Peak Oil News and Message Boards

We like to hand out labels
Climate change deniers
AGW deniers (AGW) cause I can't spell for beans
Peak oil deniers

I'd like to add one more, EXCESS DENIERS!

ED's are those who think that the path forward does not require us making any life style changes. We will switch form ff to alts. and continue with our life style. We will find ways to feed 9 billion folks and make them all well educated free people continuing our life style. The USA will continue to have the baddest kick ass military forever. Etc.

I see this denial a lot, that we can continue our ways, we won't have to give up anything. When folks say we need to replace ff with alts my blood runs cold. When they say we need carbon capture technology, I seeth.

We don't need that stuff. Nice to have? Sure. We NEED TO REDUCE our waste, our crap, our stuff. Know how much technology we have to develop, how much infrastructure we need to build, how much we have to invest to REDUCE? Zero, zilch, nada, 0. WE just have to stop whining and change our ways a bit and DO something. If you don't get on that band wagon, YOU are an ED.

Dish washers! Drive me crazy. Why in Gods green Earth does anyone need a dish washer? Yet I hear some NPR report from a Brit Twit living "off grid" complaining she can't run her DISH WASHER on cloudy days. My freakin heart BLEEDS for you lady. Get a life. She's bitching she can't run the DISH WASHER, vacume, and tellie all at the same time. She's a bloody ED! She's NOT green!

I "operated" a dish washer exactly ONCE in my life time, it took me 2 hours to mop up the resultant mess. We live in Philladelphia (4 more weeks ) we do NOT have AC. It can be done. Tellie? No, and good riddence. We are better off. From here we are down sizing.

Rant off...fun game

YOU MIGHT BE AN EXCESS DENIER IF...
you think we NEED carbon sequestration to reduce emissions
You think we NEED a carbon tax to reduce emissions
You think we NEED Elon Musk anything....
You think we NEED......???

Yeah there sure are alot of ED's out there. They believe in excess to the point that they can't get a hard on any longer

When I was back in the US I sat in front of the TV for the first time in ages. It seemed every 2nd commercial was for ED.

I bet if you did a poll you would find a high correlation between excess deniers and erectile dysfunction.

Investing in Pfizer(who makes Viagra) was the best investment I ever made.

When you simplify your life and break the cycle of consumption, your life has a lot less drama in it. That is why I did it and will continue to downsize. Plus I'm notoriously cheap.

That is why I did it and will continue to downsize.

Yeah, sure. Wake me when you downsize from a truck to a Prius.

A truck has a certain utility that is needed for my continual downsizing.

Ibon,
If you watch too much american tv you might even get a problem with "electile dysfunction" .
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ysfunction

claman wrote:Ibon,
If you watch too much american tv you might even get a problem with "electile dysfunction" .
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ysfunction

I am definitely suffering from electile dysfunction without watching TV, logging on to po.com and reading Sixstrings latest dissections.

It is probably desirable that most people don't vote in elections.

Would one think of the folks in the Philippines as ED’s or just a fairly impoverished group trying to improve their lives? Yet as the PO News just reports this ISLAND NATION is swinging more and more to coal for an energy source. As a country that has made such feelings known they certainly aren’t an AGW or PO denier. Which goes back to the point I repeated make that pisses off so many: given economic wellbeing vs the effects of AGW on the yet born the world is making its choice known daily by its continued efforts to provide economic growth. Even a country like the Philippines with thousands of miles of coastline.

As I've said before I suspect many "deniers" actually accept the possibility of AGW but can't bring themselves to admit it publicly as they struggle to maintain BAU.

It was about 38 seconds after I hit the "submit" button that I made the connection to the other ED. So I knew what was coming. Especially given our demographics as a bunch of old, white guys.

But ROC gets it. Striving for BAU.

Newfie - It gets back to a very old adage: if you don't know your enemies and what motivates their efforts how would one ever expect to defeat them? If the majority of the world would chose economic growth over controlling climate change why expend to much effort trying to convince them about AGW if understanding the dynamics doesn't change their position? And that's where some folks still don't get the point I repeated make: it's not that I don't understand AGW. I understood it decades ago better then most here understand it today. My point is that such knowledge will have little bearing on the course the world's economies are determined to follow.

I hear you. That is a big part of why I'm so pessimistic.

Why should the poor masses worry about their grand children when they can't figure out how to feed them selves? Their existential crisis is in their face, screw the grand kids, if I don't survive there won't be any grand kids.

I'm just a bit agitated by folks here who keep hyping technology solutions so that they can continue with the wasteful lifestyle, and then thinking they are all awake and aware.

This is also just called "Green BAU," though I suppose that position is a bit broader than just Excess Denialism.

By the way, we do have a dishwasher in our house--it's called 'me'!

