[MonteQuest]

As mankind continues to try to maintain the status quo, and energy consumption continues unabated, the question of peak oil occurring sooner, rather than later, seems almost assured. In the end, this question of disruption may be the most crucial of them all; for it is not simply change that affects us, but the rate of change--how quickly and easily one way of life is exchanged for another. A swift, chaotic shift in our energy economy almost guarantees disruption, uncertainty, economic loss, even violence. By contrast, were we able to somehow manage a gradual phase-in over time, we might be able to adapt and cope to these changes without a socio-economic upheaval.

Americans, it seems, have an insidious disease that is pandemic across the country; energy illiteracy: most of us have no idea whatsoever how our energy economy works, much less are we able to discern with any degree of certitude, when it is beginning to unravel. Beyond the price of gasoline and maybe heating oil, most consumers understand very little about the energy that they use. It is taken for granted. Few can say how much energy they consume in the course of a day or a year, or where it comes from. In fact, most people feel that most of their electricity comes from hydroelectric dams, when, as most of us here know, it is produced primarily by coal-fired and nuclear power plants with natural gas increasingly replacing coal.

Whereas residents of poor nations are acutely aware of every aspect of their energy use; every stick of wood, (sometimes carried for miles) and every gallon of cooking fuel is closely watched. Oil, in our affluent culture has become an invisible commodity, something we vaguely understand as to be important on a national and international level, but something that doesn’t really affect our personal daily lives, except in the price of gasoline. This energy obliviousness helps explain why we have so often misspent our "efficiency dividend;" we make lights more efficient, and we install more of them. Gas mileage improves and we build bigger cars. These mindsets help make it clear why, despite great improvements in energy efficiency, demand continues to spiral upwards. No matter how efficient we become, we must somehow alter the historic trend whereby any gains made through energy efficiency are more than wiped out by a corresponding increase in overall energy consumption.

As energy historian Vaclav Smil points out, "whatever the future gains may be, the historical evidence is clear: higher energy efficiency of energy conversions leads eventually to higher, rather than lower, energy use."

As a possible catalyst for the next energy economy, conservation finds itself in an awkward position, caught between it s great potential for saving energy and the obstacles facing it, ranging from consumer ignorance and prejudices, to a market and political system that still assigns greater value to producing energy rather than trying to conserve it. It is awareness of these stark realities that often gets me the label of doomsayer. I just cannot foresee any viable way to overcome these ingrained obstacles and make that all important transition to a renewable energy world without chaos and economic collapse. And even post-collapse, there will be a predominant will and desire to once again try to rebuild the "empire" of old. There is an old saying, "The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

The set of possible futures includes a great variety of paths. But the possible futures do not include indefinite growth in energy nor physical output. The only real choice is to decrease energy consumption to sustainable levels by choice, or to let nature force the decision through lack of food, energy, and materials, or through a severely compromised environment. I'm sorry to say, that many of those choices have already been made for us, due to inaction on our part, many, many years ago.

[nero]

The set of possible futures includes a great variety of paths. But the possible futures do not include indefinite growth in energy nor physical output. The only real choice is to decrease energy consumption to sustainable levels by choice, or to let nature force the decision through lack of food, energy, and materials, or through a severely compromised environment. I’m sorry to say, that many of those choices have already been made for us, due to inaction on our part, many, many years ago.

And we keep on making those choices everyday. For example the push by Bush and Co. to open up more land to oil development, to ignore global warming, and to increase "clean" coal.

Your point though that increased efficiency hardly ever leads to decreased energy use, causes me to ask a question; in what way would you see society transformed so that as a society we could act rationally? Presumably you don't want us to become the Borg (Star Trek reference).

[MonteQuest]

Your point though that increased efficiency hardly ever leads to decreased energy use, causes me to ask a question; in what way would you see society transformed so that as a society we could act rationally? Presumably you don't want us to become the Borg (Star Trek reference).

Good question, nero. I think drawing some parrallels to the African Bushmen, Australian aborigines, Eskimos, and the American Indian cultures is a good place to start. What all these culture had, or have in common with one another is a great understanding and an affinity for the workings of nature, and the readily perceived limits of same. Now, I am not advocating that we become hunter/gatherers, but I am suggesting that we use our knowledge of the complex web of life that is on this planet to achieve a cultural direction that is sustainable. Children of these cultures I mention are taught from birth to respect the land, and to not waste or consume unnecessarily. They didn't know of the Laws of Thermodynamics; living close to the land made it self-evident that there were limits. This is a paradigm shift that wil take decades to achieve, even post-peak. On a small scale, I see it taking place almost overnight with certain individuals who have already made the shift, if not in action, but in mind. Here is where my optimism lies for the future. Perhaps some of the heralded leaders of the future will emerge from the gathering of minds like we see here on peakoil.com.

