“Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for
some data.' The former will win every time.”
—Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006
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.
My feeling is that until $100/barrel, there will just be a lot of talk and little action.
The American way of life will be preserved -- for a far smaller number of Americans however. The remainder will be reclassified as un-Americans and put on the do-not-walk-around-free list.
Is that what you meant by "what will happen next"?
We need to educate the public on the tradeoffs - would you rather carpool to work every day and live the rest of your life as you do now? Or would you rather drive to work every day and live the rest of your life breathing through a surgeons mask and wearing white clothes to keep cool? These questions need to be asked ahead of time, with advocacy and science united to paint the pictures.
What are the odds that we'll get a program aimed primarily at the problems rather than divvying up pork?
Of course, the best way to avoid this unsavory outcome, is to attack the foundations of peak oil theory -- particularly the notion that we desperately need oil to function.
There's a big disconnect between the different camps regarding the meaning of words like "do something" or "do enough". If "doing something" means spending tax money to help reduce gasoline prices, I'm totally opposed to it. People who are conserving gas should not be taxed to lower prices for people who aren't conserving. IMO, that is completely ass-backwards and nonsensical.
The neighborhood is 3 miles by 5 miles square. For a number of years, it didn't have a grocery store, just a handful of corner markets. Taking the bus to the grocery store, laundromat, job, church, etc., is extremely time consuming even though there is good bus service by American standards. The bus lines are spaced every half-mile or so apart, so it involves some walking for the majority of people. Car pools are fine for getting to work (if you have stable work and can coordinate with someone who works about the same hours in about the same place), but aren't much help generally for shopping or the laundromat.
Numerous studies have shown (sorry, no links tonight) a correlation between car ownership and income level. One of my goals for the community's energy cooperative is to buy a fleet of flexible-fueled vehicles and get an E85 pump set up.
And where would poor people move? Some place more expensive with even worse mass transit and no cultural understanding?
One other question: JD, how do you get around?
I had 5 places to buy food within 6 blocks. Nearest bank, barber, tailor & insurance agent all 4 blocks away. Two world class restuarants within walking distance, and many more just damn good ones :-) Office Depot 7 blocks away, main Post Office a mile away. Much more on streetcar line.
Honestly, I don't know why people look at cycling like its a fate worse than death.
Besides cycling, there are many other options. Improving bus service is obvious. Car rentals worked great for me. (I'd rent a car for a couple of "chore-days" a month.) A hybrid between taxis and busses could also fill a niche. All of these could work within the current capitalist system. I strongly suspect we'll see things move in this direction (but not enough).
And there are many ways to help the poor without taking away anybody's (rich or poor) insentive to conserve. A revenue neutral fuel tax (tax every unit of fuel, split the revenue equally among the population) is an obvious one.
Don't get me wrong. At heart, I'm a leftie, but I've watched governments bung so many simple things up over the years that the thought of government intervention on anything important makes my sphincters cinch. Governments are just so good at doing the wrong thing. Since governments are necessarily somewhat populist, and the populous is nothing but selfish, this seems unlikely to change. Big business takes advantage whenever it can, and that's often.
This is why I've mostly stopped worrying about everybody else and began to focus on my own family and the people close to me.
What will you do when the plow trucks have no fuel?
They've obviously found political partners in the ethanol campaign, and we are going to see more pushes like Obama's to get every car ethanol-ready. GM then, would be seen as "ahead" of the rest in peak oil response. Is that sad or what?
It is particularly galling to for me to see the Chevy Avalanche in the closing shot of each yellow gas cap commercial. The thing gets 15 mpg real world with gasoline. Using the rule of thumb that E85 has 2/3 the energy density ... would they really have us believe that 10 mpg on E85 is the future?
US Ethanol just reached a record production level of 280,000 barrels per day.
Given that gasoline demand is running at 9 million barrels a day .. we're at roughly 3% ? We've got a long way to go to fuel every car (Obama) or talk about "the answer to oil dependence" "growing in front of us" (GM).
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Thank you for the reference to these articles. I have not looked at the Bulletin for some time and now feel I have been remiss. However...
In what way is this not a good sign? I have not read the entire reports, but both of them are at least positing that the traditional military intervention IS NOT GOING TO WORK, not because of any deficiencies on the armed forces' part, but because THE WORLD'S OIL IS RUNNING OUT. I find the fact that they were allowed to publish this stuff in the venues they did astounding.
