Prepared Statement of Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-6-MD) for the US-China Economic and Security Commission Hearing on Energy
Posted by Prof. Goose on June 16, 2007 - 11:37am
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
Hearing on Energy
June 15, 2007
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today before the Members of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission concerning energy.
The Commission has been charged to examine and report to Congress about energy considering: “The effect of the large and growing economy of the People’s Republic of China on world energy supplies and the role the United States can play (including joint research and development efforts and technological assistance), in influencing the energy policy of the People’s Republic of China.”
Energy is a topic of intense interest and concern to me. I have been studying energy, and in particular oil, for the past 40 years. I believe that energy will be the dominant issue affecting our nation and our world in the 21st Century. In 8,000 years of recorded history, we are 150 years into the Age of Oil. This period of 150 years has lulled Americans, but not our counterparts in China, into a false sense of complacency. (Much more under the fold)
I am among few people in America and the West who believe that we’re about half-way through the Age of Oil. I say that, although all petroleum experts acknowledge that the world will peak in oil production – reach a maximum – with declining production at ever increasing costs after that time. Most petroleum experts reviewed in a March 27, 2007 GAO report that I commissioned project that for all practical purposes peak is imminent – that it will occur before 2020. Global peak oil might not be a problem if demand were not increasing exponentially about two percent per year. Because demand is increasing and the U.S. is the most oil dependent economy in the world, GAO projects the consequences of peak for the U.S. will be devastating. After the world peaks in oil production we’ll continue to use oil for about another 150 years – but in declining amounts, instead of the increasing amounts that we’re used to.
Most people in the world and certainly most Americans are ignorant of peak oil. The Chinese are not. Peak oil was first publicly identified as a phenomenon by American oil geologist M. King Hubbert in a speech on March 8, 1956. He had noticed that all oil field production follows a bell curve. It increases, reaches a peak in production and declines thereafter. He reasoned that if you added up all of the peaks from many fields, you could calculate the peak for larger regions, countries and the world. In 1956, he projected that the U.S. lower 48 states would peak in production in 1970. At that time, the U.S. was the King of world oil production -- the biggest oil producer and consumer in the world. Hubbert was vilified. But he was right on. The U.S. peaked in oil production in 1970. Hubbert predicted the world would peak about now. If Hubbert was right about the U.S. and the U.S. is a microcosm of the world, why wouldn’t he be right about the world? In fact, 35 of the 48 major oil producers in the world have peaked in oil production.
I led a delegation of nine Members of the House Armed Services Committee on a trip to China over the New Year that focused on energy. Without exception, every Chinese official that we met began our discussions by telling us that they were planning for “post-oil.” Post-oil. The Chinese are planning for global peak oil in 2012. They are planning now for a world without oil as a major energy source. I wish our government leaders and Americans understood the necessity to prepare for a post-oil world.
The Chinese understand that the Age of Oil will be a blip in world history. Global peak oil will not be the end of oil – but it will be the end of cheap oil and cheap energy. Because we have built a lifestyle and a civilization in the United States that is totally dependent upon cheap oil and cheap energy, peak oil poses a challenge that our country must overcome.
I referred earlier to a report that I commissioned by the GAO. This was the fourth federal government report warning about peak oil. The Department of Energy commissioned two reports about peak oil by a team led by Robert Hirsch so they’re known as the Hirsch reports. The first Hirsch report was released in February 2005. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers commissioned a report released in September 2005. I also recommend the Commissioners read a an incredibly prescient speech about energy given by Admiral Hyman Rickover, the father of the nuclear navy just about 50 years ago on May 14, 1957. All of these reports and the Rickover speech are posted on my website at www.bartlett.house.gov/EnergyUpdates.
What concrete steps can we observe that China is taking to prepare for peak oil and post-oil? They have a five point plan. 1. Conservation 2. Increase the proportion of domestic sources of energy. 3. Diversify sources of energy. 4. Limit negative impact on the environment 5. Engage in international cooperation. These are exactly the correct steps and steps that the U.S. should be undertaking.
I have attached to my testimony two charts. The first is called The World of Oil. It depicts countries based upon the proportion of oil reserves. The second chart illustrates that China is scouring the world and buying up oil assets. They are also aggressively building a blue water navy. They don’t need a blue water navy for Taiwan. American government officials have told me the Chinese don’t understand that in a world market, energy is fungible. I don’t find this argument at all persuasive. I think China is preparing for a world where resource nationalism, not market forces govern the allocation of energy. China is preparing for cooperation or confrontation to address a post-oil world.
The U.S. is not preparing at all.
America and the world will transition from fossil fuels, including oil, to sustainable, renewable sources of energy. We can choose to do it on our timetable or we can be forced to transition by geology. What America needs to do to avoid a really bumpy ride from peak oil, and this will require Presidential leadership, is to develop a program with three attributes: the total commitment of World War II; the technology focus and intensity of the Apollo program to land a man on the moon; and the urgency of the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss these points in more detail. Thank you very much.
Ed by PG, two attached documents (.pdf alert)
Prepared Statement of Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-6-MD) for the US-China Economic and Security Commission Hearing on Energy
PDF version
100 comments
Prepared Statement of Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-6-MD) for the US-China Economic and Security Commission Hearing on Energy
PDF version
100 comments
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Congressman Bartlett continues to be tireless in his efforts to light a fire under Congress on our energy problem. I hope they look to him once there is a smoking gun, as hes been thinking about these issues for a very long time.
It was quite counterintuitive and impressive that James Woolsey recently said that one of the top policy recommendations for the US would be to first help the chinese scale their renewable infrastructure, implying that the geopolitical game of Risk would begin if one country could run on renewables and the other not. I tried to find that text link but couldnt - if anyone has it please try to post.
I like Roscoe!!
In May I caught an hour long presentation he gave to Congress. Spot on..and I think this letter is spot on.
I would like to hope we can wake up, but even if we did is there time to do anything but duck and cover?
Nate; the latest move in industrial manufacturing IS starting to evolve,.. moving services down to mexico from china. Lets hope Someone from China reads Bartlett's prepared statement. Co-operation is indeed the goal if we are going to get through this issue.
Regards OCB
I really appreciate the great work that Congressman Bartlett does for our country. He seems like the kind of Republican my grandfather was but has been buried by the neoconartists-conservative but tolerant of others,honest and a gentlemen. He truly shows his love of the United States by being willing to tackle the energy problem in the world..
What an amazing Republican and congressman! What a decent man! It's hard to believe that he got elected in this country!
I wonder how the latest saber rattling from Russia figures into the geopolitical equation of Russia-China relations and ensuring long term oil supply:
well......
the path to war with Iran still seems to be escalating:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17886.htm
"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Joe Lieberman blurted on "Face the Nation," adding, "To me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training those people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
Hi all,
I'm totally new to TOD, so pardon me if I sound naive at all. Anyway, I just ordered a bunch of books about Peak Oil and I'm trying to find legitimate sites to learn as much as I can. So far this is my favorite site. Lifeaftertheoilcrash.net was what first sparked my interest in this. That site is awfully scary. Anyway, I'm a father of two very young children and I'm terrified for their future and all of ours for that matter. I'm glad to know that at least one politician is trying to sound the alarm bells. Why won't anyone listen to him? I just wish that one of the questions at one of these presidential debates asked what the candidates would do to address Peak Oil. That would be very interesting.
I hava a few questions for all of you:
1. What are the best books to buy to learn about Peak Oil?
2. What are the best cities to survive in a post oil world? In the U.S. and outside. Chances are slim I'll ever leave the U.S.
3. What are the best skills to possess for a post peak world?
4. where do you invest money today to prepare for this? I don't want to have cash, I'm not wild about gold or real estate. What is the safest and smartest investment vehicle starting now and as we get closer to P.O.?
5. Do any of you have solar panels on your homes? Does this investment make sense right now? How about a small wind turbine?
6. Any other tips would be greatly appreciated so that I can join into these amazing discussions that you all are having.
Thank you!
A very concerned father of two.
Greg
Greg,
I'm going to reply on today's Drum Beat so there isn't thread drift here.
Todd
Repository of relevant prep articles at LATOC:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Prepare.html
You might find Dmitry Orlov's articles particularly helpful.
Invade Iraq.
tavor wrote
"I just wish that one of the questions at one of these presidential debates asked what the candidates would do to address Peak Oil. That would be very interesting."
Yes, precisely what has been going through my head. I also wonder if PO will even be brought up in any of the debates for the '08 election. It will be very disappointing if it is not, and I will lose absolutely all confidence in politics if no one even mentions oil depletion.
Although, I can understand why no one would want to ask or be asked about it--since there really is no "answer", just a quiver of silver BBs. In any case, even if a point-blank PO question was asked of one of the candidates during a major debate, I can right now see what the responses would be--all straw men: "ANWR, ethanol, nuclear, solar, wind, etc".
Ron Paul was sort of asked this question, and that's how he responded... He also said, and I quote verbatim:
"I don't worry about running out of oil, alternative fuels will come in and we'll just let the market work."
