ASPO-USA Conference, Final Thoughts
Posted by Heading Out on October 19, 2010 - 10:11am
The remark that sticks most in my mind, as I look back on this year’s ASPO-USA Conference was one that I believe totally missed the underlying Conference message. It was Ralph Nader, the speaker at the final luncheon, who trying to encourage action, noted the likelihood of our still debating the same topic at the meeting ten or fifteen years from now. The chances of the happening are slim to none. If by that time there has not been an oil peak, with all its subsequent impacts, the Association will have lost any claim to be able to predict reality, and likely will no longer be having meetings. On the other hand, and the evidence was increasingly evident and worrisome, if the peak comes, then the group that met in Washington will have moved on to the equally worrisome topic of trying to predict how fast the decline in liquid fuels will be, and the impact. So we won’t be still talking about the same stuff.
And yet the tenor of the meeting felt different this year. I remember the excitement of going to Denver five years ago to meet the first group of folk that had the same concerns about future fuel supply that I did. I remember the video cameras, the emotional reaction when I realized that there were a significant number of folk, more knowledgeable than I, who had facts to substantiate an early rather than late date for Peak Oil to occur. Five years have passed. The intervening time has seen global oil use reach a rough plateau along which it has bounced. But the end to that plateau is now coming in the near future. This will make that future much darker than the present, and likely a lot of people are going to be hurt. Yet the mood at the meeting seemed more complacent, even as the message is becoming more urgent. Perhaps we have been talking to ourselves too long, for as the message becomes clearer, the reaction seems to lessen.
The Liquid Fuels problem (though there are concerns also over the effective supplies of energy as a whole) is not an immediately visible crisis. Yes, the price of crude oil has gone up, but it is now held (largely through an adjustment of the exports from a very few Middle Eastern countries) at a relatively steady price. As long as that reserve exists and is used, as it is now, the world can adjust to the current price and continue about its ways.
But the day when the carousel stops is almost at hand. The predictions at the meeting seem to increasingly focus on the 2012-2014 time frame. That begins to impact the next national elections. The price of crude will continue a slow ratchet up, that quickens towards the end of next year (there was at least one prediction that it will be back in treble digits by then). The slow growth of the crisis, partially because of the continued ill-health of the economies of the world, means that there are other more pressing topics of seeming more important concern. And so the meeting drew less attention than it should.
ASPO-USA is moving to Washington to seek more influence, but I suspect that the dawning awareness of the problem over the next eighteen months will do more to bring the group to national attention. What is needed is an underpinning of facts that explain some of the root causes of the problem, why it isn’t going to go away, and some of the resulting problems that are going to arise in the future. Plus of course the need to continue to work the numbers to better be able to estimate how bad it is going to get.
Robert Hirsch talked about what he has done to prepare – he knows it is coming and is getting ready – but I wonder how many other folks are? It has, to some, become almost an abstract topic, somewhat displaced from day-to-day reality in the way that some meetings change. We talk about the evidence, yes its getting stronger, and the dates are getting closer (even faster than that just due to time having passed) and yes the impacts could be severe, but . . . .
I remember coming away from my last ASPO-USA Conference thinking I should talk to the mayor and council where I live. But it was still a few years from a crisis, and as someone said “if it won’t happen in this term, why should I worry, I might not be elected when it happens and so I won’t have to he concerned.” Well that isn’t true any longer. Those now being elected will begin to see the problem in their next term. The excuses for inaction are running out.
(Oh, and my wife, my eldest son and I drive hybrid cars. I spent the weekend before the Conference stacking wood for our tile stove. I have solar roll on the roof, and the house has been re-insulated. Living rurally I am loath to move nearer shops and we effectively have little public transport.)
The evidence is stronger, more folk are becoming aware of it, the likelihood of significant mitigating measures being implemented are growing less, but, for a short while longer, we are off the public screens. But that will likely soon change – as earlier periods of awareness show, people do want web sites that can keep them informed, conferences that bring together folk that can build the encompassing picture of what is happening.
Unfortunately, as the Gulf oil spill showed, the current Administration thinks it can exist without much of that expertise. (The decisions were made by an overseeing panel assembled by the Secretary of Energy that did not contain a whole lot of Petroleum Engineering expertise, by number of members.) It, sadly, takes time for those who don’t know the facts, or have the background knowledge, to be brought up to speed. So our role hasn’t gone away. It has actually become more important, and so we must continue to do what we do, until recognition comes. That it likely won’t be long coming is not necessarily good news.
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.
Can you elaborate on what Hirsch is doing to prepare?
"As a result he has got out of the market – since good stocks and bonds will be hurt as well as bad. He has added annuities to his portfolio, bought some gold, and moved closer to mass transit and the shops." from aspo second day after lunch.
Got to say that my choices of paying off debts, installing a woodburner, solar pv, heavily insulating house, investing in woodworking equipment, planting fruit trees, keeping poultry and growing veg are more to my liking!
I agree with your options. Hirsch's sound a bit like "Business as usual--just move the money around." Oil is only a small part of the problem. Everything oil touches will be affected--agriculture, etc.... Then of course we are running out of bio resources...species lost, global ocean and land pollution creep. Am a bit disappointed that OilDrum has decided to turn a blind eye to all that AGW means...and I do not mean just heat. Try acidification of oceans....growing costal dead zones...species loss...
I think Hirsch told something about that in interview to Le Monde's 'Oil man' blog:
http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/09/16/interview-with-robert-l-hirsch-12
http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2010/09/16/interview-with-robert-l-hirsch...
http://www.aspousa.org/2010presentationfiles/10-8-2010_aspousa_KeynoteEn...
Maybe Nader, saying we would be having the same discussions a decade from now, was thinking PO will be like climate change - a decade of lots of public discussion and lots of government inaction.
I'm glad people like you, HO, and Robert Hirsch, are talking about your own personal preparation. I think too many Peak Aware people are falling into a state of complacency.
Knowing the high profile, highly respected people in our Camp are preparing personally NOW might help snap some people out of their stupor.
The last time I was in a live audience watching Ralph Nader and listening to him speak was 20 years ago, but his speech then revolved around the need to cultivate leadership in the movement, the need to create more leaders rather than more followers.
Moving past mere blogging and conferencing includes some of the things that have recently been done as well as things that have not been talked about extensively: Congressional briefings that raise peak oil awareness among staffers, creating a mechanism for direct advocacy efforts on peak oil awareness, creating a template for what a national strategy for peak oil mitigation would look like and perhaps drafting model policy platforms and legislation for what a peak oil political candidate needs to be and do.