Yes, they are mostly pushing techno-fixes, but also conservation and better CAFE standards. (Gasp!)
While I don't think that this means any kind of abrupt about-face in our disastrous foreign policy, it is a sign that, as Stuart says, the elephant is turning. I think it also signals a key shift in political allegiance to TPTB. Or hell, maybe the whole thing is orchestrated to coincide with the "addicted to oil" spiel, but even that would not really be a bad thing.
I found it refreshing that LtCol Amidon discussed the oil "tax" that we pay via our military expenditures. It is real and substantial.
But there is nothing astounding about the fact that he was allowed to publish it. Thousands of publically available articles and theses are published every year by officers pursuing higher degrees and attending staff schools. I take it as an extremely healthy demonstration that the number of PO-aware individuals are increasing invisibly. Someone somewhere ran across this article and quickly brought it to the attention of the larger, PO-aware community.
This is a perfect vehicle for me to begin discussing PO with my colleagues still in uniform.
Interestingly, in one part of the episode before Bob moved, the power in the town went out. Bob made remarks about how people did things before electricity. Hmm.
Anyway, check it out! Kind of fun intro to "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" for pre-schoolers.
http://www.bobthebuilder.com/uk/bob_the_builder_official_UK_website_homepage.htm
Also an interview with Bob at "Friends of the Earth":
http://www.foe.co.uk/living/poundsavers/bob_builder.html
Sorry bout that!
Both the US and Iran seemed to be spoiling for a fight - both seem to think they will prevail. Both sides eying the oil just on the other side of the boarder, and hoping to lead the other to overreach - thus eliminating a power rival.
Nevertheless, any look at actual numbers will quickly reveal who the aggressor is in all these matters. Our military budget = the total of everyone else's. Some 700+ military bases in some 88 countries. No one even comes close! Certainly Iran cannot be regarded as anywhere near a "rival power".
You're right about the direction of things are going: Iran is next, and it may be soon -- mad as it seems.
The problem with the US strategy is that once the matter gets to the UNSC there is going to be pressure for a serious deal to solve the issue - and this will not necessarily be to the taste of Washington as it will involve things like the dilution of ILSA, security guarantees, the return of frozen assets and direct diplomatic rapprochement between the US and Iran.
I suspect that the Iranians can live with the concomitant requirements that would be placed upon them as they are playing for a substantive, positive benefit; it's unclear what the positive goal that the US is actually playing for beyond domination of the Iranian polity ( which is unachievable ).
The UNSC did not authorize what happened in Iraq either, nor was there any evidence of WMD - and you can see how much of a deterrent this was.
There will be many opportunities for provocation and escalation, if one is looking for them.
I just see that the drumbeat is continuing apace. I'm skeptical it will happen by the end of March, but things should be ready by the end of summer.
Iraq was a chronically weak piece of low-hanging fruit that had a prior history of UN resolutions that could be leveraged for political cover, few allies, internal disunity and an inability to assert its territorial integrity. In the run up to the Iraq war I don't recall Iraqi ambassadors flying around the globe to do deals with Japan and China, negotiate with the EU, pop in to Arab capitals to denounce Israel etc. I suspect that the dominant faction in Washington doesn't believe in the military option either - which is why the warhawks are shouting themselves hoarse over this one.
I doubt that the US public really has much appetite for another speculative military action - especially when there is no solid pretext for launching it, and even more so when the repercussions start to unfold. It's all very well launching a war on Iraq when oil is at $25 per barrel and the enemy is incapable of organising comeback - this is not the case with Iran, and the US is one bad hurricane season away from oil hitting the roof. End of summer - no chance.
The whole idea of if there is or isn't a military solution to "this issue" is a red herring - the nuclear weapons thing is not really the issue. Look how we've cozied up to India, Israel, and Pakistan - we could give a crap about the NPT. It's about oil (and NG), and controlling the sources of it. Look again at the map - the Iranian oil fields are in a small area just across from Basra. Watch us bend over backwards to make nice with the UAE, which just happens to be on the other side of the Straights of Hormuz.
Perhaps you are right, and I hope you are. But they're going to a massive effort to set this up, and it's not just for grins - they intend to do it if they can.
I agree on a few points. Logic is not driving this bus. And it is all about the oil. So any logical argument against The Iranian Option is a moot argument. This is not a military problem, but that blunt tool (military action) will more likely be pulled from the kit before the correct tool(s) are (conservation, e.g.). As the saying goes, When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.