Paul does dig at ethanol, saying it might be a waste, but he also stupidly says (and the audience doesn't seem to blink) that "we shouldn't be subsidizing corn, we should be subsidizing sugar cane, it doesn't make any sense."
Ummm, last time I checked sugar cane grows in tropical climates, and doesn't fare so well in the midwest...
It's at the end of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqrj-Gak_Us&mode=related&search=
(ps I've also heard Giuliani give essentially the same answer--minus ethanol bashing, except he even goes further, to the absurd scenerio that we're gonna have an "exporting biofuels industry". This was during a Bloomberg interview, I'll see if I can find the URL.)
Sugarcane was grown in southern Florida near Belle Glade; it was also grown in Louisiana and Hawaii. Sugar is a great source of energy if you can ride a bike to work.
I looked at the energy project map and learned that the map was out of date. China tried to buy Unocal in 2005, but Chevron bought it instead. If people did not buy Chinese made clothes, the Chinese would not have money to buy oilfields with. The day an American will work for two dollars an hour making clothes and share a tiny condo with an entire extended family, that is the day an American might afford some gas for a moped.
The United States is preparing for peak oil. In 2006 subcompact sales rose 20%.
"Gas Prices Fueling Small Car Sales"
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/222585
Am not sure if investing in a hole in the ground to put oil in (SPR) is as good as some other energy project such as a hydroelectric dam, uranium mine, LNG, clean coal, nuclear reactor, fuel efficient vehicle, heavy oil recovery, deep sea drilling rig, Caspian pipeline etc.
Hmm...that stat is for Canada. The stats it does have for the U.S. said that "sales of small vehicles, including cars and light trucks, as a percentage of total new-vehicle retail sales, have climbed from 26.3 per cent of the market in the first quarter of 2004 to 31.8 per cent in the same three months of this year".
Lots of sugar cane in Texas, too. That's how Sugarland, the suburb of Houston got its name. But labor costs in the US are too high to support a sugarcane industry.
Mr f
Sugar beet is grown in midwest
20th largest US crop by value
Oilmanbob
Labor costs are not the problem with sugar
It's farm subsidies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_the_United_States
http://www.cei.org/gencon/005,05314.cfm
"The sugar program is truly one of the worst forms of protectionism and is unlike any of our other farm programs"
Kelloggs
http://www.gmabrands.com/news/docs/Testimony.cfm?docid=1368
Rainsong, sugar cane is indeed still being grown South of Lake Okeechobee in FL. However, it is not sustainable ( Peak Soil and Peak Water : ( I don't want to derail the thread but can provide details if wanted.
PLAN, PLANt, PLANet
Errol in Miami
"Ron Paul was sort of asked this question, and that's how he responded... He also said, and I quote verbatim:
"I don't worry about running out of oil, alternative fuels will come in and we'll just let the market work." "
What if the alternative technologies were already available (not considering the ability to conserve and restructure for less transportation and less waste by at least 50%), but the PTB decided 50 years ago that they wanted the oil money instead? What if Dick knows about alternatives and is currently jacking the price of energy to get people accustomed to being dependent upon a System of energy so that we will be willing to pay double or more for a monkey we raised ourselves? Ref: "The Hunt for Zero Point" by Nick Cook
"If you want Change, keep it in your pocket. You vote for a faux president every four years, but you vote for real corporations thousands of times each month. Your money is your only real vote."
You make reality much more complicated (and contradictorily) simple, than it in fact is. I will just state here that I do not agree with your synopsis of how the 20th century rolled out.
Corporations are profit driven. 50 years ago this country (the US) was just coming out of a great depression (which had also spread around the world). During the global depression, democratic processes in countries around the world were harmfully damaged. This led to fascism, and eventually World War II which ended with two nuclear bombs detonated over Japanese cities.
Yes, there are "the powers that be". That does not however mean that we're all living in a David Lynch movie.
After the great depression and WWII it was incumbent upon the ruling classes to figure out how to run things. The federal government, and yes corporations, got together and hashed out a "system".
It is a pronounced mistake to believe that Dick Cheney "knows about alternatives and is currently jacking the price of energy to get people accustomed to being dependent upon a System of energy so that we will be willing to pay double or more..." You are giving the fat, grumpy man way too much credit!
Just because Dick Cheney is an asshole doesn't mean that he is *literally* running the world--aside from the fact, that he kinda is, to the extent that he can. But this is unrelated to your incorrect presumption that Cheney is someone holding-back-the-alternative. Sure, Cheney is enriching his cronies, and doing whatever else his neoconservative hawkish agenda dictates... But that's because he's a corporate bureaucrat!
These problems (PO, CC) were totally off the radar in the late 40s and 1950s (and some would argue havealways been off the radar until very recently), when the real "plans" were set up to "run the world". The Bretton Woods system was setup and that essentially stayed in place until Nixon took us off the gold standard in the early 70s (perhaps because of US domestic peak, and various other issues.) But the system was essentiall, just plain growth driven corporate capitalism. Oil drives growth.
In conclusion, you have vastly over simplified how we got to our "energy situation today".
And, "The Hunt for Zero Point"?? I'd sooner read Sylvia Browne!
The federal government system is bought and paid for, with the exception of a few loose cannons like Bartlett and Paul. The powers-that-be have known about Peak Oil for years and busy themselves figuring out how to use it to continue their franchises.
“The U.S. spends more on the war in Iraq in one day (about $300 million) than it does on the ANNUAL BUDGET for the primary government laboratory that is tasked with renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development. As absurd as that is, a recipient of a grant from this lab has developed a 40% efficient solar cell.” http://cryptogon.com/?p=821
>>Just because Dick Cheney is an asshole doesn't mean that he is *literally* running the world--aside from the fact, that he kinda is, to the extent that he can. But this is unrelated to your incorrect presumption that Cheney is someone holding-back-the-alternative. Sure, Cheney is enriching his cronies, and doing whatever else his neoconservative hawkish agenda dictates... But that's because he's a corporate bureaucrat!
>>>>>
I didn't say Dick was an asshole. I didn't even say he's running the world. I said he's controlling the energy.
I was doing test and development work for the Navy when Dick was SecDef. He's not your typical bureaucrat. He gets things done. The typical argument against secret conspiracies is usually bolstered by the common idea that government employees are bumbling idiots and paper-pushers. Many are, and should be sent home with full pay and benefits so we don't have to heat their buildings. Some are not. They are the ones that maintain the System that manages to keep doing things regardless of budgets, politicians, and wars. They are the ones who developed the Tomahawk missile, the nuclear submarine, the Saturn V launch system, and the security systems at places like Groom Lake and Wright-Pat. It isn't all hand-picked contractors. There are bright, effective technologists working every day to keep you from knowing what they are doing. And Dick and G.H. Bush have managed them all.
>>>>>
These problems (PO, CC) were totally off the radar in the late 40s and 1950s (and some would argue havealways been off the radar until very recently), when the real "plans" were set up to "run the world". The Bretton Woods system was setup and that essentially stayed in place until Nixon took us off the gold standard in the early 70s (perhaps because of US domestic peak, and various other issues.) But the system was essentiall, just plain growth driven corporate capitalism. Oil drives growth.
>>>>>>>>
Read "Empire of Oil" by Harvey Connor. copyright 1955.
The oil business in Texas was running the country then, and that was when the world was using a million barrels of oil per day, tops. How much power do you think they plan and run now that the same corporations and Bilderbergs are delivering 100 times as much, at 50 times the price?
Peak Oil may have been off the radar, but the power of oil was not.
>>>>>>
In conclusion, you have vastly over simplified how we got to our "energy situation today".
And, "The Hunt for Zero Point"?? I'd sooner read Sylvia Browne!
>>>>>>
Yes, I pick and choose my analogies to make a point. You can't make a point if you spend 2 hours talking about the oil refining capacities and price structures of East Timor when the power and the money is all running through Petrodollars, Saudi Kings, and the illusion of a free market.
By categorizing the two together, you display your ignorance and your inability to see how bad things really can be. Why would we go to war knowing it will destroy the one source of oil that hasn't been tapped yet? Greg Palast tells you why in the short term: To control the price of Saudi oil so that the investors can depend on their predictions.
If it happens to dovetail with a New World Order, all the better.
Crazy Conspiracies? No crazier than suggesting that General Motors conspired to make America's cities dependent upon bad bus systems so that customers would get frustrated and buy cars. THAT was the GOVERNMENT's winning prosecution. The sadder part is that it didn't influence the path of GM in any way. They just paid the fines and kept buying up electric trollies and burning them.
The miscalculation on the part of the PTB is climate change, however. (and the extent that oil prices went up, how fast, and that us idiots keep buying gas even though we can't afford it.)
Two more books:
"Internal Combustion" by Edwin Black
"With Speed and Violence" by Fred Pearce
"He's not your typical bureaucrat. He gets things done."
Well, I never said that bureaucrats don't get things done, especially really good ones like Cheney--who, you're right, most certainly gets a lot done! That's not our problem here, that's not what we are disagreeing about.