We should be looking at "best practices" among smaller and larger municipalities, county government and at the state and national level as well as thinking about international agreements that could promote a better understanding of peak oil and the challenges of mitigating its effects.
I think in many respects the PO and GHG advocacy/activism are the same. Nothing that we do as individuals, Cities or even the United States is going to change the final outcome without an equally activist response from India, China and Brazil. If we in the United States have a hard time politically in making even modest adjustments to our energy use what are the odds that a politician in India or China is going to accept a regime in which they accept permanently lower standard of living. It seems to me that all we can do as individuals is start to focus on how we are going to survive both PO and Global climate change. Bill McKibben has put it succinctly - the Earth as we knew it is gone welcome to Eaarth.
There's a lot there I agree with. Without a global approach to the problem, the aggregate effect of all the efforts of individual Americans, Australians, Japenese or Western Europeans, etc., to conserve energy and adopt lower energy lifestyles will simply be to free up energy resources for China's or Brazil's or India's economic growth.
But a serious peak oil-induced economic collapse is going to require sociopolitical solutions, not individuals stockpiling canned foods and guns. If the government can't survive a collapse, then the likelihood of any individuals being able to hold on to the fruits of their preparation for a permaculture future is going to be very low. The role of organizations like ASPO should be to prod governments into action that will promote their survival.
You are quite right that in a total collapse you can't hoard enough- it would make more sense to get the skills that would allow one to survive- variant of "teach a man to fish".
But I don't think that we will see a binary world- fine one day and collapsed the next. I think that it is a continuum. In many parts of the world electricity is not available 24/7. Plenty of places have 6 hour power cuts each day without collapsing. The big question is at what level beyond the individual do we have to organize at? Not to avoid PO or climate change but to try an figure out a way for our grandchildren to survive it.
Kenny,
I agree with you that we need to be looking at things at both the national and the local level. Much of the discussion on TOD and at ASPO has addressed the need for smart policy at the national level and I think ASPO-USA can be of great help at that level.
But, as you point out, we also need to be looking at "best practices" at the more local level. Among those best practices I would put an "Energy Security Report" at the top of the list. The world is a very heterogeneous place and Peak Oil will play out differently depending on where you live. Before a local community can take action, whether at the state, county or municipal level, they need to understand their energy situation. Unfortunately, this mode of thinking is very new to public officials and ASPO (and TOD) can play a role in creating template documents that set up a reasonable framework for how to think about the problem.
Luckily, such a template already exists. I would encourage everyone to read through David Karlsson's Diploma Thesis -- "Is energy in Sweden secure?".
This work was done in Kjell Aleklett's Global Energy Systems Group at the University of Uppsala. I believe that the structure of this document would provide an excellent blueprint for analysis at almost any level of government with it's emphasis on the 4 A's (Availability, Accessibility, Affordability, Acceptability) and 4 R's (Review, Reduce, Replace, Restrict). This document also contains tools that policy makers can actually use such as a decision making matrix. In short, this approach is one that will make sense to policy makers while staying close the the scientific, data-driven analysis preferred by the ASPO/TOD types.
As a last enticement to get you to read this document I'll include a few lines from the Closure section:
If we (ASPO, TOD, Energy Department, ???) could agree on a framework like this, interested individuals could go about gathering the information and filling in the blanks for such a report. In fact, one could imagine an entirely Open Source process using on-line tools and volunteers to get it done much faster than any government could. This would be the ultimate 'can do' project for those concerned about energy.
Would anyone like to join me in pursuing this idea?
Best Hopes for working together to solve our problems.
Jon
Kenny, Jon et.al.,
Seems appropriate for me to chip in with the conclusion of my recent M.Sc. thesis: “Transition Area Bouzovsko”. Is the Transition approach applicable in socially/culturally less responsive areas? http://permalot.org/files/u2/MVJ_Thesis.pdf . It concluded that it likely wasn't applicable here in Czech republic, and rather recommended the using the approach of 'TC Local' in combination with the effect of the 'Shock Doctrine'.
TCLocal is a group of 'peak everything' aware citizens in Tompkins County, upstate New York, http://tclocal.org/ who are exactly doing what you advise, Kenny: Making a 'plan B' for when the crash is going to happen, and the 'masses' suddenly realize that it's for real. As Naomi Klein expose' points out; it's only at such time that the general public is perceptible for 'Plan B'.
The positive side effect of the TCLocal approach is that through their research they meet and talk to their local decision makers and administrators who just might remember the contacts to members of TCLocal once the trouble sets in? All of this happen in a very participatory manner, through a series of articles addressing each of the issues outlined in this index of a 'Plan B': http://www.ibiblio.org/tcrp/process/outline.pdf In theory this list can be used by any community, and adapted according to local needs.
I'm a Dane in Czech Republic, far from Tompkins County, however at this summers meeting of members of http://energybulletin.cz/ , we agreed to try to use the TCLocal approach here in Czech as well.
For those of you who followed the recent duel between Michael Greer and Rob Hopkins: This is the middle way.
Cheers,
Max
Hi Max,
Thanks for letting us know about this.
I'd like to see you write up more about it - perhaps for "Campfire"?
I would add "regional" to the list of sizes in your list. "Best practice" may vary a lot between areas that don't conform to the historical boundaries. From the perspective of climate and water, West Texas has more in common with new Mexico, and East Texas with Louisiana, than the two parts of Texas have with each other. The northern tier of states are trying to solve a different set of problems than the southern states. The spacing of medium- and large-sized cities in the East is very different from the spacing in the West. The types and quantities of renewable energy resources vary across regional boundaries, rather than state boundaries.
At least arguably, the "national" scale will be of less importance in the future in a country as large as the US. Absent fast cheap long-distance transportation, how much will Massachusetts and California really have in common? Or Florida and Washington? Or any of those with Nebraska? I cheerfully admit that I'm sort of out in the lunatic fringe on this subject. But the idea of a Congress that could be dominated by the states east of the 100th meridian (the traditional boundary between East and West, between semi-arid and moist) making policy decisions on energy, water, and such that would also apply to the states west of the meridian makes me nervous.
Wyoming politicians occasionally describe their state as "an energy colony operated for the benefit of the rest of the country." Many in the Mountain West and desert Southwest feel the same threat.
I know you feel like I do, SA. I almost want to cry when I see the level of inattention... and I think we are being swept into the corner by the PTB. MSM and all, they ignore what they do not want to see. Ignorance may be bliss, but in this case it is a precedent to cataclysm.