[khebab]

I come from a country (France) where gasoline is twice the price in north america. Additionaly, most of the highways are managed by private companies and a fee has to be paid according to the distance you parcoured. Therefore, long car trips are quite expensive and French people have an financial incentive to use mass transportation such as the train. When french buy a car, they first look at the car gas mileage, the engine horse power is secondary.

I think that energy conservation is beneficial if an financial pressure is put on the individual. It seems to mee that in north america gasoline prices are artificially kept low and do not reflect the real cost of the individual use of a car (infrastructure cost, environmental cost and so on). Oil is mainly use for transportation (and mainly by cars) so pushing people to look for alternative, more rational, ways of transportation could lead to important oil savings. I don't believe very much in educating people about energy conservation, they usually understand it but never apply it. As you pointed out, people take enery for granted. The only way for a society to proactivaly reduce oil addiction is to raise taxes on motor gasoline. The money generated could be used to maintain and develop mass transportation infrastructures such as railways.

Khebab

[nero]

Good question, nero. I think drawing some parrallels to the African Bushmen, Australian aborigines, Eskimos, and the American Indian cultures is a good place to start. What all these culture had, or have in common with one another is a great understanding and an affinity for the workings of nature, and the readily perceived limits of same. Now, I am not advocating that we become hunter/gatherers, but I am suggesting that we use our knowledge of the complex web of life that is on this planet to achieve a cultural direction that is sustainable. Children of these cultures I mention are taught from birth to respect the land, and to not waste or consume unnecessarily. They didn't know of the Laws of Thermodynamics; living close to the land made it self-evident that there were limits. This is a paradigm shift that wil take decades to achieve, even post-peak. On a small scale, I see it taking place almost overnight with certain individuals who have already made the shift, if not in action, but in mind. Here is where my optimism lies for the future. Perhaps some of the heralded leaders of the future will emerge from the gathering of minds like we see here on peakoil.com.

But perhaps, not only do we need leaders, but perhaps we need tighter controls over the people. The history of the 19th and 20th century has been a continual restriction on peoples freedoms. This is only natural since as the society becomes more integrated it becomes important to, for example, restrict people to driving down the right side of the road. Perhaps one of the additional restrictions people will come to accept is a restriction on their thoughts. We already see that in the term "politically incorrect" that some ideas are not acceptable to society. Some politically incorrect ideas are even legislated illegal (hate laws).

Freedom of religion is currently held as something innately good but it does mean that as a society we are not as unified as we could be under a theocratic state. Perhaps to achieve the kind of reform that you would like where people think in terms of sustainability we need restrictions on religion. For example the Catholic faith is profoundly antagonistic to the concept of limiting people's fertility and therefore antagonistic to sustainability( "Go forth an multiply"). To achieve the goal of having everyone thinking about sustainability perhaps the key would be indoctrination at an early age into a religion that advocates such a course of action.

_________________

[jesus_of_suburbia_old]

For example the Catholic faith is profoundly antagonistic to the concept of limiting people's fertility and therefore antagonistic to sustainability( "Go forth an multiply").

Fortunately, as a former Catholic myself, I know there are many "bad" Catholics in the populous. The Vatican's views on birth control are considered rather ancient. Even after my own falling out with the Church, I am still personally opposed to methods such as abortion. However, in light of the current population crisis, I have had to grudgingly suppress my feelings on the issue. If there were more responsible people who used birth control, there would be less babies in the dumpster. Yet, some religions just have to insist that a drop of semen on the bathroom floor is equivalent to a human being.

Some of the problems, although, result in areas of gender equality. In certain cultures/relgions, when the man wants sex, he gets sex. Meanwhile, he gets to sit on the porch as his wife works in the fields carrying a 9 month old baby on her back.

[nero]

jrob,

I wouldn't want to offend Catholics out there, I was using an example of Church doctrine that is incompatible with sustainability and was not passing judgment of any kind. You give an equally good example of a feature of some societies that would also be incompatible with the idea of sustainability.

The question I would pose is how do you conciously encourage the meme to propogate.

[jesus_of_suburbia_old]

Let me clarify my statement. When I say "bad" Catholics, I mean those that don't follow or support the Cathecism line by line. For example, Catholics that use condoms or other forms of birth control. They realize that mass production of children isn't a good idea. In our modern age, the Vatican is gradually losing control over the bodies and minds of their followers. The clergy is developing a more liberal mindset. Although they won't admit it, over time, the Church has become less strict on certain issues while giving fluctuating opinons. There was a time when Catholicism viewed prosituition as a "necessary evil". Don't tell them that. They will say they have had the same rules as they've had since the beginning. Those "adjustments" were just so people could better comprehend the ultimate infallibility of the pope. Most importantly, don't question or doubt those teachings. I say, "Blow it out your ass".