Rather, our disagreement stems from how much power "they" have over our "capitalist" market based system. Your position is that "they" are literally holding back alternatives, literally controlling the markets. They try, and yes, I agree with you, that now Iraq is sort of a buffer zone for holding the flood gates closed as long as possible--trying to control Saudi behavior and intimidate Iran. However, I proclaim there are no alternatives to hold back. So now that we know what we disagree on, lets evaluate the relevant evidence.
In the post that started this, you wrote:
"What if Dick knows about alternatives and is currently jacking the price of energy to get people accustomed to being dependent upon a System of energy so that we will be willing to pay double or more for a monkey we raised ourselves?"
I'll note here, that if Dick is doing what you describe above then in fact you are, for all intents and purposes, calling him an asshole--don't worry, I don't mind and concur! But, that is a big "what if". You'd better have some big evidence to back it up. Do you?
I will not argue with statements like "the federal government system is bought and paid for"--which Bigelow wrote. To me that is an obvious truism. However, I do vehemently disagree that there is a conscious conspiracy for "them" to hold back "alternatives".
I own a copy and have read "Empire of Oil" by Harvey Connor.
I think the following quote may inform our discussion:
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” -- Adam Smith
You write,
"you display your ignorance and your inability to see how bad things really can be."
You are right, things are pretty bad and probably will get worse, imho. Need I say more?
Be careful with Greg Palast, as in the past he actually has misunderstood peakoil and for brief period denied the reality of it.
You write,
"General Motors conspired to make America's cities dependent upon bad bus systems so that customers would get frustrated and buy cars."
I agree with this, there is ample evidence in the historical record, makes logical sense, has been well documented and is surely a travesty if I've ever seen one.
Concluding... Thanks for letting me know about "Internal Combustion" and "With Speed and Violence", they merit a lot more consideration than books discussing zero point energy. That author could have saved some time and learned the most foundational rules in the history of modern physics, the laws of thermodynamics, which haven't been significantly modified since the late 19th early 20th century...
Internal Combustion by Edwin Black is an eye-opener. Black also insists pressuring corporate and government fleet managers to go ‘green’ would push alternatives much faster. He writes “Government purchases alone could spur the rapid adoption of any category of alternative fuel vehicle -- hydrogen or otherwise.” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/15/ING3JLM9771....
The author must not have researched Natural Gas much because Internal Combustion, I think mistakenly, suggests NG vehicles are one alternative to oil. Peak Natural Gas: http://www.321energy.com/editorials/darley/darley102105.html
Honda Civic GX NGV (Natural Gas Vehicle) http://automobiles.honda.com/models/model_overview.asp?ModelName=Civic+GX
“Phill is the world's first appliance that lets you refuel your Natural Gas Vehicle indoors or outdoors from your household natural gas line!” http://myphill.com/
While you observation about the lack of change in foundational rules is accurate, it also ignores the state of inquiry of those rules specifically, for example the inquiry into dark matter/energy.
This is NOT a static situation.
I first learned of the inquiry via a website in '95 and have loosely kept up on developments off and on since then.
The reason for my interest can be traced back to '78 though. I was in US Air Force basic electronics training. At one point the instructor indicated that heat was always given of in circuit operation – and that was considered waste.
The thought that went through my head was 'We must be doing something wrong!'.
I still believe that.
Where IS that 'Theory of Everything' ?
Here
it is !
Hate to jump in on good bickering, but extracting ZPF energy has little to do with thermodynamics, so that is a red herring criticism. But I think that if not a complete wild goose chase (which there are very good arguments that it well might be), ZPF energy extraction is so far away, and will require so much in the way of resources to get us there that it will not have any impact on the Peak Oil energy crisis.
For the record, yes I am a physicist by training. (And I have actually spent time with one of the leading ZPF proponent teams and am well versed on their work but that is another story for another time.)
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
And soybeans don't grow well in tropical climate... That is why Brazil competes head to head with the US in total production. Brazilian people will call you a liar if you tell them that soy-beans are a subtropical culture. And if you are not satisfied with soybean, take a look at the newest exporters of weat.
There is a difference tough, Brazil decided to invest on agricultiral technology, US decided to invest in agricultural lock-in (ask Monsanto about that). One can always develop new varieties of plants, taller, smaller, resistant to hotness or cold. The US could have developped some canae able to grow well at your climate.
If you started 10 years ago, you'd have very nice results by now. But maybe it is too late.
If you started 10 years ago, you'd have very nice results by now
BS !
Ten years is hardly enough time for any significant breeding program. And a significant move north for sugar cane is not in the cards.
The delta between South Louisiana sugar cane and Florida is significant in yields. Further north (like Central Louisiana), yields drop more and not worth planting. US sugar cane is harvested on a 2 year cycle, Brazil on a single year cycle.
One cannot grow mangoes, coffee, bananas OR sugar cane in the MidWest. 10 degrees north is about the maximum that humans can move plants outside their natural range and have them prosper. South Louisiana is close to that limit for sugar cane.
Alan
BTW, the American Chestnut Foundation is within sight of the end of a 50+ year breeding program to incorporate resistance from Chinese chestnut into American chestnut trees.
I agree that you should go to the LATOC site (life after the oil crash). Matt Savinar has done some great work. I gave out his book at farmers markets. Nobody wanted it.
I gave it to relatives. Nobody read it.
We aren't addicted to oil, we are addicted to Comfort. We have spent the last 100 years replacing people on small farms with petroleum-based methods. And that is on farms, where money is scarce. Our society has become so addicted to the comforts of oil that they don't know they are using it most of the time.
We are approaching a hole in a solid rock wall. Whatever can fit through that hole will survive, and meanwhile, Dick Cheney and his ilk are trying to bomb the hole bigger, but only filling it with debris and radiation.
Get to know your neighbors and your real needs: food, clothing, shelter. Understand the difference between a need and a want. Every purchase is an ethical decision about what your Net Creativity is going to be. Our species has been proud consumers for a long time, and now we will be forced to reduce our consumption until we show a net Creative balance with Nature.
"Good" things are determined by whatever we do that benefits the most of the world FOR THE LONGEST TIME. Sucking 3 billion years of sunlight out of the ground and spewing it into the atmosphere in a couple of centuries can't be considered a long-term plan in any way.
"I'll kill a man in a fair fight; or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight; or for money; or if there's a woman. But EATIN' people? When does THAT get fun?" 'Jayne', "Serenity"
just means you'll have more copies to use as toilet papaer or burn to keep warm for yourself once TSHTF.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Won't comment about your first suggestion Matt, but I have to say burning it won't be necessary, at least the way my peeps treated it, like it was RADIOACTIVE.
FWIW I consider The Oil Age is Over to be the definitive Peak Oil primer. Thanks.
Please take a few minutes to ask a question regarding Peak Oil and upload it for the CNN/YouTube debates - http://www.youtube.com/debates.
Ask others you know who are Peak Oil aware to do the same thing.
____________________
MySpace.com/ziontherapy
I'm going to have my 3 year old boy ask for the debates on the CNN/YouTube page: "Mr. candidate, what do you plan on doing so that the world I inherit doesn't look like the world of Mad Max in a post peak oil world?
Dress him nice and make sure he smiles - CNN is a sucker for cute
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
We do have a presidential candidate who is PO aware. It is Bill Richardson. He is not afraid to say what needs to be said. He has some momentum right now, and is coming up in the polls. A link to his website is here, at which he is inviting public review and comments on his energy policy.
Following, are a few quotes from his website:
Governor Bill Richardson is a recognized leader with a record of action and accomplishment on energy, security and climate. His action plan lays out his bid to become "The Energy President."
Engaging Automakers in the Solution.Within a month of taking office, President Richardson will convene a White House Summit on implementing "no and low" petroleum transportation technologies. The summit will include automakers, labor, energy producers and utilities, and will structure the market pushes and pulls to meet the plug-in vehicle targets. Incentives to achieve the targets should consider the needs and requirements of existing auto manufacturers and the labor force, and those of new entrants into the vehicle manufacturing marketplace.
Research. The federal government will provide $1 billion in battery and materials research, development and demonstration in the first three years of the program.
Sharply increase fuel economy. Double CAFE standards to 50 mpg by 2020 (35 mpg by 2016). Unlike some other proposals, this standard would applied to all conventionally powered (non-electric) cars, SUV's, and light trucks.
While considering long-range issues such as metro area design, we must dramatically increase our transportation options and provide convenient and efficient public transit, both within metro areas and intercity. We should also support urban planning that promotes walking and biking, reduces urban sprawl by more carefully matching housing development to job location, and enhances the "livability" indicators in our communities.
Public transportation and intercity high-speed rail.Increase funding for public transit and investigate high-speed intercity rail options that will reduce energy demand in selected corridors. Provide tax incentives for more people to use transit.
Vast energy savings -- perhaps 50% by 2030, as recommended by the American Institute of Architects and the U.S. Green Building Council -- can be achieved through building design, lighting, heating, cooling, and ventilation, and energy-efficient walls, doorways, and windows.
Bill Richardson is the Pillsbury dough boy of defunct diplomacy.
What did he do when he was Energy Secretary?
And, beside, he has no chance... He's just playing up his PR/hype bandwagon so he can get a cabinet seat if a Dem is elected president.