In five years, I may have departed from this planet (already have 8 stents... 3 ha's), and still my children and grandchildren will remain. I have apologized to them, and they cannot understand why yet. Stupor is a good word for what I am seeing.
Hopefully I will have a few years to set up some backup for them... small acreage in the Midwest - maybe 15 or so acres each. If only they were interested in organics and farming. Still, example is the best way to teach, and at least I can give them that.
Best wishes for personal preparation for you and yours.
Craig
+10!
IMHO, the old standard bearers of the Peak Oil message, The Oil Drum and ASPO, have lost their drive, lost focus on their purpose and will consequently fade.
OTOH, I missed half the conference because of other, emergent drivers. The most significant is the Sierra Club. They are developing realistic plans (at least semi- which I am striving to improve) and they have political influence and understanding as well as over a million members.
Needless to say, the "boil the planet" solutions of Hirsch are not viable there. But a suite of truly viable solutions are.
There are also concerns, and budding plans, in the national security area of DC as well.
Best Hopes for the new horses !
Alan
PS: I sent a draft to your old mst account.
Needless to say, the "boil the planet" solutions of Hirsch are not viable there. But a suite of truly viable solutions are.
Are the plans going to be useful? The 70% waste plan as outlined here:
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/12/08/uk-report-just-30-of-carbo...
only get traction with "At least something is being done" or "Its less than 1% of the investment banks income" types.
Any solution that can't operate 80% (or better) effective is a non-starter in my not humble at all opinion.
I was a Sierra Club member in the distant past. When I was younger i enjoyed some of the hikes, including one beach hike south of Santa Barbara designed to inspect natural oil seeps. At the present time does the club have a position on population stabilization, immigration reduction and illegal immigration? I recall that this was a contentious issue when I was involved with ZPG and an environmental coalition that had overlapping membership
No. There was a big fight about this back in the late 90s when I was active in the Club. A lot of people left the Sierra Club because of it. The leadership continues to take no position on population issues or US immigration -- too controversial. Meanwhile the yeasties are frothing over the sides of the petrie dish.
The Sierra Club is essentially a lobbying organization, while needed, an embedded part of the party machine.
After the Brower days of the 60s, it has become mainstream, and cannot take controversial or threatening positions to the current economic and political system.
I still give it support.
IMHO, the old standard bearers of the Peak Oil message, The Oil Drum and ASPO, have lost their drive, lost focus on their purpose and will consequently fade.
BRUTAL!! Maybe just a natural consequence of peak oil happening and no one really noticing?
Hi Alan,
I always look forward to your take on things.
re: "IMHO, the old standard bearers of the Peak Oil message, The Oil Drum and ASPO, have lost their drive, lost focus on their purpose..."
Can you possibly please expand on this - in more specific terms?
What would you suggest they do?
re: Did I ever elicit your reaction/critique/possible support for
www.oildepletion.wordpress.com - the NAS convening, "impacts, and policy options" being two of the three critical areas.
Sierra Club would not lend their support to this effort. I didn't really understand why. I tried.
re: "There are also concerns, and budding plans, in the national security area of DC as well."
Could you please explain what you're talking about here?
Unfortunately, I cannot or should not, depending on the case, say much more.
Alan
what was their focused purpose? what did they lose?
IMHO the first sign of any purpose at all beyond trying to raise the issue is this move to Washington
Hirsch may seem BAU in fact he may even be BAU but who cares at this point? we need someone to kick ass
who is going to tell them they are wrong.......... WRONG....me?
wrong... wrong.... look at me..... wrong
no not me man...
trying to raise the debate has very limited value itself
ASPO did very little to raise the issue to start with it just rode the back of reality..it was only after the oil shocks that anybody listened.
ASPO has achieved to date the total sum of the square root of zero®... (well thats an exaggeration)
Thanks, HO. I'm in full agreement with continuing to carry the torch. As you said:
"It, sadly, takes time for those who don’t know the facts, or have the background knowledge, to be brought up to speed. So our role hasn’t gone away. It has actually become more important, and so we must continue to do what we do, until recognition comes."
...which brought to mind something Leanan posted last week.....
"I've been thinking of the future of TOD a lot lately. As I've said before, in many ways I feel our job is done. Peak oil is now in the rear-view mirror."
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7039#comment-731970
.... perhaps during a moment of TOD fatigue.
Firstly, I want to thank all of the folks that continue to make TOD and ASPO possible, most of all the staff, and also the many "great brains" that contribute perspective, knowledge, links, and even humor to this body of knowledge and discussion that, IMO, will become even more relevant as things unfold, and societies struggle to cope with fundamental change. I think that the job has just begun, and those that have charged themselves with this task deserve to be applauded.
As for preparations, there are many sites devoted to personal mitigation strategies, but I think that TOD is one of the best at discussing the "whats" and "whys" of how folks can minimize their exposure to whatever the future holds. Very few sites are as devoted to seeking clarity as TOD.
Knowing that many here along with Hirch, et. al. are preparing as individuals, yet continue to ring the bell in the public square is telling. You could just as easily collect your tools and toys and go home.
"there are many sites devoted to personal mitigation strategies"
Such as? I haven't found any I feel very comfortable with. They seem either too optimistic (BAU type sites) or too pessimistic (survivalist (guns and ammo) or going back to an eighteenth century lifestyle).
As I said; "Very few sites are as devoted to seeking clarity as TOD."
The Archdruid's latest is pretty good stuff for those not afraid of getting their hands dirty. His appropriate tech/ Green Wizard stuff strikes a good balance between BAU and reverting totally to pre-industrial lifestyles, though that could be where we're headed after things shake out.
Oh! and don't forget Andre`s site http://postpeakliving.com ;-)
I found the same thing so I've attempted to strike the middle ground with my site:
www.postpeakliving.com
I've also just posted my talk — this time with audio over the slides — here:
http://www.postpeakliving.com/aspo-2010-talk
Could you please post an MP3 of your presentation. I would appreciate that greatly as I like to listen to these things when I go out on my runs.
ghung - I see the situation as you do:"I think that the job has just begun". Except I might qualify it a bit and say the job is about to begin. I accept the premise that no real change will happen without a strong push from TPTB and assume their motivation will be the will of "the people". I greatly enjoy the company of the TOD community. But in the world I live (outside of the oil patch) TOD does not even exist let alone have impact. TOD may be reaching some of the ears of TPTB. But even if we assume TOD will eventually have a strong audience amongst these folks, will it change the course of the country if the population isn't on board? I think not. When the public begins to see TSHTF they may or may not pay attention to TOD et al. But without TOD and other similar groups I don't see much hope for public education on the matter. After us and the politicians the next source of info is the MSM. And we know where that will get us. LOL.