The swedish department of finance has just published their yearly "Long term survey extending to 2060". Here are some extracts from it.

http://www.regeringen.se/contentassets/ ... betankande

"The purpose of the Long-Term Survey of the Swedish Economy is
to provide a basis for economic policy and generate discussion on
formulation of policy. It is also to provide a coherent picture of
long term economic development."

"Until 2060 the Survey's scenario shows that material wealth in terms of GDP per capita will more than double, population will increase to almost 13 million
people and average life expectancy is expected to increase "

"Productivity growth for the entire economy is expected to
increase by about 1.7 per cent per year on average to 2060. "

"A major threat to this Swedish
strength is the fall in learning outcomes among school pupils that
has been taking place over a long period. The increased spread in
pupil performance also risks making distribution of knowledge
more uneven."

" From an international perspective Sweden has high quality
natural capital. Environmental and climate policy are mainly
focused on long-term administration of natural capital. However,
formulation of environmental policy is in part ineffective. This
includes poorer fulfilment of both environmental objectives and
other objectives, and unnecessary economic costs. "

"Change in future labour demand may to a considerable degree be
expected to be dependent on technological development. It has
been suggested that more than half the employees on the Swedish
labour market could be replaced by digital technology in the next
two decades. "

And here's the catch:

"In view of the uncertainty about specific future circumstances that
follows from the long-term perspective the Survey has decided not
to make any detailed policy proposals. "

This is basically BAU, except that it's hard to tell about the future - wich in a way also is BAU. There is not much worrying about what the future might bring when it comes to climate, energi or demografics.

dohboi - I actually found washing dishes somewhat relaxing. Gave the same sense of satisfaction as looking at a nice lawn after I cut it.

Newfie : striving for BAU - YES
Rockman : such knowledge will have little bearing on the course the world's economies are determined to follow.- YES

Newfie : Why should the poor masses worry about their grand children when they can't figure out how to feed them selves? YES, but Sweden is hardly the poor masses - and yet it's unconditional BAU when swedish goverment departments speak their mind about the future.

Cog wrote:When you simplify your life and break the cycle of consumption, your life has a lot less drama in it. That is why I did it and will continue to downsize. Plus I'm notoriously cheap.

What I find amazing (and sad) about this, is "excess denial" is such an ingrained mind set in the U.S. (for a huge proportion at the population, at all economic levels, since by far most people want to spend ALL they can earn AND borrow) -- that the simple principle Cog points out is simply discarded as ludicrous by the deniers.

1). Less drama. To me, it's ludicrous to not try to enjoy a life with less stress and with less hassle and turmoil, and more time to be able to just ENJOY life's simple moments doing whatever it is you like to do.

2). Notoriously cheap. I'll second that. My father made me look like a piker on the frugality scale -- but my best friend likes to joke that the reason my joints cause me pain is because I squeeze my pennies so hard. My economic peers at work tended to complain that (for example) their electric bill in their McMansion was roughly TWICE my entire (utilities included) month's rent in my lower middle class apartment five minutes from work.

I still think the smartest thing we could do is change our primary mode of taxation from the income tax (discouraging productive work and earning profits), and shift it to consumption taxes (to discourage excess -- i.e. bring people out of the denial by hitting them hard and often right in the wallet -- and greatly benefiting the planet and global society at the same time).

Since we can't even get a remotely reasonable gasoline tax passed -- I know, this won't happen. Excess stupidity correlates strongly with excess denial, IMO.

I shave my dishwasher every morning.
I went to my friend's farm recently and helped him slop his Excess Deniers.

To the third world, spoiled brats sitting on their piles of outrageous consumption
preaching to them about how they have to curtail their carbon footprints, has got
to be indistinguishable from having a fat man tell you that you must starve so there
is enough food for his grandchildren. It is a damn hard sell against human nature and
the difference between people of luxury and leisure and those who live hand to mouth.

Kunstler said: "We will do what we have done until we can't and then we won't."

The distribution of coal and timber and hydrocarbon liquids and gas around the globe
makes it impossible for the enlightened haves to police the carbon releases of the
struggling have nots. I do not see this changing in a revolutionary way, but more probably
in a die off followed by some evolutionary and very messy foundering around.

Newfie wrote:YOU MIGHT BE AN EXCESS DENIER IF...
you think we NEED carbon sequestration to reduce emissions
You think we NEED a carbon tax to reduce emissions
You think we NEED Elon Musk anything....
You think we NEED......???

I hear you, and your point is absolutely right that if the vast majority of people WOULD voluntarily greatly reduce their consumption, then we could reduce GHG's, pollution, etc. a tremendous amount without any of these things.

However, given:

1). Human nature
2). BAU growth

with respect, I generally have to disagree with you. (Instead of Elon Musk, I'll say we more generally need green energy and green gadgets).

Now, if you can get global society to take the minimalist pill and start living frugally and sharply reduce the population via tiny reproductive rates, green energy becomes less important. However, I just can't see that happening before it's WAY too late.