So, maybe you'd prefer Hillary, who is also PO aware, yet tells JQP what he wants to hear, that, an echo of the herd mentality, "oil cos. are gouging us, help, don't worry, we'll punish them, and more ethanol is on its way..."
You're right on Hillary--none of the democrats have offered anything insightful or original when it comes to an energy policy. Either they are all idiots, or they are keeping to themselves (I'm guessing a mixture). And with the Elephants it is also more of the same usual crapola.
I'd say it is a crap shoot...
In fact, (the concerned liberal I am) it seems that if a Democrat is elected in '08, and Westexas et al are right, PO may end up falling on the democrats lap--effectively obliterating them, leading hardcore right-wingers to overtake the DLC for the remaining history of the Republic. History repeating itself... Of course, like I said, it is all a crap shoot. Perhaps I am wrong and it would be be beneficial to have Democrats in the White House, but judging from their last performance in the '90s I am skeptical that the Dems have any idea what they are doing (not that the hardcore Republicans do either, in fact they could start WWIII very quickly if they do in fact get elected in '08.)
All I know is that I am very disenchanted with the Governor of the Land of Enchantment, and certainly the whole host of his buddies--not to mention their "opposites" in the creationist camp.
Sadly, this may be true.
The 2012 election will be won by a Republican know-nothing who claims that the $9/usgl gasoline is the fault of Them Liberal Environazis Who Care More About Salamanders Than Americans and we'll drill our way to prosperity, once again, like Real Amurikans.
And also, screw the emissions and CO2---it's a liberal politically correct myth---we're going to go hog wild with coal.
The 2016 election will be "won" by the Department of Homeland Security.
It's almost like TPB (be it Dem or Rep) mistimed P.O.
"WTF! it hasn't happened yet!?"
GWB seemed ready and willing to be Emporer.
Or at least the sock puppet for the invisible hand.
On paper Richardson looks fairly good. If past history is any guide, being a governor seems to be one of the best routes to the White House (GWB, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, FDR & Wilson were all governors; Coolidge & TR were governors before being VPs). (To be fair, the governor's mansion doesn't always guarantee success; losing governors include: Dukakis, Stevenson, Dewey, Landon, Cox.) His diplomatic and cabinet service make Richardson arguably one of the most highly qualified governors to ever run for the presidency. And while we may nitpick over his energy policy, it is obvious that he actually does know something about the subject and has given it some thought; that's a better baseline when it comes to having to actually adjust to reality.
Unfortunately, the MSM have already decided that it is a 3 person race in each party. 2nd tier candidates only have a chance if one of the anointed "front runners" implodes, and fairly soon at that.
Even more unfortunately, I don't think I have ever seen a race on the Democratic side that is so dominated by candidates with less relevant experience and qualifications than the present top three. We have: a one-term senator; a senator just starting her 2nd term; and a senator that hasn't even finished his first term. And that's it -- that is all that any of them have in the way of a CV. Zero real executive experience (no matter how much the MSM is trying to pretend that "first wife" is executive experience).
Candidates with only US Senate experience that have been successfully elected President: JFK (barely, with a little "help" from the Chicago machine) & Warren G Harding (great President, he); Truman went from the Senate to VP before becoming President. Candidates that were seantors and lost: Kerry, Dole, McGovern, Goldwater. Why all of these senators keep thinking that the US Senate is an ideal or even adequate preparation for the Presidency is beyond me. Judging from the above, most Americans don't think so.
John, Hillary, Obama: We remember JFK, and you're not another JFK. You might just possibly be another Warren G Harding.
Tavor,
I have three small grandchildren and appreciate where you are coming from. May I suggest that in reading The Oil Drum you focus on the comments of editors and staff members, contributors, and a few of the public. Robert Rapier is always worth reading, as is Leanan and Westexas.
You cannot read all of everything on TOD every day if you are employed and married and plan to stay that way. Thus I urge you to be selective in who you read. Very quickly you will spot the B.S. artists and over time come to appreciate the top posters at TOD.
Hi tavor! Welcome to theoildrum ! The first thing to remember when reading our discussions is to take them with a grain of salt. We have a few kooks and random trolls, so don't believe everything you read. Also, sometimes answers are satirical-for example, the other day I suggested to one of the gold bugs that he buy heroin instead of precious metals because it was very effective in making slaves. I clearly labeled it as satire "satiricon, red level alert" but it got them going anyway. I wonder if drug sales picked up from my suggestion?
We try to limit discussions to the thread at hand, and use the Drumbeat for more general discussions. The keypost sets the basis for the discussion. There are no rules, but its best to be polite and respectful of others.
If you'll read the keyposts by Jeffry Brown-WestTexas on his Economise Localise Produce (ELP) you'll find some common sense ideas on how to prepare. Have a good time, and come back again.
Tavor - welcome. This is kind of an advanced site, because this topic is so huge - congratulations on connecting enough dots to see that this will impact you. To me, Peak Oil is a large bell shaped curve of possibilities, the ones in the middle most likely and the ones on the ends (nuclear fusion or nuclear war) also possible but less so. Anyone that says 'this is the way its going to be' is just guessing, though some are very educated guesses.
In your position, I would buy books that you would want to have if it wasnt easy to buy books, and learn about Peak Oil on sites like this. Learning about Peak Oil from books is like reading a book on this years corn crop - by the time the book is out, a new crop is already planted.
The best places in the world will be the ones with a combination of the following things: the most social cohesion (strong reciprocity), the highest renewable infastructure, the smallest amount of energy required for basic human needs (food, water, shelter) (This means high degree cooling or heating locations lose points), a high biomass to human ratio, the best aggregate of human, social, built and natural capital. If you fall in the camp thats worried about nuclear war, a city in the southern hemisphere would be optimal, as they dont share air circulation with the north. A city near water and rail will have big advantages over one just served by air and road.
Stockbroker, racecar driver, pornstar and lawyer probably not good ideas. Anything tool related, gardening related, science related, production of energy or basic goods. Best skills would be to be knowledgable about (human capital) product markets that have gone offshore and will have to be part of an import substitution plan to have essential goods made locally or at least regionally. (e.g 99.3% of US shoes are made overseas).
In a world that might not be able to grow, making 'financial capital' may no longer be the carrot that people strive for, so dont get caught up in money. However, many people are going to try and time this (myself included) and use knowledge of whats ahead to make money which can then be turned into the 4 'real' capitals: built (wind turbines, tools, etc) human (macgyver skills and scientific knowledge rather than who won American Idol), natural(ecosystems that provide services, biomass, water, etc) and social(friends, a large reciprocal altruism network - you scratch and get your back scratched in return). Its my opinion that traditional IRAs, depending on your age should be creatively used, as the growth paradigm may end before you cash in stocks, bonds, etc. Energy, commodities and natural resource stocks ought to outperform, but everyones financial situation is different so I will stop short on specific recommendations. This site is more about policy and changing the paradigm than a 'how to invest' site, as that topic is just about as big.
As sappy as it sounds, if you are clear on where you will be long term, investing in your local community probably gives you the best overall long term risk adjusted return on your 'capital'. Many ways to do this.
No. Yes. Wind 'returns' increase with the cube of wind speed, so small wind will not be as cost effective as large wind - if you live in a windy area though it could be a great investment - electricity prices will likely look like the inverse of peak oil. low now - high after.
Ive been thinking about this a long time, and I think the most important thing is the people -if they are 'your tribe' and active, open minded and ahead of the curve, these attributes will trump most other aspects of a peak oil location. As painful as it may be, to engage your civic and community leaders on this issue now will provide the most leverage, as it will weigh on the steep discount rates that cause us as a society to put off acting on this problem. Ultimately, as much as Id like to go to New Zealand, all of my friends and family are in the US, as are the places that feel like my 'rosebud'. So in the end, some of us have a choice where to move, but ultimately wont.
My best advice to you and your family is to change the way you view the world - realize that as humans we can never really have 'enough', so alter what your metric is. You have to continue living in the real world, but teach your kids to get joy from things that really matter, because if they fall into the consumption trap and can only get excited from things that might not be around in 10-15 years, that will be hard to undo. Perhaps make each Wednesday family gardening day and get them excited about it, etc. TV is a bad idea, not so much because of the lack of good programs, but more because it promotes passive thinking (beta waves as opposed to alpha). Try to make changes not because you have to, but because you want to - they will more likely stick and youll be ahead of the curve. Make a list of all the things you love to do and project how much energy they use - try and focus on the highest HROI (happiness return on investment) of that list.
Good luck. Keep your eyes open and dont be afraid to follow your instincts and ignore the common paths. Of course, everything Ive just said is my opinion...;)
Lawyers get a bad rap in the peak oil future, but in a slow decline scenario with even a minimal level of continuing social cohesion and operational government institutions, litigation is going to be a booming industry. When the pie is shrinking, folks fight harder over the pieces that remain. Until it shrinks to the point where the guns come out, the litigator is the best available tool.
Example 1: The growth in IP litigation following the dot com bust.
Example 2: Litigation involving subprime mortgage-backed securities.
If the Chimp's right about what the future holds and we're in Mad Max land, it hardly matters, but don't write off a litigation career.