Gee, Rock, I'm not deluded enough to think that we (TOD, ASPO, all of the other great organizations) can fix these things and save the world. There's too much inertia, too many predicaments, conondrums, people. Far too many voices and too few who are making any sense. The collective level of denial, distraction, delusion, disfunctionality and disinformation is virtually complete. I call these the five deadly Ds. In my mind it all adds up to Doomer.
A couple of folks above discussed how personal mitigation stategies are ultimately useless if large scale public policies aren't changed drastically. Below, lengould scolds us for being US centric and suggests that we need to discuss the "One World Government" meme. I submit that policies and govt. won't change without pain on the scale of the changes required. History tells us this. So hold on to your butts 'cause it's likely to be an amazing ride, whether it's slow and agonizing or quick and violent. I suspect that we'll see a lot of both.
That said, I see the value of sites like TOD and organizations like ASPO as mitigation groups. If enough motivated folks are educated and prepared, physically and especially mentally, they may set an example, give some hope to their families and communities, and help to create a new fabric for whatever comes next. Otherwise, what we'll have is the blind leading the blind. Perhaps the only lasting value of sites like TOD is as an historical repository of how some were aware, tried to do something and helped a relative few face the future, eyes wide open (hopefully not like a deer in the headlights ;-)
Not you ghung...you've always struck me as one of the least deluded hanging around TOD. LOL.
There is a large part of the public that feels that it is perfectly acceptable to ignore any scientific consensus and instead go with whatever their "gut" tells them. Which is usually what some blowhard on the radio or TV is bloviating about at the moment, which oftentimes turns out to be what people might want to hear as opposed to what might actually be something that one could logically prove.
So when TSHTF, I don't expect very many people to come here looking for guidance or wisdom. In fact, I almost would expect people to become even more shrill in their attempts to shout us down. There will be many for who the first instinct will be a search for scapegoats.
It's all Ghung's fault! He likes solar power and grows a garden! GET HIM!
That's OK as long as you're not one of these...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dtMpjeAMtk
om! (and I'm trying to fathom why a Liberty University Online add kept popping up during Roy's video :-/
Hmm, good question...
Founded in 1971, LU is an independent, fundamentalist Baptist university located in Lynchburg, Virginia. Coincidence? I think not >;^)
BTW Firefox with Adblock will keep the Baptists at bay, not sure about those devious Buddhist though.
Heh. You have more spare time on your hands than I do.
I guess we could get into the game of predicting who the scapegoats are likely to be. At the top of my list would be the oil companies, followed closely by OPEC and environmentalists. Then you would have the 2nd tier of scapegoats - that could include China, Russia, Iran, Muslims in general, Hugo Chavez, Al Gore, and maybe even Democrats in general.
It reminds me of that South Park episode: "They took our fuel!"
It wouldn't surprise me to actually see a move by some to reduce fuel taxes. Pure pandering, obviously, but we seem to be at a point where good public policy and what might be popular with the electorate seem to be on divergent paths.
Perhaps but for the record these are very quick and dirty graphics that I post here and they probably take me less time to put together than it takes the average person to type a paragraph or two. Anyways, I think visually and have the tools at hand.
As for the scapegoat we could start a new game of pin the tail on the next available goat.
here's a wild guess: Canvas 11
LOL! That too.
Could you do this one for me . . . I think it would make a great image to illustrate the oil problem to people on the right. Start with page 5 from these Roscoe Bartlett slides:
http://www.aspousa.org/2010presentationfiles/10-7-2010_aspousa_KeynoteEn...
(The slide with "The World According to Oil")
That that map and then put in the following images (cropped in the shape of the country) in the countries:
Chavez in Venezuela
An insurgent in Iraq
Ahmadinejad in Iran
A dour image of Putin in Russia
Ghadaffi in Libya
president Goodluck Jonathan in Nigera
Borat in Kazakstan (for laughs)
I can't figure out a good image for Saudi Arabia . . . perhaps Mecca, women in full black coverings, I dunno.
I think that would strongly bring home the geopolitical problems we will face with oil in the future.
Ach mein Gott! No wonder the Bundeswehr is worried.
You are my hero! Any way I can get a full hi-res version?
Seriously . . . doesn't that paint a much different picture?
The oil that we are completely dependent on is mostly controlled by:
An ex-KGB guy who is known for cutting off energy supplies to its neighbor (Urkraine);
a socialist quasi-dictator in a banana republic that badmouths the USA nonstop (Chavez);
a crazy North African dictator known for supporting terrorism and who we bombed in the 80's (Ghadaffi);
an unstable African leader in an unstable African regime (Goodluck Johnathon);
a crazy Iranian known for 9/11 conspiracy theories and holocaust denial (Ahmadinejad);
a country that largely hates us because we invaded them and it killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens (Iraq);
a former soviet republic best known as the fake home of Borat; and
a monarchy that many Muslims would like to overthrow, home to 15 of the 19 9/11 hi-jackers, and is ruled with a very strict Islamic code that doesn't even allow women to drive (Saudi Arabia).
That is where most of the oil lies. If the Saudi monarchy were overthrown then the TSHTF. And it is so hypocritical to be talking about 'democracy' while propping up that monarchy regime which is disliked by many (most?) in the region.
The best thing we have going for us is that they are all addicted to the money like we are addicted to their oil. But our money is losing value. This situation really scares me.
Sure, contact me at my posted email address and I can send you a hi-res version.
That is a great list . .
Oil companies . . . immediately blame those selling us the expensive fuel.
OPEC . . . that damn cartel!
Environmentalists . . . none of this would be happening if they let us drill in ANWR!
I think the right-wing would put environmentalists on the top of the list and the left-wing would blame the oil companies. Of course, neither is to blame and the biggest blame should go to the person doing the blaming since they are the addict.
There will be some people that blame the auto industry . . . which is nonsensical since they will suffer mightily.
ROCKMAN,
While following TOD and other sources for some years now, I have wondered what role these communities might play once we begin to tip off the bumpy plateau into decline in just a couple of years.
To a significant degree, I think that the role TOD played in the BP spill illustrates one potential role for the coming time when declining production grabs the public's attention. In particular, for the spill, TOD was clearly a go-to place for learning about what was happening and how it might play out.
When several million folks come looking for understanding as well as personal and social (policy) options in just a couple of years, what will be TOD's messages? (That's only a couple or few ASPO conferences away, I would imagine closer in time to our present than the first conference.)