This is deadly serious stuff going forward. And I have no 'insider's knowledge' of future intent anymore than you do. But I see zero movement towards sustainability.
The administration would love to topple to Iranian government, but their hands are tied. Tied by the failure in Iraq. Tied by China's opposition to sanctions in the Security Council. Tied by the Silkworm missiles looking over the Strait of Hormuz. Tied by last week's deal to transfer nuclear technology to India.
The object of our confrontation (and this administration, using a cold war playbook, sees foreign policy in that way) has changed from Iran to China. And surprise, surprise, it's all about the oil. Changing from Supply side to Demand side. Look for the US to try to undermine Chinese economic growth (and therefore its oil appetite).
Where does that leave Iran? From a policy standpoint with with North Korea. Decidedly on the back burner. But Iran isn't isolated like North Korea. Their influence is growing. Growing in Iraq, growing in Palestine, growing in China, growing in India. The US may not like it, but at this point there is NOTHING they can do about it.
This is the 373rd comment on this [i.e. the "Peak Oil About Now"]thread. Just out of curiousity, I ran my "Print Preview" command on this thread to find out how many pages long it would be if I were to print it out. The answer: 150 pages. 150 pages for a single thread! That is literally book-length!
Altogether, I think there has been a marked increase in the number of contributions to threads here lately. 200 contributions used to be exceptional, but now it is almost becoming routine. Another sign of increasingly broadened consciousness about Peak Oil, I suppose.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/1/3402/63420#more
All you have to do is say something like "George Bush looks like a monkey" and you are sure to get six or seven people jumping on in agreement and at least one post that just says "nukular". Claiming the MSM are ignoring a story works just as well.
My impression is that there used to be 200 posts of which 85% were good and related to peak oil. Now we may get 350, but only 75% related to peak oil.
I do think that broadening consiousness about peak oil in the main reason for the increase in readership and comments, as well as for references to TOD externally. However, I have observed on other sites that as the number of commenters grows the quality deteriorates and a lot of posts are only insulting other posters.
I am not saying that TOD is there, but I do think it makes sense for regulars here to try to keep on, or near, topic. Quality makes for a good comment thread not quantity.
I share your concern but have observed that most (not all) of the posters who are wildly off topic or on drugs fade away.
To some extent they get pushed overboard, but I think in most cases they migrate to more congenial sites where the crazy and the angry and the ignorant trade insults and conspiracy theories.
Of course it is their right to say what they want. However, there are plenty of fora for anti-Bushisms and the peak oil discussion is far more credible if it can remain apolitical.
Disclaimer: Just because I don't want to hear anti-Bush retoric 24 hours a day does not make me pro-Bush, a neocon, Nazi, a fascist, or any of the other things you may want to call me.
But don't you think, though, that Peak Oil is perhaps INHERENTLY political for the following reasons?
- The debates about the historical origins of the problem involve interpretations of and arguments about history that are unavoidably shaped by political proclivities;
- The debates about how to best go about solving the problem are also substantially shaped by political ideologies, and ultimately by underlying value systems (e.g.: Do we grow our way out of it and place our hopes on technological progress, or do we reshape society to be sustainable rather than growth-oriented?)
In that sense, I don't think it is possible to leave politics out of it.Now while the US administration may have some affect on the Peak Oil situation here in NZ, I have absolutely no control over the make-up of said administration. Therefore I have absolutely no interest in discussing it.
Thus, I strongly agree with Jack that this US-centric, politicising of PO should be taken elsewhere. I'm sure there are forums devoted to this subject at PeakOil.com
And I will also finish with a standard disclaimer that states that I actually voted Green at the last election, so I am also not a conservative, neocon, fascist, etc.
Not really. Political discussions get moved to the OT forum, which pretty much kills any discussion.
Oddly, many of the Bush-bashers at PeakOil.com are Europeans, Canadians, Australians, etc.
Sounds like a good practice.
At the same time, I think it is clear that not all political topics are inherently relevant to peak oil.
For example energy policy is political and closely connected to peak oil. If someone writes that Bush's energy policy doesn't address future energy supply, obviously that is relevant.
On the other hand some recent comments are pure anti-Bush rants that do not relate to energy. The one I cited on an earlier thread referred to Republicans using in uniform military members as props at political rallies. This is typical of a large number of posts that are 100% Bush bashing and 0% energy or oil related.