Unless you practice bankruptcy law, I don't think the $150,000 investment in a legal education will pay off for 99/100 who undertake it.
And even then you're risking it.
Welcome Greg/Tavor,
Likewise, I'm a father of two. (1) I've been following PO since 1998 when I read "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" by Thom Hartmann. It's still my favorite on the subject if you want a book with a spiritual perspective and positive suggestions on what we can do to prepare/help. The other book which really summed things up completely for me is "The Long Emergency" by James Kunstler. Warning that the is what many refer to as a "doomer" but being an engineer myself I think he is perhaps the most rational of the PO authors in describing what will likely collapse and what will retain value and why. If you like his style, I find his weekly column very entertaining and topical.
(2) A lot of debate on this one. IMHO, the large metro areas will be the worst. High densities of humans in small areas are a recipe for bad things to happen. Other than that, I think a place where communities are active and people still can grow their own food and are not totally dependant upon car travel will be great. I live in a walkable/bike-able small city of about 100K people that I plan to stay near. Water access and ability to survive the seasons without power are also critical I think.
(3) Like others suggested, read up on ELP threads here in TheOilDrum. Personally I have taken up gardening, just purchased several hundred dollars of canning equipment, and have ability to heat our home with wood or biomass. I work in medical industry, so as long as people still need blood I think I may have a job.
(4) My biggest frustration about investing is that my 401K has so few options that I think will weather potential crashes. Personally I have not agonized too much here, I suspect the whole US will be in a money hole if TSHTF and things of value will be assets like a garden, tools, food stuffs and manual tools to keep the family fed, good bikes, and for a while, efficient autos (I really like my VW diesel). So on my 401K I have moved a lot of it into low risk money market funds and foreign funds as a hedge against dollar problems. With money outside of 401K's I am moving US stock market assets into energy funds and trusts. Some small amount of precious metal might be a good idea, but I think most gold bugs will find even gold has no value when folks are hungry and cold.
(5) Nope, my main investment was a good wood burning stove that I can cook on and heat house with. Make sure the brand you get does not need electrical power. I love my Quadrafire unit. If you are in an area with mild winters, I would ask if you could survive all summer, for many years, with no A/C. If not, personally I would move a bit north...
(6) The site is better than most on-line discussions but it is still the wild-west so to speak. Read a lot and take most stuff with a grain of salt. I suggest reading linked articles and such, and forming your own opinion. If you are a techie, this site has some excellent analysis done by the editors and regular contributors. If you become a full fledged PO junkie, you won't be able to get through your week without reading Leanan's excellent Drumbeat sections. That's were I find most of my topical gems and latest info.
Welcome aboard, but like Douglass Adams suggested "Don't panic" and always carry a trusty towel. Things could get weird from here on out if we at the peak like a lot of data seems to suggest...
Hi I'm Rob
I am a psychologist, teacher and singer from the Twin Cities of Minnesota. There are many good books to read including the following authors: Strahan (new book), Deffeyes, Heinberg and others.
I have been aware of peak oil about 2-3 years, started on this site a year and one-half ago. There are very few politicians who are aware of the implications of peak oil.
Of the oil companies, Chevron appears to be most honest (have you seen their TV ads lately?). Roscoe Bartlett and Rep. Udall (D) are among the few in Congress who are aware and believe there is an urgent threat. Because of folks like CERA (an investment firm), the threat is believed to be more distant than other credible sources believe.
There are signs that peak oil is imminent or here now, but it is much too early to tell if we are on a plateau which will be followed by an increase in production for a period or whether this plateau will be followed by permanent decline.
At any rate, you may notice that bloggers on the Oildrum are divided on what we can do to prevent chaos. Some are very pessimisstic and believe our goose is already cooked. Others are interested pursuing solutions (Robert Rapier, expert in biofuels) despite the difficulties ahead
Good luck and don't spend your days and nights worrying. Just do what you can do and live today.
Hello Tavor and all TOD newbies,
Welcome! If you only have a few minutes each day for reading the essentials: after reading whatever is important to you here on TOD--I highly recommend checking EnergyBulletin.net--> Bart & crew do an outstanding job of pulling the crucial snippets from many different sources into a easily accessible format.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello tavor,
I'm not an expert myself, but I've been aware of Peak Oil for 9 months or so, and since then, I've tried to find out a little bit more almost every day. I can try to answer some of your questions. These are just my informed opinions, again, because I don't know exactly how things will go down.
Firstly, to almost any person asking any question, I'll often refer them first to Wikipedia. You probably know it well, but if not, go to Wikipedia dot org and search for "Peak Oil".
According to one of the below articles on The Oil Drum, "The Cost of Gasoline around the World", other societies can survive and even thrive with much higher prices than the U.S. is currently ailing from. I'm American but I'm living in Tokyo, Japan. I haven't driven a car in 1 1/2 years (since I got here). I always just use the train. During the same period that the price of gasoline in the U.S. has more than doubled, the ticket fares haven't changed much if at all over here. Still, I wouldn't recomment Japan, as it is completely energy independent on other countries. Somewhere in Europe is probably your best bet, but you say you'll probably stay in the U.S., so I'll recommend some others.
James Howard Kunstler (an author) is quite coarse but I have learned from his writings HOW the U.S. is different. Most people here live in suburbs, with grocery stores, shops, and even bus lines out of reach on foot, and only acessible by car. Thus, it is mandatory to drive and waste oil. Both I in Japan and almost everyone I know here doesn't own a car, and to go shopping, you just walk 5 minutes away. This is called urbanism, which is coming back slowly in the form of "New Urbanism" in the U.S. These are mixed-use areas, where you can live, shop, work, and play all within the same walking distance, or if you have to get far away, a public transportation stop of some sort is within walking distance (5 minutes by foot in my case). There are various new projects like this in the U.S. In particular, I've heard good things about Portland, Oregon. Also, college towns are usually set up in this fashion. If I were going for a city, generally, I'd pick a city that was a city before the 20th century, instead of one that became a city only recently. Although bloated now, historic cities are known to have prospered for some reason or another before The Oil Age. Finally, pick a place you think you could live in without a heater or air-conditioner. Phoenix (a new city in the desert) is not a good idea.
You might not like it, but it's better not to invest in stocks, but rather gold and silver. Gold protects you against hyperinflation. Gold can lose some of its value, but it will never go down to just 1/1000th of its former apparent value in a matter of a year, which is what a paper currency can do and has done. Look up "hyperinflation". Furthermore, the value of gold and silver spiked during each time the oil prices soared (1974, 1980, etc). But that's just me. Basically, gold gains value when economies tumble, so if your gold loses value, you should be happy. There's no depression yet.
Take good care of your 2 kids and do not have any more kids. More kids will not only create more competition for dwindling resources around the world, but will also be more mouths you'll be responsible for feeding.
Don't BUY any -- go (better yet, walk) to your local library and BORROW them. If there is any reality to PO theory at all, then we are all going to have to get used to changing our ways and being more frugal. This is as good a place to start as any. Save your money for more important priorities. Besides, public libraries will be important institutions for sustainable communities, patronize them will help them to make the case for continued funding.
If the worst case doomer dieoff occurs, I belive that there really isn't any "safe place." Here in the US we are all surrounded by 50 million Bubbas with guns, plus the US military is not going to just put down their weapons and walk away. Outside the US, I don't think that angry mobs are going to appreciate the difference between "bad Americans", "good Americans", and "former Americans". And a full scale nuclear exchange will mean a nuclear winter, which will drift down to the Southern hemisphere in a matter of months, and may very well be an Extinction Level Event.
My advice, therefore, is don't worry about the worst case scenarios, for they may not be survivable in any case. An asteroid strike may not be survivable, either, so why worry about finding a "safe place" for that? A better strategy is to focus on the bad and very bad but not worst case scenarios. The probability that PO is going to put us in bad but not worst case territority is quite high. Furthermore, those who have positioned themselves for the bad scenarios are probably going to be about as well-positioned as anybody for the worst case. If anyone survives worst case at all, it is pretty much going to be a combination of random luck plus adaptability. Positioning yourself for the bad cases gives you an edge on adaptability.
Given all that, what places to consider? As I mentioned above, given how much the world already hates Americans (with worse probably yet to come), it could be dangerous to assume that the welcome mat will stay out for Americans in ANY other country. You may very well find yourself booted out and sent home no matter how low a profile you maintain and no matter how friendly you are with the natives and no matter how many coins you put in the palms of government functionaries. Best stay in the US. Big cities could be dangerous, but very small towns could be too; they don't always take well to strangers, they can be isolated and cut off from all resupply, and if you have something the locals need they may become very unfriendly indeed. A smallish to midsized town, or a small town within a day's walking distance of a midsized town, might be for the best. But maybe not -- who knows. One thing is for certain: you and your neighbors absolutely must have water. There probably will not be enough of it for the people already living in the southwest, many of them are going to have to relocate or die, so I can't recommend locating there. As for energy, If you can set yourself up with a wood stove and are within walking distance of a forest, then you will have all you really absolutely need to survive. Obviously, the further north you go, the more cutting and chopping and stove feeding you'll be doing each winter; whether you see that as a good or bad thing is up to you.