MSM
MSM,
I like your thought. TOD is good at pointing out that new energy sources and even sustainability are mostly illusions, and that things will probably become rather unpleasant a century from now. It would be quite a bit more helpful to have some articles on predictions and strategies for the next decade (or two at most). I think most readers here have some idea what will occur with oil production over that time frame, but are so stunned by the ultimate implications that they have overlooked the job of focusing on the immediate future.
Vertigo
MSM - Your point is as excellent as it should be obvious to folks who think TOD has passed it's prime. As you point out until the BP incident TOD was as much a place to show off how smart we are to each other. Sharing with like minded and not so likeminded was very beneficial IMHO. But the public response to TOD via the BP incident may serve as a model for future oil related shocks. Sad to say but the BP spill has probably shoved TOD closer to the front lines then it ever has been or would have been. The trick now that we've gotten their attention is to maintain credibility.
Credibility was high (past tense) because there were drillers and engineers on deck to piece together the Macondo puzzle, refute technical errors pertaining to physical iron, pressures, and procedures at a specific time and place. Folks were monitoring ship movements, parsing the stream of hooey emanating from BP and MSM. It was real-time fact checking.
Everything else from AGW to PO is speculation, zero credibility and little hope of influencing government, investment, or commerce anywhere ever. This should not be a controversial idea. Did Twilight in the Desert influence anyone or change anything? Or Matt Simmon's warning about rusting platforms and pipelines? Lack of young engineers and petroleum geologists?
I attended the SEG conference in Denver yesterday. 100% gray-haired good old boys with hearing aids, trembling hands and trouble explaining simple stuff. Same situation in government and finance. Well worn grooves.
China shutting down export of rare earth minerals, now that's real news, or it ought to be. Not a damn thing we can do about it except burn coal for power and cut the subsidies for "green" energy and EVs. If you think Americans are going to accept 6-hour power cuts, ride bicycles and eat less, you're cuckoo.
We'd liberate Venezuela first, rather than pay $8 gallon for gasoline.
What Americans are willing to accept and what they will be forced to accept are two different things. Our forecast is that the US is well along the path toward becoming "free" of our dependence on foreign sources of oil--just not in the way that most people anticipated:
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-10-18/peak-oil-versus-peak-ex...
Seizing the oil fields is a lot easier than reliably shipping it to our shores on an ongoing basis. Supertankers are quite vulnerable to everything from submarines to sabotage.
We'd liberate Venezuela first..
Which will drive gas prices higher.
And will involve the Chinese (20 year loans to be repaid in oil).
Chavez has prepared (including ties with the Chinese) for such an effort. And Vz exports are just a drop in US oil import requirements.
Now liberating Alberta from the rest of Canada might work. The Canucks are not prepared.
Alan
Well, can you add anything intelligent concerning oil depletion? Or does your job depend on maintaining BAU?
A few days before the meeting I contacted C-Span to see if they might broadcast some of the meeting, especially the celebrity speakers. Nothing came of this partly because of the time limit. Perhaps they should be contacted well in advance before next years meeting. The individual in charge of such scheduling said that they prefer advanced formal contact from organizations, preferably on an official letterhead.
Hello,
I don't think that hybrid vehicle are the clue for the future. I believe that electrical motorbikes will have a great future. Check for example (in french) http://www.electricvehicle.lu/vectrix/index.html which only uses 8kWh for 100 km.
Constant speed : distance you can drive with the battery
40 km/h : 105 km
56 km/h : 87 km
64 km/h : 77 km
72 km/h : 71 km
81 km/h : 58 km
97 km/h : 32 km
Prix : 7990 € TTC
They also have bicycles http://www.electricvehicle.lu/e-tricks/index.html, but the battery is just enough for 50 km
Best regards,
Etienne
Electric bikes are nice but they are hardly for everyone. Not so good in the rain or snow. Grandma ain't gonna ride one. But China has millions of electric bicycles. The are great for summer weather commuting.
Can't help noticing how US-centric this site, and the commenters, are. Considering "Any oil use I reduce as a citizen will simply be burned by some(?one? are they really people too?) in China or India or Brazil." as legitimate discourse. It's a huge negative and a great turnoff. The commandment is to "Think globally / act locally", NOT to "Think nationally".
For example, in all their bemoaning of how usless the US federal government is (I agree), has anyone actually considered "therefore we must act at a level ABOVE the US federal government"? That would be my prescription, but of course US media have the citizens so brainwashed about the bad effects (presumeably on the empire) of any efforts at world government.....
With no disrespect, is this just a rant or are you trying to make a point here?
It's a US domain, with a US editor, and mostly US contributors, and you're surprised that it has a US-centric perspective? That's sort of like complaining that the Times has a UK-centric perspective. You put both "Think globally, act locally" and "...we must act at a level ABOVE the US federal government" in the same post; that hardly seems consistent. To the best of my knowledge, there's no supranational authority to whom to appeal. Elections aren't getting anywhere quickly. Armed revolution? I have to grant that approach some legitimacy, since I'm the one who thinks an East/West split of the US would be good for both halves.
In all seriousness, what questions would you like to see discussed/debated?
Well to return to the post subject, I think it's unfortunate that ASPO-USA is focusing on DC; I've always found that engaging the Imperial functionaries there utterly soul-destroying. Our agrarian-epoch Federal government tools has become ineffectual for tackling important issues. Top down is worse than useless with professional politicians and wonks "deciding". The closer one gets to community, the better the prospects are for building resilience quickly enough to soften the impact of big changes that loom. Get it working locally then regionally. Probably not enough time to go to the state level.
An interesting discussion. I remember at one of the lunch discussions (before Nader, even), we were talking about the need to "get the message out". Unfortunately there are a lot of others with competing messages, and ASPO doesn't have the budget to do large scale lobbying. Consider for example how corn ethanol came about - Big Ag went in and made sure that they got a slice of the pie.
The vast majority of people don't perceive any urgency on this. Some deny that it will ever be an issue - after getting home from ASPO, my wife and I went to a dinner party, and one individual there even told us that there was 100 years worth of oil around.
Even once the crisis becomes evident there will be political factions that will argue for what we might argue to be ineffective "solutions". They might even argue for military conquest of countries with oil reserves as a means of "solving" the issue. Perhaps this is where getting the word out will be most important - to try and guide the debate away from such dangerous and futile actions and towards things that are more likely to be effective.
Ultimately what will happen is we go down the road of personal preparedness since that is the one thing that we do have control over. A lot of guesswork is involved in that we don't know exactly what we are preparing for.