Think about it this way: If a group of people started writing in to the comments section with 5-10 posts a day that only said how good Bush is, would this bother you? Would you think it was relevant? What about when 10-15 people started to insult them and say how bad Bush is?
None of this has anything to do with my opinion of Bush, which is not high. But I do think a new set of manners is required for obsessive Bush-bashers. I don't think this group realizes that this single topic takes up so much time and covers the exact same ground over, and over, and over. I am sure many feel that this is a message that must be heard, but they should realize they are turning people off, not converting them.
Bush and the GOP are in charge and get the brunt of the blame, but I don't think it would be much different if the Democrats were in charge. At least, not in the long run. A society facing declining marginal returns really doesn't have much choice.
Suggest you check the strength of your glass walls before casting stones about off-topic posts. While you do have some valuable things to say related to peak oil, IMO there is an awful lot of chaff about your hobbies, your sex life and your opinions about everything under the sun.
Disclosure: I acknowledge that my nerves are pretty raw just now due to recent posts about the "price of a woman" as an inflation index and "pretty college girls who could make $10,000 (Canadian) per weekend at `massage parlors.'" Though the great majority of posters here appear to be male, I haven't noticed any others who comport themselves like they're in a boys' club.
Thank you for your observations. However, there is a Big Point (BP) here. It is my strong contention that discussion of Peak Oil without serious discussion of major and I mean MAJOR changes in lifestyles is pointless--and even counterproductive.
Thus, in my efforts to be funny (not always successful) I am trying to make the point, which seems obvious to me, that the essential problem is to rethink the way we live and to change our habits accordingly.
Now is that off topic?
The parents of a friend of mine are trying to sell a house in suburban Douglas County, Colo. In the past two months, they've had a whopping two people want to look at the house, even thought it's pricing allegedly below market. Another friend just bought a 500 sq. foot condo for ~$250k in Denver-proper.
Is the bubble going to burst where urban areas become even more unaffordable and suburban areas are worthless?
I hope not. I'm a renter. :(
When bad times happen, humans flee to cities.
- Jobs or the hope thereof.
- Protection. (Rural areas - today a .50 cal can reach out and touch someone for miles. Now, you might get touched by a bullet in the city, but at least the cop per mine ratio is better than in the rural areas and marshall law is enforceable in a city)
- Farm work mostly sucks. Lotsa work, not alot of pay.
So, land in the city will keep should go up, with rural land dropping in price.There is nothing to see here, keep moving....
Ha!
Ha!
;)
70-90 inches of rain a year chases them away.
However, the low quality of the food (true anywhere in the US except SF & maybe NYC) would be problematic :-(
And y'all still haven't figured out how to hold a proper festival.
Speak for yo'self when it comes to food and partying. As a seacook of high reputation and a party planner with credentials going back to U.C. Berlkeley in the early sixties, let me tell you that San Francisco food is now wildly overpriced and not as good as it was back in the fifties, when you could get
1. Genuine Italian pizza at Lupo's
2. Fresh fish and other seafood prepared in old-country ways (mostly Italian)
3. Real Chinese food, not the greasy imitation glop now served.
Also, some of the best food I've ever eaten has been made in Honolulu by cooks just off the jet from various Asian countries. And in regard to partying, Hawaiians are into advanced partying . . . . and Jamaicans too.
For music, Jamaica can stand up to New Orleans. Indeed, were I trying to rebuild NO up to previous standards, I'd import a bunch of Jamaicans and probably some people from Trinidad and other West Indies islands.
I have a couple things I want to put on the table, but first off I want to say that I've been lurking for a good bit and always find the site professional and informative so keep up the good work.
First off, a buddy of mine works with a major biotech firm and says they are working on "ethanol corn" which would have a much higher sugar content. I don't believe that we can grow enough energy for lots of reasons that have been discussed here, but still thought you all might want to kick around the feasibility of bio-engineered corn and what it might do to the feasibility of large scale ethanol production.
Secondly, I have just a general frustration in the fact that I hang around with a bunch of fairly intelligent engineer types and I just can't get them to believe that peak oil is possible. They just can't seem to believe that such a radical change is on the horizon - and they are the educated tech types that should be able to think outside of the box. So, if you all had to put a number on it, what percent of people are capable of understanding that everything we take for granted is based on cheap energy and that can change if peak oil hits?
thanks all
thomas
Even if we're educated and technically savvy, we're all still humans. And it's very hard for some (most?) to imagine a world where the assumptions of a lifetime aren't true. Especially if that means not having as much in a world that has taught us that he who dies with the most stuff wins.
