So, you see, doomerism is predicated on a very firm foundation:

Human frailty.

Holy Crap!!! Even if this woman's ethical perspective made any sense whatsoever, her fantasy of continuing the American dream orgy ain't gonna happen, global warming or not.

Best hopes for a lot more simplicity and elegant, simple living on an ever endangered planet. If people are really envying this endangered and increasingly unsustainable way of life, then we need to disabuse them of the notion that the American way of life makes any sense for us, much less an entire planet.

If only these so called extremist views were really part of the mainstream. I see the mainstream every day and I guarantee it is not even close to adopting these so called extremist views. In America, excess continues to rule and is in little danger of voluntarily going away. Bling and more bling is the obscene American way.

Global warming, species destruction, depletion of resources, and energy is established whether this woman like it or not.

We will be damn lucky if we even survive and this woman wants to continue the excess standard. It's throw up time.

A real piece of work trilby is...from her brother's website:

http://www.culturechange.org/e-letter-13cont.html

Do you think this is just a case of "rebellion" against her father's own sometimes extremist views? In other words, are we seeing a familial/culture clash?

Peak oil, yes. Man made climate change, no... the facts don't support it. But then, why let facts get in the way of prejudice!

I also read the article and was amazed. This woman just makes SH*T up. How can someone with so little rigour pass off as an expert?

In a sense, the last sentence quoted above is either ethnocentrism or amazing ignorance. This is because it is plainly obvious to anyone with even a remote knowledge of the world energy supply/demand that for the country of China alone to achieve comparable per capita oil use as the US would require daily oil consumption of ~100 mbpd or so. Forget about India and the rest of the developing world.
I would think that as extreme as her views appear to be, even she would not claim that oil production rates could go above 150-160 mbpd. So, my conclusion is that she is basically saying that it is the US's right to consume a disproportionate share of the world's remaining oil resources and we should be happy that other countries are left to envy our way of life.

Yup.

You people just shut up and keep driving if you know what's good for you.

The powers that be require complete obedience. Do not look at the man behind the curtain!!!

GO back to sleep. NOW.

I'm sure quite a few wealthy Jews in Berlin during the 1930's had similar viewpoints to the one espoused here. Or stock brokers in 1929.

Sometimes TSHTF and opinions are not relevant. I'm actually not happy about the turn of events I don't want to be part of a crisis generation its not fun at all. Call me selfish but I'd rather peruse my own personal interests and raise my children. Sometimes things simply don't work out like you want them too.

Remember that the only reason peak oil is and issue is because of greed. If you reed this persons statements what they are really doing is justifying unconstrained greed. As with all things done in excess your sure to lose in the end.

Nothing new here.

Peak oil and global warming are a mortal threat to the culture of conspicious consumption to which many people, apparently including Ms. Lundberg, are deeply attached. Of course they're going to deny reality right up until the moment they can't get another fillup for their Lincoln Navigator.

I'm not familiar with Lundberg, but apparently she publishes a report on gas prices. I'm a bit confused -how exactly does that make her an authority on either of these topics?

Surely the Apocalypse (lifting of the veil) is nigh, now that we have clearly identified the antichrist.

Well, this summer's "terrorist attacks" and the (nuclear) response will render all of this moot shortly I'm afraid.

I think the scariest part is not what she says, but from where she, and many others, think. Contrast it with Nate Hagens comment earlier today of, paraphrasing, "I'm happiest when walking in an old growth forest"

Her ilk continue to believe we must subjugate the earth, and wouldn't care less, even prefer, a world of buildings, malls, factories, and industrial ag food production areas, with perhaps a well designed park of introduced species in delineated spots. Any evidence that this may not be in our best interests is brushed out the window.

I see your wands share the same phoenix feather.....

Sorry, I couldn't resist the Harry Potter analogy since I saw the Order of Phoenix last night at midnight....

I was going to save this for Drumbeat, but it seems to fit better in here:

Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle over Global Warming

How exactly does global warming relate to the frequency and ferocity of hurricanes? Not only do leading scientists tend to disagree over the details, but the debate is sharpened by the Bush administration-imposed controls on what scientists are allowed to say.