We can make rough guesses - a fuel efficient vehicle, for example. And assuming that we missed something and the crisis doesn't hit for 10 years - well I still saved a bunch of money, so how bad could that be.
Whoever that person is, he or she is absolutely right.
Of course, a year's worth of oil a hundred years from now is only going to be a tiny fraction of what a year's worth of oil is today.
Well, that's more realistic than the pap served up by the EIA. Means no new consumers to be "pumped up" in the at best zero-sum oil world. May your next automobile get 60 mpg.
Some deny that it will ever be an issue - after getting home from ASPO, my wife and I went to a dinner party, and one individual there even told us that there was 100 years worth of oil around.
Sounds like an informed individual. Certainly making up scenarios where oil lasts more than a century is pretty easy, I might assume some reduction from current rates of consumption rate to make that concept work without even resorting to GTLs from hydrates...matter of fact, I'm sure of it.... but it certainly is a more reasonable scenario than what some others advocate among the peaker/doomer community.
I would be careful about "making up" stuff. Most of us here on TOD use detailed models in combination with available data to reach conclusions.
Most of us here on TOD use detailed models in combination with available data to reach conclusions.
There goes that sarcasm thing of yours again.
Not at all. We always get a lot of good back-and-forth here. The reality is that one can actually reason about oil depletion because we are dealing with real tangible quantities in a finite world. We have to consider probabilities but that is a given due to the role of entropy/disorder and uncertainty around us. So whenever someone says something stupid, we can actually engage.
If you want endless sarcasm, go to slashdot.org.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/10/19/2347234/China-Now-Halting-Shipme...
"China Now Halting Shipments To Rare Earth Minerals To US"
Yeah, we can easily make oil last 100 years. Charge $500/barrel and continue to up the price with inflation. Oil will last longer than 100 years. It just won't last that at anywhere near the current prices.
Pointless though, society will have to change massively. And that is the whole point. Oil costs 4X what it cost 10 years ago and it will continue to increase at rates faster than inflation due to the supply/demand situation until a suitable alternative is economically viable.
Hi speculawyer,
I believe your argument (first paragraph) is addressed in the discussion about rising prices triggering recession, and the volatility problem as we hit the supply wall.
re: "...until a suitable alternative is economically viable."
Anyway, it's nice to catch up w. you as I posted a reply to your reply from the other day:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7035#comment-733047
Well the nominal price is probably not the right word. Perhaps 'afford-ability'. We've dropped quite a bit since the $147/barrel price . . . yet we use much less oil than we did then. Sure, $80/barrel is a lot less than $147 . . . but if you don't have a job, it is damn expensive.
As Nicole Foss points out, the nominal price is not always a good measure of afford-ability. In the great depression there were farmers pouring out milk to waste while people were starving just a few miles down the road.
Recessions do push the price of oil down . . . but that doesn't mean it has become affordable. So yeah . . . rich people will continue to be able to drive gas guzzlers. But the overall US economy simply cannot afford to use oil now as we did in the past. If we could afford it then our oil usage would not have dropped. We did not reduce oil usage because we no longer like flying on vacation or driving to the beach/mountains. We, as an overall nation, just can't afford that like we could in the past.
"Aye, there's the rub," as Master Will put it. Allow me to suggest an alternate question: "What do you want to happen?" With the caveat that you can't violate any of your basic assumptions about peak oil/energy. Then plan for that.
I was a technology analyst for too long, so I start there. Which technologies do I want to keep? Without going into any details about the "why" for each, a short list of candidates includes:
Each of those items implies a variety of things that would be needed to support them. A question that I have begun to think is critical is, "How many people do you need in one place to support that much tech?" And how big is the pyramid to support the tech folks at the top of the production chain? A guess at some of the things:
And that last item leads me to energy considerations:
There are at least some locations in the US that I think meet the criteria. I already live in one of them (IMO). If I lived anywhere near the Boston-Washington corridor in particular, I'd be thinking real seriously about moving. Beyond that, a small car and as little debt as possible. I already know that the car will eventually have to be abandoned, but almost anything can be adapted to run on compressed natural gas if that's what's available while some sort of electric system gets built out. I think AlanFromBigEasy has some really good ideas on transportation, but there may be some wrinkles required in different areas.
It's not BAU, and it's not a crash. Lots of people think it won't work (eg, Kunstler). I'm not sure if a metro area of a million people is enough to support all the tech necessary to produce, say, integrated circuits with a few million transistors -- there's a balance between enough people to support the tech, and too many to support.
As an avid reader of TOD, I was wondering if the issue of
implementing solutions has it own type of "paradox of thrift" issue?
Or much like high prices create demand destruction and therefore lower prices,
socially we may ahve similar effects.
Meaning that as certain solutions are implemented and relieve pressure in the system, it
makes people in other parts of the system think things are ok, BAU.
So while many of us may be downsizing, reducing travel, insulating our houses, having no (or fewer) children
there are others who won't see the pressures building because of those of us who help solve the problem.
One day the problem will overrun us, I am sure of that, but for now are changing the perception of the problem, by solving the problem?
Thoughts???
Or am I crazY?
Your point is valid. That is a conundrum of EVs. If EVs catch on and lots of people buy them then the price of oil will go down .. . thus making EVs no longer look attractive so sales slow. So oil prices may remain just low enough to prevent people from buying EVs.
Heading Out with this parenthetical comment:
Probably a good move. Keep the foxes away from the henhouse. Plus, they have never been taught much by the way of fundamentals of global oil depletion. All you have to do is look at the textbooks and reference books. I can't see them suddenly changing their tune.
So I have to ask, what insight could they possibly add?
I believe Heading Out was refering to the Macondo spill panel of experts. Hard to see how "fundamentals of global oil depletion" was pertinent to the immediate problems of capping the well.
I will let Heading Out spell out what he was inferring. Look at the preceding sentence:
AFAIAC, the top minds on the oil depletion topic have been physicists: David Goodstein, the late great Richard Smalley, Dave Rutledge, Kjell Aleklett, Al Bartlett and others. (Smalley was chemistry/physics)
No doubt that Chu will go this route if needed and tap the brain trust.
From your own quote "....as the Gulf oil spill showed...", which seems to suggest he was indeed referring to the panel Chu assembled for the Macondo spill. But as you say, we should let Heading Out speak for himself.
Thanks, sorry to be slow in replying, but I am at another Conference and have been a bit involved with that for the last couple of days. I was referring to the panel that Secretary Chu empaneled for the oversight of the Gulf spill.