Three categories:
A. Emergency survival skills: How to obtain & purify water, how to build a latrine, how to start & maintain a fire, how to forage for food & hunt/trap/fish, how to build emergency shelter, basic first aid, personal protection (firearms, martial arts?), etc.
B. Frugality/DIY skills: gardening, small livestock husbandry, food storage, scratch cooking with whole foods, bicycle maintenance, home maintenance, etc.
C. Non-discretionary sector employment/trade skills: Lots of possibilities, your pick -- you need to be able to do something specialized that not everybody can do for themselves and that will be in the category of a necessity rather than a luxury -- something that can be traded for money or bartered for something that someone else has that you need.
You might consider starting to build up a small stach of pre-1964 (pure coin silver) dimes, quarters, & dollar coins. Barter is a very inefficient method of exchange, there will be a stock of some of these coins in every community, and they will almost certainly become the default medium of exchange should US currency become worthless.
The US dollar has already declined in value. It is difficult to see how it cannot drop considerably further. Most professional investment advisors do not recommend any Americans allocate more than 10-20% of their portfolios to foreign equities; they are all wrong, and this advice will cause most people to lose a lot of wealth over the next few years.
No PVs yet, planning on doing it in a few years when I have the $ available. I will probably put solar H2O heating in first. Not enough wind at my location, this is a very site-specific thing. I do have a wood stove, that is probably the #1 renewable energy option for a lot of people.
The cutting edge of all this is going to play out in the transportation sector. It is no accident that it is gasoline prices and not electricity or natural gas or heating oil prices that are being talked about so much in the MSM. It is motor fuel where we are most vulnerable, and where we will feel the pain first. Energy efficient transportation and minimization of your dependence on motor fuel must be your number 1 priority right now.
Yeah, it's a real bummer.
It's quite possible there is nothing we can do to prepare.
Nuclear winter was based on bad science, particularly on its initial assumptions regarding burn rates, firestorm behavior, particulate generation, and other factors. When observed data for those things are plugged into the exact same model, nuclear winter does not occur. Any nuclear exchange will be horrific but nuclear winter is a false specter.
I am not going to further debate this here as this is not the appropriate forum for it but I can assure you that nuclear winter is a red herring because of its bad assumptions.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Greg
I hear you - I am in the same place. Two young children, a three year old daughter and a four year old son with special needs. Peak Oil is the highest thing on my agenda right now - much to the chagrin of all around me.
I am highly mobile, thankfully. I have many places I've looked at. In terms of outside the US, personally, I hold out hope of finding an enclave with like minded souls in New Zealand. And when it starts looking like the shit is about to hit the fan I'm heading there no matter WHAT it takes to get my kids out of harm's way. Small population, remote, enough arable land to support the population, plus good quality of life if it turns out we are all insane and there is no Peak crash scenario :-)
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
Oh, and I found reading EVERY article I could on the LATOC site was absolutely worthwhile. Cannot recommend it highly enough as a resource (that I see you have already discovered - but read what you can find there if you haven't already).
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
Oh, PLEASE!!! Wasn't it Russia who was not only 'absolutely positive' but 'also confirmed' that the US was going to instigate a military attack on Iran back on April 4th? Not only that, but several TOD members were SO CERTAIN it was true. If it was on the 'internetz' it must be true, right!? And what about during Cyclone Gonu. Several people actually believed the US had somehow created and was actively steering the cyclone to strike Iran so they could lob a few missiles at key nuclear sites completely anonymously. And we ALL know how that turned out!
Sticking feathers up your butt doesn't make you a chicken, and drumming the drums of war wont make the US attack Iran. This kind of wild speculation needs to stop!
Good grief people!!!
Well, Putin isn't stupid, he realizes that the missiles the US plans to base in Europe are offensive in nature despite their name.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/06/03/ap3782478.html
The missiles cannot be used to attack, only as a shield. There may have been some worries about Iran increasing their offensive capabilities and perhaps polonium I am not sure.
Sorry, the missles referred to in the previous post were the U.S. defensive missles. The Russians might claim theirs are defensive also, as long as they do not offend with them. The U.S. broke a treaty in putting up the anti-missile defense system. When the U.S. breaks a treaty, it should not have come as a surprise when another party responded as if the treaty had been nullified.
Yes, but due to location they are enablers of a first strike by maximizing the potential to destroy a counterstrike by a small percentage of surviving missiles.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5935
There is also a long interview with Putin during the recent G8 conference that was totally blacked out in the media.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5939
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5938
I think without doubt Putin is one of, if not the, smartest world leaders. He has consistently outmanouevered and outplayed.
I buy into the arguments of others on here that Russians could well view him in future generations as Putin the Great.
It is not his saber rattling that I find so interesting as his latest bold geopolitical conversation: That Russia should be the energy hub for a grand Eurasian alliance from Europe to China.
That has got to be getting some serious consideration within Europe these days...
This is not a ra-ra for anyone. I make no value judgements here - just find it very interesting.
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
That worldwide "Energy Picture" map is effectively content-free. I'm sure Exxon would be very interested to know that their decades-old large-scale operation in the North Sea has been cancelled. Or their recent pioneering (and highly successful) investment in Angola. Or their involvement (along with Chevron, Devon and Hess) in the Caspian. And it appears that no-one of any nationality is doing anything in Alaska or the Gulf of Mexico any more. And what sort of "shortage" are Australia and the UK suffering that the US, Ireland and France aren't? Aaaaahnd - what were the "discoveries" in Yugoslavia and the Malvinas Basin?
C'mon Prof - I know you can do better than this! Or were you craftily trying to discredit the author of the map? Or have I somehow got the wrong end of the stick here?
I think your last question is correct - "you've got the wrong end of the stick here."
The map is "as of Jan 2005" and focuses on the items listed with symbols.
The map is clearly not intended to be all-encompassing in terms of oil production, reserves, etc and certianly not in terms of "energy" as the title "World Energy Picture" implies (next someone will complain "where are the wind farms/ hydro/ solar/ etc").
Sorry if this is a stupid questions, but if we had taken the 1 trillion dollars we spent or will spend on the Iraq war and we instead invested that money into 1 million wind turbines which I'm estimating is 1 million per turbine for one of those big suckers, how much electricity would these 1 million turbines make and what percentage is that of our national electric needs? Is this possible?
Tavor - I too am a dad of two. I believe you will find this site highly informative. IMO the best way to take advantage of TOD is to spend time searching the site with your specific Q's. This will get you up to speed without asking the regulars to rehash alot of issues that have been discussed in great detail already.
enter ELP in the search field as a great starting concept for what you can do for the future of you and yours.
Tavor,
"Peak Oil" is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Don't expect to find something that constitutes "the" solution.
Wind energy won't save us.
Photovoltaic panels (PV) won't save us.
The Market won't save us.
Communism won't save us.
Science won't save us.
As far as books to read:
1. First get a book on coping with Depression. Peak Oil is a very depressing topic. It's happening. It's happening now. There's not a damn thing anybody can do to slow it down. If anything, the Global Economy is speeding up the onset of PO.
2. Read Jared Diamond's "Collapse". It's not about oil per se. It is about resource depletion. Resource depletion is a reason why many a civilization before us (before "we") collapsed.
3. Read a couple of books about the latest scientific theories regarding the human brain. The problem is not in our stars Horatio, but within ourselves.
Step back,
I understand how one could be depressed from peak oil, but I think one has to have more hope or what is the point of going on in life? Many of you are too quick to trash alternatives. I mean honestly, if you could have taken the money from the absolutely stupid Iraq war and instead invested it into a Manhattan/Apollo/WWII effort to save our planet and find alternative energies, we could easily avoid the catastrophe peak oil will bring. If our nightmare of a president would have on September 12th a, 2001 asked us to unite together and sacrifice for the greater good instead of telling us to go shopping and perpetuating our worthless consumer culture, we would have had the greatest beginning to a new millenium filled with change and hope for a better future. Unfortunately he wasted that amazing opportunity because he's a miserable failure of a human being/president if you can even call him a legitimate president. I certainly don't. But I don't want to start a heated political debate here. I just want to say that me myself, I'm generally known among my friends and family as someone who is not all that optimistic in general, and if I can muster up some hope for the future after reading all this peak oil info, then there definitely is a glimmer of hope. Why don't you stop wasting your time being so damn negative and start taking action for the future and not in a selfish way thinking only about yourselves, moving to a distant farm and stockpiling food and weapons, but taking action in your communities and taking a stand or run for office. Do what Portland Oregon is doing, instigate a peak oil committee and do some publicity on the subject to help people understand peak oil and prepare them for a change of lifestyle. That's all it's going to take. Don't be so fast to disregard alternative energy. It's not going to be a variety of answers that get us through this troubled time. IF we have a combination of wind, solar, conservation, nuclear even, hydro, bio, etc. etc. If you add them all up, they will get us through the crunch. Sure it may be hard giving up many luxuries, but we will adapt and survive. If the funds for the Iraq war where enough to fund half of our electric needs via wind turbines, then why not? Don't come up with some lame excuse why it would be impossible to create these solutions. Show me ways to solve this problem. Stop wasting your breath being so damn negative, especially when you have no reason or proof to be so negative.