Chris Mooney is a leading science journalist and he is just out with a book tackling this very question. It’s called “Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle over Global Warming.”

Mooney is the Washington correspondent for Seed Magazine and author of the New York Times bestseller “The Republican War on Science.”

AMY GOODMAN: And what about the push to nuclear power now, a new movement toward nuclear power? You start to hear President Bush, now he’s using the word “global warming,” but he’s also talking about nuclear power plants.

CHRIS MOONEY: Yeah. Well, you know, I mean, we definitely, in this country, we get a lot of energy from nuclear power. I think that what we need to do to deal with -- to replace a lot of the fossil fuel burning that we’re doing now is we need to increase energy efficiency generally. We clearly can’t go off nuclear power. I mean, we’re very dependent upon it. Whether we ramp up, I think, is problematic, and that’s another issue. We need to bring online a lot of renewable energy sources that will help us deal with the problem. There’s not going to be any one fix. It’s going to be a portfolio of ways of getting energy.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/11/1343232

As much as I dislike the ad hominem attack, and echoing Victor's remark above —

What could we possibly expect from somebody named Trilby?

Sorry, mea culpa, I couldn't help myself...

I think a lot of the commenters are getting sidetracked by the ugliness (If she's married, I hope it's to someone just like her, so that only two people are miserable instead of four.), the apparent stupidity, and the blatant lies.

The key sentence is this one,

"It is not a given that consuming less will be good for our economy or for our personal freedom."

It is solely intended to reframe the conversation by excluding the effect which wasteful behavior has on human ethics. If a child is given candy every time they whine, then they will not only get rotted teeth, but will end up believing that whining is a good thing, and that candy is good for everyone.

The problem which peak oil and global warming is really showing us is that the undisciplined behavior of consumption, whether it is oil, gas, people, corn, sugar, or free energy, needs to be put in check. By tying it to our 'freedom', she is telling everyone that it is some kind of right to consume beyond our planet's means. The question which everyone should always ask is this, "What are humans contributing to the universe in exchange for this consumption?" In other words; what is our Net Creativity?

Consumption itself is a problem, waste itself is a symptom, but the lack of purpose to it is the real elephant in the room. What are people FOR?

Trilby thinks it is to Consume and worship Consumption in the name of Freedom to Consume.

Serendipitously, this answer was chosen as the best to the Yahoo question,
Could usa become as bad as nazi germany? Has the usa become as bad as nazi germany?

The answer is that it is different. Worse? That depends if you are a fish, a chicken, or a cow or a Nintendo-addicted wage slave.
The real question is whether or not the U.S. knows what it is doing or not. So far, it appears to be a country full of 12 year old boys watching porn movies being led by 19 year old boys with very big guns and an unlimited debt budget, who think that bravado and force will overcome any opposition to their conquests.
Is this worse than National Socialism? Corporatism? Depends if you own the company, I guess. In the LONG term, Nature will decide whether the human species has value to contribute to the universe, and will act accordingly. We can speed up or slow down the judgement with our actions, perhaps even change the course of the judgement, but unless we wake up and pay attention, our choices are very limited to change the direction of our consumption-based nightmare at this point.
I guess that's why it could be worse than Hitler's Germany. The Germans knew they could lay down their arms and walk away from a battle. Americans don't know that the weapons they are using to enslave and destroy the planet are disguised as Mocha Latte's, Hummers, and McHouses, and they have no reason to lay these things aside and live in any thoughtful, sustainable, cooperative manner as long as the Game and Competition continue to thrill them.
Hitler's death toll was in the millions. Ours will be in the billions at the rate we are going. Some of the fault lies with the overpopulated that will die, but most lies with the lack of mature leadership in our past and the religions of Us vs. Them keeping people placated with Heavenly behaviors that have little to do with the needs of the soil which nurtures us.

There are some enemies that one can be proud of having as enemies. Ms. Lundberg is an enemy that one can be quite proud of having as an enemy.

Alan