Also, we've all been taught that technology will prevail and save us, and it's tough for those of us who work with technology to doubt this.
Smart people are naturally and rightly skeptical about anything that suggests radical changes to their world views. The intelligent analyses of experts will strengthen your case.
IMHO, it makes sense even without Peak Oil. National Security, Economic Security, Global Warming, make the SPR last longer are all valid reasons to pursue the goals mentioend.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2005-02.htm
- Its called Sweet Corn, and already exists. Green Sweet corn 'stovers' is 7-15% sugar. Sugar beets (used to MAKE sugar) is 20%.
- Bugs LIKE sugar, Raising the sugar content will just attact other bugs. Lets say they make a 30% sugar corn plant. Anyone wanna bet some bugs will find that new corn plants 'sweet!'
like modifying the 'switchgrass' for 'better' energy production - anyone wanna bet there isn't a bug that won't find the modification tasty?I personally think surveying existing plants and crops might be a better first step (done?) than immediately modifying the current favorites .. but hey, take a chance.
Even if these things do get governemnt grants, a few research boondoggles (worst case) will be cheap compared to the horrific production subsidies.
Heck, the modification program might be cheaper than the airtime GM bought for yellow gas caps last night.
Start off slow?
Where do we get our power from in Ourtown?
How much power can you get from a 10 ft diam windmill here in Ourtown?
How much solar power can we get from a cell in Ourtown? How many solar cells would it take to power my (your) house?
How much money could we save if we put cells on the roof?
NOW! Ask them why they are working on making BioDiesel?
And when they come back with classic "some techno-fix will solve all" answers just shrug your shoulders and leave doubt in their mind. I'm still trying to find the right mix of approaches and facts, but allowing an intelligent person to doubt their convivtion and letting that doubt gnaw at them seems to be the strongest approach I've yet found.
Get a pdf of the Hirsch report and send it to them. That is one helluva "red pill".
oily to rise,
never too oily
to worry
about oil's demise.
http://www.energybulletin.net/13009.html
Reuters reported today that US and UK forces plan to be out of Iraq by early 2007. Of course, the U.S. immediately issued a denial, but my feeling is that they are preparing to bail out. No matter how much oil Iraq has, it doesn't do us any good if we can't secure it.
They've locked up a bunch of oil and natural gas, forcing higher prices now (more money for them and their friends), and they've turned an entire, major exporting country into a de facto strategic reserve.
In the short run the higher prices will encourage much needed conservation measures, and in the long run that reserve (a.k.a Iraq) will help fuel the transition to a post-oil world. Bush and his cronies don't care much about people (ask the Katrina victims), but they know that a crashed civilization is VERY bad for business.
And Iraq was supposed to be just the first domino. The low-hanging fruit that would spread "democracy" (which translates as "free market capitalism," of course) throughout the region. Remember the giddy first days after the fall of Baghdad, when there was all that talk of taking Syria and Iran next?
Perhaps worse of all, Iraq has become a political liability. The voters have turned against the war. For that reason, Bush wants to start bringing the troops home before Election Day. His life will be a living hell if the GOP loses control of either the House or Senate. That would open up his administration to the kind of investigations he's mostly avoided.
He also hinted that one could cut out part of the nuclear cycle, and thereby break the chain so to speak, and hinder or effectively stop Iran's nuclear plans. Hitting the weakest link in the chain argument.
This is, I think, meant to massage public opinion which may regard a large scale attack on Iran as folly. Bolton is thinking of a "surgical strike" strategy here. Hoping that such action will lead to the Iranian regime being totally discredited and some sort of popular uprising taking place leading to regime change.
Recent reports have suggested that a large scale attack on Iran to wipe out it's nuclear industry for years, would cause over 10,000 casualties, and Iran might retaliate on American forces in the gulf which are vunerable, and the United States might reply to any such attack by nuking Iran rather than risk "defeat". Sorry this is so "Doomsday" like.
However, other Western observers do not agree with the Doomsday scenario. They believe, given the complex internal politics of Iran with so many groups competing for influence and power, that an attack on the nuclear programme would be "accepted" as long as it was clear that the United States was not aiming for regime change. After all the powerful Iranian army does not relish the thought to fighting the United States and even if they could severly damage and perhaps even destroy the American army in Iraq, they would still eventually lose, simply because they don't have nukes.