I remember when I was a kid and I was very afraid of nuclear war. I spent years worrying about it. What a waste of time. A friend of mine said to me something I'll never forget. He said if there is a nuclear war, you're not going to want to survive, let the bomb fall on our heads. Now this post oil world could be a slow nuclear war in the making or it could be the beginning of a better world and I for one am going to fight to make it a better world for me and my children. As a relatively new father, I'm going to fight like hell to make it a better world. I have the vision and I have the will. TODAY, ON THIS FATHER'S DAY 2007, I call on all you fathers and grandfathers on this forum to join with me and take a stand and fight for our future. Let's take that American spirit, our history of innovation, our outstanding work ethic, our collective wisdom, our great wealth and let's put it to some use. Get off that damn couch, turn off that TV, throw away the junk food, tear up the credit cards. Sure some of you will call me naive, some of you will just brush me off, but I know in my heart and my gut that WE CAN DO THIS. JOIN WITH ME!!!
Greg
The folks in Portland are well-meaning, I love the "lawns to gardens" show their leader puts out. But once the services go out, they're dead meat and will be fleeing to rural farmlets if they have the ability.
I dont' think you're naive. I think you've got 2 kids, are completely freaked out, and having trouble dealing with the actual implications of this. this. It's totally understandable.
If you want some examples of how to deal with this, check out the following blogs:
http://www.farmlet.co.nz
http://www.youandyouroilthing.blogspot.com
Your fears were ill-timed but not ill-founded.
What kept the nukes in the silos all those years? It was "deterrance." Why were the big powers intersted in "deterrance"? Because the energy/wealth pie was increasing and nobody was going to get more wealth if the nukes flew.
Today we are entering a totally different era. The pie is now shrinking. This will trigger the "total war" subroutine in our chimp DNA. The #1 predictor of war, dating back to tribal days, has been a perceived drop in the customary standard of living. This is going to be the biggest drop ever, which means the biggest war ever.
The last global oil war was WW II. That war was fought to see who would control the lion's share of the world's massive recently discovered oil reserves. It ended in a nuclear holocaust in Asia when we only had 2 primitive nuclear bombs in the global arsenal. Hard to see how this global oil war will end differently when you consider we have 20,000 bombs in the context of a shrinking pie of wealth. World Oil War II was fought to see who would get the best seats at th fossil fuel fiesta buffet table that had just gotten started. World Oil War III, already underway, is for who will control the last scraps out in the back alley.
Dick Cheney is working to install first strike (NOT "defensive") nuclear missiles in Europe. Putin is preparing to install his own. This represents a massive change in nuclear arms policy that I think most folks, even here on TOD are loathe to allow their brains to process. Where this is taking us when you consider the shrinking pie energy situation should be obvious:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2007/whitneyputin.html
The bad news about nuclear war is you PROBABLY will survive for weeks, months, and maybe even a couple years. The notion that everybody dies instantly is, unfortunately, a myth.
We are putting it to use. We're using our innovative abilites, work ethic, etc and developed some spectacularly effective killing technologies which we've put to use all over the world to seize the world's remaining energy supplies.
This includes the reamining supplies of things like copper and aluminum which will be necessary for the large scale systems of alternative energy that will be used to supplement our war machine's energy needs as traditional fuel sources are exhausted:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/033006_renewable_war.shtml
Todd has done just this. Microhydro is of the ovarological persuasion but she's done the same. There are others here. I've done it too and am saving money to move to a farmlet like MH. (although not in NZ)
From the above post, I don't think you have the stomach to do what is necessary. Most don't, it is a major mental leap. Even those that do have the stomach have other problems that make it difficult.
If you really care about your children, I'd suggest figuring out how you can position them the way Kevin and Becky have positioned the baby they have on the way:
http://www.farmlet.co.nz
Look for the followign:
1. lots of rainfall
2. good soil
3. away from nuclear targets and fallout patterns
4. populatin density under 50 per square mile but not too low.
Those characterstics alone don't ensure a future with some dignity, but they're a good start. As folks like Todd can explain in much better detail than I can, there is a lot more involved.
If, on the other hand, you want to stay where you are, wait for some basket of phantom alt-techologies to stave off the multiple catasrophes currently unfolding while cajoling the rest of us to "JOIN WITH YOU!" (or whatever) then have at it.
If you stay naive enough you may be able to leverage an extremely watered down and gloosed over version of these issues to run for office yourself. You know run on something like "Fossil Free by '33!!!" or some similarly infantile platform. My guess is you're already contemplating just that. Such a move would no doubt be good for your short term social fitness but it wouldn't be so good for your childrens' long-term future.
Your knowledge of Portland's geography is shown as nil as it's closely surrounded by ag with good soil and the regional planning council has done an excellent job against tall odds in keeping sprawl minimal.
As for Mr Bartlett, it's nice to see him using Mike Ruppert's data for his first chart.
Not exactly. When the services go out in the city the folks in the Portland peak oil groups lobbying the city council will abandon their political efforts and flee to farmlets in the areas surrounding the city.
I'd be a little worried about the rampaging hordes from California, in any case.
Yep them too. Every good spot has an achilles heel, for central and southern Oregon I think it's the prospect of refugees.
If things play out as you suggest, I wouldn't blame the people of NZ if they herded up all of the Americans that had relocated there, shoved them on to a raft, and towed them out to an eastbound current with the message:
"You Americans have done enough damage, leave OUR country alone. Go home and take the medicine you have coming to you!"
I think it would be very humane of them to be THAT nice under the circumstances.
start your multiple passport strategy today
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
Wow, hating a person merely because of the place s/he was born... Very humane. (Maybe the Maoris can do the same to the white New Zealanders, huh?...and the Moa birds and Haast's Eagles, if they weren't extinct, could do that to the Maoris.)
Sad, but more the rule than the exception in human history I'm afraid. Not endorsing it, just trying to be a clear headed realist.
Since Haast's eagles hunted 400 lb bipeds. I am sure that they grabbed some of the smaller bipeds when a new food source suddenly appeared. Different taste though I suspect.
Alan
Hello Chimp,
re: "...(although not in NZ)."
I'm curious (if it's not impolite to ask) - did your travels yield some information you might enjoy sharing?
I can't think of any information or conclusions I came to that would benefit anybody other than myself, if that makes any sense.
>Dick Cheney is working to install first strike (NOT "defensive") nuclear missiles in Europe. Putin is preparing to install his own. This represents a massive change in nuclear arms policy that I think most folks, even here on TOD are loathe to allow their brains to process. Where this is taking us when you consider the shrinking pie energy situation should be obvious:
That doesn't make any sense since Russia has some of the largest energy reserves remaining. Taking out Russia would also mean taking out the infrastructure to bring Russian Energy to Western markets for a very long time. At best the Cheney would much more concerned about China, with its massive industrial build up and China's effort to lock up remaining oil reserves in Africa, the Middle East and even in South America. If anything, the US would serve its interest in strengthing its relationship with Russia at the expense of its relationship with China. Third, any Missile defense deployed in Europe (or anywhere) against Russia is pointless since Russia has so many ICBMs it would be clearly impossible to stop but a tiny fraction of them. On the the other hand, China has a very limited number of ICBMs and the US could probably build a successful shield from a Chinese attack.
I suspect the real reason is to do with money. Poland has been a strong supported of the US, and a new shiny missile shield is an excellent way to funnel money into Poland for they're support. Its also possible that the Pol's have asked for the shield due to thier own fears. I would also like to add that Cheney is gone in 2009. So unless you believe its going to happen between now and Jan 20, 2009 (assuming Heart failure doesn't occur), its unlikely that Cheney is going to force a US first strike against Russia. Finally, the US would probably have better luck underminding Putins Regime than to use Miltiary power.
FWIW: I agree that Declining Energy resources does significantly raise the chances of Nuclear war. Its more likely that China will become more aggressive in the future with a billion plus people to feed, and few energy reserves.
There's a law in warfare that goes something like "if you can't secure an objective, then make sure you deny your enemy the objective."
Cheney, Halliburton, Wall Street, etc. are operating on a read only routine that says "grow at all costs." If they can't get their hands on Russia's oil and wealth, then out comes the "total war" subroutine.
>Cheney, Halliburton, Wall Street, etc. are operating on a read only routine that says "grow at all costs." If they can't get their hands on Russia's oil and wealth, then out comes the "total war" subroutine.
Total war is mutually exclusive of "grow at all costs". Russia also has a nuclear submarine fleet which makes a Missile Shield in Europe useless. Also I belive a lot of top brass would start talking with the press if Cheney had any notions of going to war with Russia. Don't get yourself wrapped up in political idealogies. As a stated if the US wanted to get its hand on Russia's resources the best way is to undermine Putin and replace hime some sort of pro-western gov't. Much easier and cheaper than going to a military hot war.