What I fear, is that uncertain and troubling times will cause more to turn towards what can be a potentially unsavory religion or belief. It could be the Middle Ages Pt. II in terms of religious loyalty.

Of course, if I am wrong, and they are right, I am going to burn in hell for eternity . I have shaken my Catholic faith but still haven't shaken my belief in eternal damnation. The mind games they play with their followers.

And no, I am not at all bitter .

[Matrim]

This is off-topic but:

I have shaken my Catholic faith but still haven't shaken my belief in eternal damnation.

I have to comment on this because I grew up in a christian home, and every time I started thinking about religion all through my life I would inevitably turn to what happens after we die? At this point the cold sweats would hit when I remembered that if I made too many mistakes I was gonna burn. Worse yet, what would happen if I sinned and then died before getting around to repenting?!?! Good lord I was in a pickle indeed. Then one day I thought to myself "If God is just, as the authorities claim, then how is eternal damnation justified? It just doesn't make sense."

They say that all sins against the Father are equal. I say Bullshit! Is rape equal to grand theft auto? NO! Is God some sort of simpleton who doesn't know the difference between the 2? Not if he bloody well created the universe he isn't. Frankly I think you would probably have to go to great lengths to BOTHER GOD.

Also if anyone IS going to burn, I refuse to believe that a just God would let anyone suffer eternally for the sole reason of not specifically believing that JESUS was your saviour. To me it's absurd that a person who was always a good person, did their best for those around them, and tried to make a difference, but didn't believe in Jesus, is going to hell. If that IS the case, then sign me up for hell because Luci and the boys were probably on the right side after all.

[Simon]

The discussion above appears to me to have some indications of people finally waking up to a core issue. In particular, I note the remark about "insanity". I would like to add that all of religious "belief" can be put into the same pathlogical category, as well as the general denial of the predicted effects of oil depletion. The awareness of the real psychological state of humanity is beginning to be understood.
This condition started 50,000 years ago, when man opted for setting himself up for being in the next world as opposed to deep interest in the real future of this world, with concern for more than 3 generations. Our spiritual energy as well as physical energy has and is being wasted by our inability to recognize the real physical world and human relationship to it as is evidenced by the complete absence of any deep emotional or spiritual concern. It seems to me that in this twightlight time of our being here, untouched, for the moment, by the unfolding disaster, attention should be finally given to this point and maybe with the rationality produced, something can be accomplished that will give mankind a second chance, now, that we may really know what we are doing to ourselves and the world, presently and its future.

[jesus_of_suburbia_old]

Here's something to support the gender equality vs. population control. It's from worldwatch.org

Many of the policies that promote development, including quality education for girls, economic opportunity for women, and strong nutrition and health programs, also tend to help a nation stabilize its population.

[johnfrodo]

the french use less gas now than in 1990. Sure they have switched to nukes big time, but the fact is conservation does not mean more energy use.

[fastbike]

Don Lancaster has a useful article on the Fundamentals of Energy.

There's also a link to a pdf version at this site.

This would be a good place to start reading for the energy-illerate.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

My favorite energy illiteracy factoid:
The difference between a calorie and a food calorie.

This little quirk in technical definition causes (I believe) many, many people to vastly underestimate the amount of fuel they actually "consume".

And I plead guilty to making this mistake in the past.

[ohanian]

My favorite energy illiteracy factoid:
The difference between a calorie and a food calorie.

This little quirk in technical definition causes (I believe) many, many people to vastly underestimate the amount of fuel they actually "consume".

And I plead guilty to making this mistake in the past.

Use joules my friends! Use Joules! No problem with food joules and non-food joules. Because all joules are created equal.

[gg3]

Energy illiteracy is a subset of scientific illiteracy, and therewith comes a political football of large size and density.

First necessary step is to disentangle science and religion, and stop them fighting over the word "truth." You can't judge a sculpture by a symphony, and yet both of these arts manage to live with their own independent definitions of "beauty" without getting into a feud. So should it be with science and religion. Ultimately this goes back to an ancient wound that still hasn't healed, which was the use of political power, by the medieval churches, to suppress science when it suited their needs. That was five hundred years ago and we still haven't gotten over it. We damn well better start getting over it now.

Scientists for their part have got to stop propagating materialist monism as a philosophical and ideological requirement for the scientific worldview. They have got to stop the smug triumphalist attitude toward religion, just as religion (usually in its more fundamentalist forms) has got to stop using political processes to continue the suppression of science.

Understood that "not all X are causing trouble for Y," and that works in both directions. But there are enough members of each side who are bent on achieving supremacy over the other, that this is still a real problem, and it has got to stop.

Once that's been done, religion has no further excuse for opposing a vast expansion in science education, because science is not going to be a direct and vociferous threat. Then we can get on with the business of making sure kids learn enough to be able to understand and use the necessary concepts.