That was plain as day. Unless this has implications for future panels that Obama might convene, for example on energy, this statement was a complete non-sequitor.
Nowhere else in the post was the oil spill even mentioned.
So I have to ask, what insight could they possibly add?
:>)
I was looking at the comments and between points of action, I took time out to see what the guys doing the technology were thinking publicly with their research dollars.
I am surprised -- to say the least.
The US Patent Office web site offers a full text search capability, and I used it to search the string "peak oil". Do you know how many times it came up in recent published patent applications? (Publication takes place 18 months after filing.) You will be surprise to know that the number is eighty (80). Wow! Is this a secret that no technology is directed to at least moderate? As one interested in technology, patents, the environment, the future, and a lot of other issues, I find it hard to believe that inventors have not looked at ways to alleviate the problems that will be caused by or soften the blow of "peak oil'.
No one is talking.
I don't know how this is going to work, but here is a listing of those published in the last several years:
1 20100233843 Formation of stretchable photovoltaic devices and carriers
2 20100229923 Stretchable photovoltaic devices and carriers
3 20100213720 SHROUDED VERTICAL AXIS DUAL-TURBINE GENERATOR
4 20100201358 ACOUSTIC MODIFIED NMR (AMNMR)
5 20100181190 HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN GASES, PRODUCED ON DEMAND BY ELECTROLYSIS, AS A PARTIAL HYBRID FUEL SOURCE FOR INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
6 20100161174 Landing Load Monitor for Aircraft Landing Gear
7 20100147190 ASPHALT COMPOSITIONS AND PRODUCTS COMPRISING TALL OIL DERIVED MATERIALS, AND METHODS FOR MAKING AND USING SAME
8 20100143997 ENGINEERED MICROORGANISMS CAPABLE OF PRODUCING TARGET COMPOUNDS UNDER ANAEROBIC CONDITIONS
9 20100138066 SYSTEM AND METHOD OF DEMOCRATIZING POWER TO CREATE A META-EXCHANGE
10 20100132753 NON-IMAGING DIFFUSE LIGHT CONCENTRATOR
11 20100116341 Copper-gallium allay sputtering target, method for fabricating the same and related applications
12 20100099832 ISOSORBIDE-BASED POLYCARBONATES, METHOD OF MAKING, AND ARTICLES FORMED THEREFROM
13 20100071904 HYDROCARBON PRODUCTION FROM MINES AND TUNNELS USED IN TREATING SUBSURFACE HYDROCARBON CONTAINING FORMATIONS
14 20100071903 MINES AND TUNNELS FOR USE IN TREATING SUBSURFACE HYDROCARBON CONTAINING FORMATIONS
15 20100047297 NANOCRYSTALS FOR USE IN TOPICAL COSMETIC FORMULATIONS AND METHOD OF PRODUCTION THEREOF
16 20100028255 Method for production of power from aluminum
17 20090294083 Regenerated Particle Aggregate, Method for Manufacturing the Regenerated Particle Aggregate, Regenerated Particle Aggregate-Containing Paper Containing the Regenerated particle Aggregate therein, and Coated Paper for Printing Coated by the Regenerated Particle Aggregate
18 20090272578 DUAL MOTOR SYSTEMS AND NON-ROTATING SENSORS FOR USE IN DEVELOPING WELLBORES IN SUBSURFACE FORMATIONS
19 20090272536 HEATER CONNECTIONS IN MINES AND TUNNELS FOR USE IN TREATING SUBSURFACE HYDROCARBON CONTAINING FORMATIONS
20 20090272535 USING TUNNELS FOR TREATING SUBSURFACE HYDROCARBON CONTAINING FORMATIONS
21 20090272533 HEATED FLUID FLOW IN MINES AND TUNNELS USED IN HEATING SUBSURFACE HYDROCARBON CONTAINING FORMATIONS
22 20090272526 ELECTRICAL CURRENT FLOW BETWEEN TUNNELS FOR USE IN HEATING SUBSURFACE HYDROCARBON CONTAINING FORMATIONS
23 20090260824 HYDROCARBON PRODUCTION FROM MINES AND TUNNELS USED IN TREATING SUBSURFACE HYDROCARBON CONTAINING FORMATIONS
24 20090260823 MINES AND TUNNELS FOR USE IN TREATING SUBSURFACE HYDROCARBON CONTAINING FORMATIONS
25 20090256562 NMR METHOD OF DETECTING PRECIPITANTS IN A HYDROCARBON STREAM
26 20090250897 FORCE CHANNELING MOUNTAIN BIKE REAR SUSPENSION
27 20090227161 Biophysical Geoengineering Compositions and Methods
28 20090226991 YEAST ORGANISM PRODUCING ISOBUTANOL AT A HIGH YIELD
29 20090226990 METHODS FOR THE ECONOMICAL PRODUCTION OF BIOFUEL FROM BIOMASS
30 20090215137 METHODS FOR THE ECONOMICAL PRODUCTION OF BIOFUEL PRECURSOR THAT IS ALSO A BIOFUEL FROM BIOMASS
31 20090212571 WAVE POWER SYSTEM FOR EXTRACTING SIMULTANEOUSLY BOTH POTENTIAL AND KINETIC ENERGY AT VARIABLE SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHTS AND PERIODS
32 20090200854 SOLUTION MINING AND IN SITU TREATMENT OF NAHCOLITE BEDS
33 20090200290 VARIABLE VOLTAGE LOAD TAP CHANGING TRANSFORMER
34 20090200031 IRREGULAR SPACING OF HEAT SOURCES FOR TREATING HYDROCARBON CONTAINING FORMATIONS
35 20090200025 HIGH TEMPERATURE METHODS FOR FORMING OXIDIZER FUEL
36 20090200023 HEATING SUBSURFACE FORMATIONS BY OXIDIZING FUEL ON A FUEL CARRIER
37 20090200022 CRYOGENIC TREATMENT OF GAS
38 20090194524 METHODS FOR FORMING LONG SUBSURFACE HEATERS
39 20090194333 RANGING METHODS FOR DEVELOPING WELLBORES IN SUBSURFACE FORMATIONS
40 20090194329 METHODS FOR FORMING WELLBORES IN HEATED FORMATIONS
41 20090194287 INDUCTION HEATERS USED TO HEAT SUBSURFACE FORMATIONS
42 20090194286 MULTI-STEP HEATER DEPLOYMENT IN A SUBSURFACE FORMATION
43 20090194282 IN SITU OXIDATION OF SUBSURFACE FORMATIONS
44 20090194269 THREE-PHASE HEATERS WITH COMMON OVERBURDEN SECTIONS FOR HEATING SUBSURFACE FORMATIONS
45 20090189617 CONTINUOUS SUBSURFACE HEATER TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT
46 20090175566 Crosshead bearing
47 20090171129 RECOVERY OF HIGHER ALCOHOLS FROM DILUTE AQUEOUS SOLUTIONS
48 20090105393 ISOSORBIDE-BASED POLYCARBONATES, METHOD OF MAKING, AND ARTICLES FORMED THEREFROM
49 20090078133 THIN-WALLED HOT FOIL STAMPING CYLINDER AND METHOD OF FABRICATION
Why is this not more of a public effort to solve/soften some of the effects we are anticitpating?