Clearly this is all very speculative and full of "ifs" and "buts". It's also a scenario brimming with dangers and endless possibilities for miscalculations and untold consequences. Accordingly we could be only months away from nuclear war or we might not be. I'm not sure whether Iranians prefer poker or chess?
We believe in "more down the road" because that's how it's been for the last 250 years, hasn't it? We also appear to see time and history as a linear process don't we? It' the progressive view of history, we are moving along an ever upward continuum with more and more just up ahead. Crudely put this is the ideology of Capitalism - Growth.
It's hard to think of capitalism minus growth, right?
So expecting people to "understand" peak oil and it's consequences is a really Big Deal. We're almost asking people to turn the world on its head! We're perhaps talking about a new paradigm of time and history too.
Before Capitalism time was different. Feudal society was cyclical in its very nature. Seasons went around and around. I would propose that time did as well, at least for the peasants who were part of nature and the land.
So, if peak oil is true and growth stops or slows down, were going to be talking about some pretty big changes in the way we understand the world around us.
The big key to the holistic solution to PO, GW, etc., and the very thorniest problem IMO, is for John Q. and Jane Doe to give up much that they cherish. Our whole existence has been an unending succession of more, more, more. And we have to embrace "Less".
Most people I know cannot or will not get passed the notion that they will have to give up expectations, comforts, convenience, etc. It is truly stupifying to see how well the average person can rationalize away reality.
I see the government's concerns in a different light. In the end it is about political power and energy. Our economic engine provides the US government with an historical level of clout and influence. I believe the guv "gets" PO. But I also believe that they are gaming the hell out of this to see how to "win" the game.
Ever watch the movie WarGames? See the quote that begins:
Joshua: Greetings, Professor Falken
How 'bout a nice game of chess, w-man?
From the song, "The Rising Sun"
Odds against going to heaven, nine to one.
HOUSE of the Rising Sun
"There is a House in New Orleans,
They call the Rising Sun, . . . "
BTW, Alan, is it still there?
Ethanol governors and Archer Daniels Midland Corp have been together for some time. GM pushing hard into the same interest group with their yellow gas cap campaign is beyond sad.
It is (as I said) dangerous. It gives another cycle of false promise and solution to the current generation of (GM SUV?) buyers.
Looking today at the Chevy website, and clicking on the yellow gas cap, the first question asked is:
"What if the answer to our dependence on oil, was growing right in front of us."
Survey: Is this really the answer (and should I relax), or is this (as I fear) a terrible distraction?
I think the main problem lays in the fact that oil is generally associated with fuel. As it is widely accepted that we will run on biofuels, electricity, and hydrogen( this one for sure not), most people don't (want to?) see the problem.
I've read and seen several MSM outlets here in Holland (TV, Newpaper NRC Handelsblad, topic nr 4 on http://www.energybulletin.net/10348.html, see also my comments)covering PO and these were all concerned how to run the transportation networks of the future.
As long as people can't see the broader picture of our dependence with regards to food, water, health and the like in most cases it's quite hopeless to get through on PO.
(("Fair, Fair enough," says The Mother, "for Now at This Time and This Place, yes."))
(all UnFormaTted foR youses )
-----------------------------------
From a Concerned Citizen:
Answers Please, .... and anything resembling the following answer will NOT be acceptable: "No way THAT would happen and no one expects ME (US) to be Ready for THAT !!!". You are Now aware of "THAT" possibility (many "that's" to consider really). So Now you should take it very seriously. Ignorance really is No Excuse when it comes to Mother Nature's Laws.
This is "For the Record" - "just in case".... Feces Happens...so that THEN when people from Now are asking questions like,"""Should we just Blame George Bush again - or is that getting too old and too infantile ?"""
SHORT ANSWER PRE_TEST from MOTHER's Angry NATURE COURSE:
For each of the Following (and for posterities sake, or "rear-view-mirror" clarity's sake THEN), please provide a brief or lengthy Short answer or ESSAY answer to the question. Keep one copy for yourself if you want. Spellin and grammatics are optional and will not be considered relevant to the grade - finger-painting is acceptable even):
1. If this week Iran declares an Oil Embargo and Nigeria loses 95% of its Oil Export Capacity due to crippling blows to its oil infrastructure by the (rightful owners of the oil) the Jungle Rebels... how might that affect your plans for NEXT YEAR's school system (how it functions in general)?