In terms of development trends, there is one basic that will do more than almost anything else to stop the train-wreck: the right of women to say No. Simple solution to this one: international trade embargo against any country in which women do not have an enforceable right to say No.

From there we can also work on cases where women do not have an enforceable right to vote, and to an education equal to that of men.

More later...

[MonteQuest]

Science and religion. Hmm...Bush won a second term with a 3 1/2 million-vote margin. Many of the people who voted for him believe, or want to believe, that the United States is God's instrument on this earth. The religious right focused on morality rather than energy or foreign policy to re-elect Bush. I rather doubt we can turn back our assault on the rest of the world, and our disregard for the cascading ecological collapse now that the emperor has been returned to his throne. The imperial project of the United States is rotted to the core. Bush's election is disturbing mostly because it reveals just how many fellow citizens share in that wicked project. It also demonstrates just how tough it will be to sell a new "energy literacy" over the next four years. Bush will take us on more imperial adventures into the Middle East, and sell the nation on the need to develop ANWR in Alaska and relax environmental regulations that hinder corporate development of energy resources to feed our hungry nation's demand. All in the name of the War on Terror. The illiteracy in this country is not limited to a lack of understanding energy and related issues.

[nero]

The illiteracy in this country is not limited to a lack of understanding energy and related issues

I agree, it is disheartening to see the lack of critical thinking of the majority of Americans (as well as others). It seems the American elections are not won or lost on issues but by the perceived values of the respective candidates and parties. The entire election (seen from Canadian TV at least) boiled down to characatures spun on TV and 30 second video clips of the candidates saying the exact same thing over and over again to another partisan crowd in another city.

There seems to be a growing strain of anti-intellectualism in American society, where nuance has become a dirty word and where it is better to be stubbornly steadfast rather than to thoughtfully reevaluate your position. The willful ignorance sometimes displayed by some Americans leads me to conclude that to reach these people you should not try to reach them through their intellect but rather through their emotions. Hence I would suggest that rather than educate them to end the "energy illiteracy", religion, celebrity endorsement and Hollywood would be a better way to insert the peak oil paradigm into the common conciousness.

[gg3]

Nero, I have to disagree. Consider which emotions are most contagious. Not love and compassion and forgiveness, but fear, hate, and vengeance.

This makes sense because the former grouping are syntropic, in that they tend to reduce random violence in societies, and thereby create a precondition for greater accumulation of knowledge (i.e. greater degree of order and complexity: definition of syntropy). The latter grouping are entropic, in the sense that they lead toward an increase in random violence, thereby creating a precondition that is inimical to the accumulation of knowledge (reduction in degree of order: definition of entropy).

All other factors being equal, it is always easier to create entropy than it is to create syntropy. Setting an entropic process in motion requires a smaller input of energy or effort: only the energy needed to destabilize the existing degree of order and nudge it slightly in the entropic direction (my metaphor for this is "pushing the boulder downhill"). Setting a syntropic process in motion requires a much larger and more sustained input of energy or effort: the energy or effort needed to create an increasing degree of order and then to stabilize it and protect it against decay (my metaphor for this is "pushing the boulder uphill").

So if we start going down the road to emotionalism as the operative paradigm, we would also have to muster an enormous and sustained input of effort to prevent the entropic forms of emotionalism from taking over.

Love vs. fear? Compassion vs. hate? Forgiveness vs. vengeance? Those who've managed to do that at a global level are few and far between. Jesus and the Buddha come to mind. Gandhi and Martin Luther King come to mind. Where are we going to find such people today?

For the rest of us, much higher probability of a successful outcome by promoting reason as the governing paradigm.

[MonteQuest]

To steer this thread back on course, let us consider for a moment the cause of this "illiteracy." Overspecialization, say the biologists, is one of the most important contributing factors in a species becoming extinct. When a species becomes overspecialized in a particular type of ecosysytem, it is usually unable to adapt to a change in environment. I feel the same holds true for human society. We have come to the point where each of us knows more and more about less and less, until as a society we all know almost everything about nothing. In the developed world, we have grown so accustomed to walking over and switching on the light, that we hardly ever think about it. We take it for granted, yet nearly three-fifths of the 4.8 billion people in developing countries lack basic sanitation, almost a third have no access to clean water, a quarter lack adequate housing, and a fifth lack access to modern health services.

We have become so specialized and adapted to our existing energy environment that we have lost the ability and flexibility required to make a transition into a radically new energy mode. This "illiteracy" is an outshoot of the ever increasing technological complexity of our society. We just assume that someone else is "taking care" of that aspect of life, and we don't really need to think about it. This "assumption" carries on into the political arena as well. Everyone is dependent upon the marketplace rather than his or her own productive skills for the necessities of life. Peak-oil is going to cause a rather startling wake-up call.