Well if you think about it for a moment it shouldn't be all that hard to understand.
First of all Peak Oil is not yet even on the average person's radar. Potential inventors aren't even aware of the implications or the possible necessity of mitigation.
Second those that are aware and have a solid foundation in basic science or engineering will quickly realize that they are up against some very difficult if not insurmountable physical limitations when trying to substitute the energy density of fossil fuels in the context of BAU.
Just take a look at the list you have provided anyone who has been even a casual visitor to this site can tell you that most of those patents will never put even the slightest dent in the Peak Oil dilemma that we as a society are facing.
Good luck to those patent holders if they really believe those are in any way practical solutions. I'll also bet there aren't many venture capitalists lining up at their doorsteps or burning their phone lines and filling their voice mail boxes with offers of money to develop these fantastic ideas.
Anyways humanity has just been granted a 50 to 100 year doomsday reprieve so the issue isn't all that urgent anymore.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20101019/sc_livescience/endoftheeart...
I'm pretty sure we can all stop worrying about peak oil on this basis alone...
Cheers!
I didn't see my fuel cell powered incinerating mouse trap! I guess it hasn't made the list yet :-(
Dayum....
Ghung: "fuel cell powered incinerating mouse trap" = A well informed intelligent person of the twenty first century ponders the coexistence of freedom and democracy.
Thank you Ghung! This is without a doubt one of the best PO-Punk band names I've heard. IMHO, of course.
";-^)
FUCPIMT Live at the Big Spill. One of my favorite CDs!
Ah yes, the good ol' geothermal days of Ring of Fire, the resolute side of walkin' the PO line. So weird to see the man in black dressed in white with a semi-classic guitar. The vintage days of hearing the Trap @ the Spill ";-^) g
Yeah, I wonder what that axe is worth today.
Does it look like this? Because I already hold that patent myself...
And yet the elephant remains in the room, the question ASPO-USA and the peak oil community cannot muster the stomach to face, but which the well informed person is already mulling over:
Let's play "fantasy" planning: If you are not aware of how this is played, it is a tool used by life coaches and psychologists to get people to try to figure out what they really want. It goes like this:
Imagine the best possible scenario: You have all the money and free time to do exactly what you want. You decide...what do you really want to do? What do you really want to learn? What purpose do you want your life to serve? THAT is what you should be doing, because you now have the freedom to decide.
Let's play it with energy and nations, or if you choose, energy and the world at large:
It is sometimes said that we will need a second, or even a third Saudi Arabia to meet global oil demand out to the year 2050 or so (give or take a few years). This comparison is indended to force people to think about the gravity of the situation.
Now let's play "fantasy": Imagine you have found it! A new set of affordable and easily developed oil fields that match Saudi Arabia. Let us make it even better, after all, it's a fantasy: Imagine you found 2 new Saudi Arabias, or 3, or even 4!!
Peak oil solved, right, at least for the upcoming century, maybe longer...what a dream!
So we would then be assuming that the carbon release from that much oil can be accepted, or even survived? How many here would accept that contention? Are we assuming that we could build enough roads, and enough cars, and enough refineries to supply that much oil...with all the carbon release that would entail? Who here would accept that contention? Even a climate change doubter would have to shiver at the thought...after all, the contention that carbon in a closed space (i.e., the atmosphere) MUST at some point begin to retain heat is beyond dispute. This can be proven with a large glass sphere and a heat lamp, it is beyond debate. Let us say that we could find an affordable, cheap way to release methane hydrates from the ocean floor, or oil from shale, or the oil from the tar sands, since we are playing fantasy, release all three? Does anyone here accept the contention that we could do that without GRAVE danger to all living things on Earth?
IF we accept that the amount of global carbon release to this point has endangered the planet (and most people here do seem to accept that) and IF we accept the models of any of the global warming pioneers, what we can call the "Hansen" school (and most folks here seem to accept the global warming models of James Hansen or those roughly like them), how would we accept the possibility, however remote, that we would ever use the methane hydrates, the tar sands, the oil shale, the heavy oil, or any vast find of new found oil (however remote the possibility that we find such vast new reserves? If we accept the current global warming models, then finding new fossil energy would not be the cure, it would be the most horrific of nightmares.
So it is easy to see why the excitement may have gone out of the ASPO-USA meeting. Most of the people there have, by their own logic, forced themselves into an unsolvable paradox. Look up the definition of paradox. This is one of the most unsolvable ones I have ever seen:
Statement A: "If we do not find more fossil fuel we face human catastrophe."
Statement B: "If we do find more fossil fuel, or find a way to develop all that we know exists, we face planetary catastrophe."
And yet, if we accept climate change caused by human release of carbon by way of our fossil fuel use, this is exactly the paradox we face.
Wonder why the excitement has gone out of "peak oil"? Yeah, it's hard to get happy after that one...
Except as a matter of sport ("How many angels really CAN dance on the head of a pin?"), this debate is effectively over.
RC
(edited for spelling and sentence correction)
option B.. because that is what is going to happen
all [most, the bulk etc etc etc]of the carbon is going to be burnt. The end. Period.
what we like or want or think sensible is very very very unlikely to change that IMO. Its just a done deal.
Given that we are going to find out one way or another the true effect of climate change is to be.
How much of that carbon is used to build sustainable infrastructure is the issue to me and how many people we can lifeboat without giga death occurring in a unpleasantly short time span until some sort of sanity prevails in this Human epic thing.
I guess its the oceans boil off into space being the extreme end of what can happen vs substantive displacement of environmental refugees and loss of bio diversity at the more "pleasent" end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czvxyDgqxmM
Perhaps the time is approaching when someone will say so others can hear it,
Don’t just do something, stand there and speak out.
Then, perhaps in the offing, necessary change toward sustainability…
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
Chapel Hill, NC
http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
http://www.panearth.org/