Not in a shrinking pie scenario. Put it this way, from Cheney's standpoint:
1. If we don't go to war to grab what's it's guaranteed we shrink
2. If we do go to war, there is a chance we might win, get our hands on what's left and continue growing
They already tried the old fashioned way, but Khodorkovsky is on "vacation" in Siberia, Litvinenko is pushing daisies and the rest of the mafia are back in Israel with their tail between their legs.
Total war is only mutually exclusive if you accept M.A.D. If either side does not believe in that, then regardless of the actual outcome, they are likely to invoke war in an attempt to win it.
While you and I may believe that nuclear war is not winnable, there are others, especially within this administration, who believe they can win such an encounter. And in the case of nuclear war, what matters is not whether they can actually win but what they believe since that is how they will act.
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
Having the stomach is half the battle... then you have to fight family, friends - and sometimes a spouse (in my case)
But you need to keep your eyes on the prize. Those two kids. Like I do mine. You brought them into this world and chances are they won't be old enough to fend for themselves when things start to slide precipitously.
The Chimp is right. I am sorry to say this but I think you aren't really seriously thinking this through. Hope is great. Intentions good. Actions better.
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
I'm not a pessimist as far as possible technological & economic solutions are concerned. I've said repeatedly: get all of the readers of this forum together at a conference center for a week, and we could come up with a very good plan that would work from both a technical and economic perspective.
It is the political and social realm where I can't find cause for optimism. That's where the real problem is.
There are many technologies that already exist that could have been deployed over the past 30 years to vastly improve our energy efficiency, and massive amounts of renewable energy resources could have been developed by now. The unfortunate fact is that it didn't happen, and the reason it didn't happen is to be found in the political and social realm.
People keep popping up on TOD saying that we can do this and that and it will save huge amounts of energy or increase supplies of energy. All well and good, if it would actually happen. Unfortunately, it is not happening, just as it hasn't been happening over the past 30 years.
The sad, hard fact is that we had three decades advance warning starting in the 1970s. We had three decades to get our act together, and there was a tremendous number of things we could have done that would have put us in a very different position today. Instead, we just squandered this last, best opportunity. Now, even if somehow our society and our political system would somehow suddenly change and enable effective action to be taken, it is too late to avoid major and painful consequences of the inaction of the past three decades. And the thing is, the clock is still ticking, and we are continuing to see inaction instead of action.
When the full extent of the crisis finally becomes undeniably apparent to everyone, and things really start to get painful, I have no doubt that there will be a huge movement to get things done, and many crash programs will be implemented. Unfortunately, it will be much too little, much too late, and even then many of the things that get done will be the wrong things.
The thing that is so sad and infurating about this whole thing is the realization that IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY. This was a forseeable crisis, there were solid mitigation opportunities available, and deliberate choices were made to ignore it all.
We've made our bed (or had it made for us), and now we get to live in it. That's why I'm not an optimist.
My one reason for not being a pessimist is the simple realization that somehow, the worst usually doesn't come to pass. Somehow, humanity usually manages to muddle through in spite of all our stupidity and character flaws and dysfunctional political systems. Maybe this time will be the exception, maybe this time the dieoff doomers will be right. But I don't think that the worst case dieoff doomsday scenario is absolutely inevitable, even at this late date. So you are right, it is worth a try for each of us to do what we can. Just maybe we can avoid the worst -- but don't expect much more than that.
Correct me if I'm wrong but Jimmy carter started to move things in the right direction with reduced speed limits, solar power on the white house roof, the encouraging of Americans to lower their thermostat, the cardigan sweater, etc. He was pushing hard and if he had won that 2nd term, we might not have needed this forum today. The election was stolen by reagen who sent his goons to Iran to negotiate the release of the hostages after the election sealing Carter's fate. This is all fact. Look it up. So I blame Reagen for ending what carter had started and basically ruining our future. Republican thinking and policy has fucked us up so badly. It's so sad...
But Tavor, WNC, let me give you an alternative thought here
I believe that there is no soft landing and that mitigation is really just delay. In which case one has to ask which is better a delayed fall, or a quick very hard fall?
Now this is not really answerable... but I have to say I lean towards thinking that a quick hard fall at least would leave SOME resources in the ground for whatever survivors of the fall finally grow back to be able to use - even if it takes hundreds or thousands of years...
The point is a fall after we finally extract EVERYTHING leaves NOTHING for any survivors on a species survivability timeframe.
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
I know that there are some that embrace that school of thought, but I respectfully disagree. I believe that preparedness always is preferable to unpreparedness when facing a crisis. A fall from a short distance is always less dangerous and devastating than a fall from a long distance down. We're going to have to learn to do without oil, but it would have been helpful if we had gotten started on that project earlier and were already farther along that path.
In retrospect it is obvious that we did indeed take the wrong fork in the road. It would be a very different country today, facing this crisis in a much stronger position, if we had continued on the path that Carter started us down.
I volunteer on helping pull together a TOD convention if it is in Houston - logical spot for it :-)
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
Lots of people have given good advice so I don't feel qualified to add my own except to suggest that very few of us are thinking in the long enough term to figure out how we got here, really, and where we should really be trying to go.
Three comments on this thread:
1) The long term carrying capacity of the planet sans oil has been calculated to be around 1 billion. So regardless of how hard we scramble to make sure that We do okay in our specially prepared safe haven, somewhere (most places), a lot of people are going to have to die or not get born in the first place. Who is it going to be?
2) The whole resource depletion problem was foreseen by a group of systems thinkers back in 1970. Read "Limits to growth" by Meadows, et.al. for an explanation of the general problem of industrial civilization. Matt Simmons read it years ago and wrote this comment:
"For a work that has been derisively attacked by so many energy economists, a group whose own forecasting record has not stood the test of time very well, there is nothing that I could find in the book 'The Limits to Growth' that has been even vaguely invalidated."
3) Based on understanding the inevitability of collapse of exponential systems like the capital/resource/population system, it's clear that western civilization is on the wrong program. What would be a better program? Perhaps we should be looking for ways to develop spiritual wealth rather than material wealth. Yes, if you're hungry or cold then it's hard to focus on being spiritually rich. But if you are lucky enough to have enough for yourself, why would you think that even more is better? Instead, we should be learning how to care for each other. In that way we'd use less resources and make a better world for more than just ourselves.
This may seem sappy to lots of TODers but maybe that's just because we're so stuck on thinking about things-and-ourselves to the exclusion of learning how to care about others. The Dalai Lama says that hurting others for one's own personal gain ultimately fails anyway. But helping others for their own sake can help everyone.
So, we need birth control and buddhism, I guess. In that order.
I know I wax pessimistic at this web site. In my spare time I'm working on an invention that will generate electricity without emissions. Thanks to taunts on this site by Wimbi & others, I keep finding ways to make it cheaper and better.
But when I take it to business people for funding, guess what happens? They all say, Show me the mo' money. By mo' money, I mean the ROI has to be greater than investing in software. It can't be done. Capital investment in a software start up is a couple of computers and a download of the Beta version product over the Internet. R&D in energy can't compete --not if you don't have the mo' money yourself for a lab, for test equipment, for chemicals, for etc. etc. real "hardware".
So there's the enigma.
It is the system. The profit maximizing system.
That is why WE keep drilling for mo' oil. Because that's where the Mo'ney is.
Are you seeing the big picture now?
What we have here is a classic example of market failure. We know that once we are in the post peak era, oil (and all energy) prices will increase rapidly, too rapid for society to adjust to without severe "dislocations" (i.e., pain). The impact will be devastating to our society in huge and numerous ways. Yet the market has no mechanism to properly value those future impacts and internalize them into investment decisions; thus, these impacts are effectively discounted to zero. It is because of that discounting to zero that investors are not interested in projects such as yours.
The classic solution to market failures is government intervention to add a counterweight and bring the market into proper balance. Since there should be a real, non-zero value to society for any investment that can mitigate the future harm expected by future energy price increases, that value should be injected into investment decisions; some form of direct or indirect subsidy (tax credits) is the usual instrument of choice.
The failure of our political system to provide such incentives is indicative of a dysfunctional, broken polity. Having failed to implement timely and effective mitigation programs before the fact, one is hardly inspired to confidence that our government will do much better once we are in the post-peak crisis.
I get a kick watching the US Senate debate the new and improved energy bill.
Some assure us that American "ingenuity" will come through to save the day thanks to the dynamics of The Market.
You really can't blame them. They were "educated" to be politicians, to specialize in that calling to the exclusion of knowledge in almost all other areas (i.e. physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, geology, etc.). Many are so smart that they are outright dumb and don't even know it.
This is a failure of our eduction system.
How many 5th graders out there know about Peak Oil?
How many know what a shopping mall is?
>how much electricity would these 1 million turbines make and what percentage is that of our national electric needs?
And how much would that impact oil consumption? At best it would impact some natual gas consumption, but it would do nothing to decrease oil imports since less then 1% of electricity is generated by burning oil. Electricity comes from Coal, Natural gas, Nuclear and hydro, with a bit of solar and wind thrown in.
As they say in my native land, I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago:
...and if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
So perhaps we should start refering to our government as "Auntie Sam"?
;-)
I like that - has a good ring to it...
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man