to this dizzying array of possibilities except to say this:
A smart guy named William of Occam developed a "yardstick" we can use to
measure any potential idea for validity.
He pretty much said that the most reasonable answer, tends to be the correct
answer.
So let me ask you a question.
What sounds more reasonable to you?
1) Humanity will band together like never before in history, and confront
our collective energy challenges for the benefit of all humanity.
or
2) People & nations will compete with one another just like they always have
throughout history, up to and including going to war against each other over
resources.
The only possible argument against armed conflict developing, are those
which suppose some oil substitute will emerge to replace oil and avert the
consequences of peak oil.
The explanations are too lengthy to include here, but boil down to this
important observation.
Oil is simply an amazing power source & manufacturing feedstock.
So amazing in fact, that all other energy sources currently in use pale by
comparison in every category.
As Dr. Smalley mentioned to me, when you are comparing some alternative to
oil, remember that (traditionally) oil from miles around comes flowing out
of a straw we poke into the ground. Every other known naturally occurring
fuel has to be picked up. (mining etc...)
Why do we suppose we have been using oil instead of these others in the
first place?
Oil's very energy dense, safe to handle and refine, easy to transport &
historically abundant. Everything else is simply more expensive... much more
expensive.
That leaves "hail marry" unproven new technologies as our only hope. But
until we make the breakthroughs needed for these exotics, that's a
pipedream. We can't even seem to make nuclear fission breeder programs work.
Hydrogen takes more energy to produce that it delivers.All of solar & wind
technologies can be rolled up in a tiny fraction of our global energy
budget.
It's not that these alternatives are bad energy sources; it's that oil is
such a great source that by comparison they look bad.
Quid Pro Quo
Aaron Dunlap
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Johns" <somethingcoolca@hotmail.com>
To: <aaron@peakoil.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 2:43 PM
Subject: Re: Canadian Media Request: Peak Oil - SomethingCool.ca
>
> Aaron,
>
> Thanks for the great answers - they are very insightful and quite witty -
> a nice combination. Thanks so much.
>
> I did, however, have a couple of follow-ups.
>
> In the interview you said "At the end of the day, I'm much more worried
> about how my fellow humans will react to oil depletion, than of depletion
> itself. Be aware of depletion. Be afraid of how our world will react to
> it." Can you elaborate on this? How do u think peolple will react to oil
> depletion specfically? And what are some of the real, physcial
> consequences we will have to deal with? Once peak oil has been established
> as being well underway, how will our world change? How will this affect
> our every-day lives? What in your view, is the best and worst case
> scenarios?
>
>
> Fred.
> SomethingCool.ca
>
> _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Praise HawkMan
Last edited by Aaron on Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 201 Location: Charlottesville, Virginia
Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 3:52 pm Post subject:
Yes, I agree with the points you make. I think our best hope for a relatively soft landing is that a crash program to develop a combination of new energy sources will help fill in the gap between diminishing supply and a demand trying to increase but constantly coming up against the reality of PO.
No single "new" energy source can do it alone.
That's the most optimistic scenario I can come up with. I am not nearly as worried about PO per se as I am about how people will react to it long term. In the near term there is likely to be a 'circle the wagons' approach. It all depends on how steep the cliff appears to be. I hate to say it, but much could depend on how well governments are abel to spin this. People will need a positive vision of the future.
As if we had planned it this way, I responded to an interview request today with this email: (Nice post BTW Monte)
Thanks, Aaron. While Aaron and I disgaree on some things, we both came to these conclusions independently. To me, they are patently obvious and inescapable. I think Aaron would agree.
I think it instructive to note the "talking points" that Aaron and I have touched on. The peak oil issue, while broad-reaching, is quite simple. I think it can be summed up as such:
How fast will we lose the ability to meet the demand of, for all intents and purposes, a cheap, irreplaceable energy source upon which we have built our modern society, and how shall we cope and adapt to that decline? Note those two words. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
The dearth of news suggests that RonMN's conclusions are correct - TPTB see no reason to discuss Peak Oil, because there is nothing that can or will be done...
What's more, I suspect a lot of folks know that something is profoundly wrong, and more than a few have a glimmering as to what it is. They just don't want to talk about it.
Exactly. I believe the lack of much public outcry over the Downing Street Memo is because the majority of American people accepted long ago that Iraq was a resource war, and were complicit with the lies. Likewise, there was so little response to two former Republican officials stating that they believed 9/11 to be an inside job because most educated people figured that one out too. _________________ "The world is changed... I feel it in the water... I feel it in the earth... I smell it in the air... Much that once was, is lost..." - Galadriel
> What advice for a
> person planning to buy an SUV or two?
>
Quote:
Go right ahead.
SUV's are not the problem.
This is the sour note. The private automobile is the very root of the problem. The main reason we "need" oil is to fuel cars, and we don't actually need cars. Thus the need for oil isn't a real need, just a pseudo-need.
I remain optimistic. The resource war scenario is overblown because oil wars (like Iraq) have an EROEI<1.
If PO were to happen tomorrow then France would probably be in the best position considering it's very low energy per capita useage. France has no significant energy reserves
coal
oil
natural gas
so in a sense they've been going thru an energy crsises and preparing for it long before the term peak oil was even coined.
Japan is also like France in this regard
Good points, cube. France and Japan are the face of the future. Their strong bureacracies and industrial policy have served them well.
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
281-455-0743
While Aaron and I disgaree on some things, we both came to these conclusions independently. To me, they are patently obvious and inescapable. I think Aaron would agree.