2. How will You get the Children to your Schools in the event that in the Not-to-distant-future Fossil Fuels are rationed or not available for your busses?
- How will You heat the Giant Elephantine Schools (that few can get to from their homes) in the event that Fossil Fuels are rationed?
- What Emergencies might crop up for You Personally at WORK that are not typical and how might they affect the performance of Your job?
- What Storage resources for Fossil Fuels are available now and not being used in our community, and that Might be a Godsend in the Future - to help maintain community Confidence( in Emergency Services At THE VERY Least)?
Look/Listen/HEAR for just ONCE... - just because it is NOT in Your Own Personal life experience does NOT mean it is Not Possible, or more correctly, now INEVITABLE that it becomes a part of your life experience going forward from this current "Here and Now."ASK your grandparents about Life in (CITY) during WWII, The (little) Great Depression of the 1930s, WWI, and the Oil Shocks of the 1970s-80s... How soon we forget... how soon we discard the RECORDED COLLECTIVE MEMORIES as well as their Knowledge and PERSONAL experiences in OVERCOMING these kinds of obstacles. History's WAVES break over time and they tend to Break in Similar Patterns (that's why Mark Twain did not, but wishes he did, coin the phrase, "History Rhyme)s.
ANSWERS DUE - DATE:"hmmm....Depends," - Says the Mother Of Nature as She sits doing Her Nails (and teeth...).... (she likes giving Pop quizzes... just ask the folks in New Orleans...)
Please leave us regular-Jones and -(former) Mrs. Joneses out of the Public View Please.
Sorry but This is YOUR MESS. You are the ones left Holding The Bag we all knew held nothing but BILLS from our past, as well as our parent's past (all those pension funds, social security pyramids, expectations of Eternal Parabolic Economic and Population Growth... and other assorted Delusions we Masses have created for ourselves.. that stuff, remember???).
- SORRY AGAIN but You are the ones Currently elected, volunteered and/or paid to be RESPONSIBLE for YOUR ... well, your responsibilities. (Unless of course you ask George Bush or some Gubinor to take care of wiping your butt on a daily basis...).
-----( edited slightly for profanity and brevity, and that is enough editing for me for one week, okay? already? lol )------------------------------
... NO ONE person is RESPONSIBLE... for most of the Unanticipated and Very Difficult to deal with messes they soon find tossed on their poor plates --- Just like everyone's favorite but-Falsely-Crucified-President Bush.
We All walked blindly into this wall together...
Confidence and quietly adjusting in the background the best you can is All that is Reasonably Expected.
In other words Doc, the Emperor was naked and we all know it - it's Our collective mess and unfortunately you folks happen to be holding The Bag when We least expected it (LOOK AT THE &$^#* jumping into the STOCK market POOL - my godzAin't Mighty!! - can't we ever learn even ONE THING from those stupid dusty bound pile of paper in the corner over there !! Just $%^$#$ Once?
Complacency claims more lives each year than all other mechanisms of death combined.
The Brightest One Who Disliked Me The most had the most unusual and creative idea for solving at least in part the problem of the Old Rickety School Water Boiler... and also the most quickly dismissed for more Conventional and possibly Much More Expensive Solutions for both the Here-Now and the Here-later... what solutions Then Mother??
You really can Not blame them. No one else has "got it" yet either, so they can rightfully claim 'how could WE in particular" have been Expected to anticipate this?"
But, I think that will fall on deaf ears (hungry, cold deaf ears) of People carrying stones, PitchForks and Torches.... And I think The Mother of Nature will certainly not care either- she is alot like that Helen Keller... except with one boob sticking out and holding scales..
This is how they "think".
We at TOD have advanced to a level of rational thinking so above theirs that it makes "their" thought product seem incoherent. Maybe with enough input from our brain waves --assuming the sheeple head accepts outside input instead of bah bah bahing on-- he will convert into a coherent electronic entity. If not, there's not much we can do but hit the "next" button everytime we see the sheeple head's name.
Remember brother, before we each became PO-aware, we were like it is.
INTELLECTUAL MIDGETS come out to play.
The onze first to pick of the stones are the onez most threatened by that they Can't understand - deaf,dumb and blind... BUT not quite up to good 'ol Helen-On-Wheels Keller SPEED in that little egg-shell cranial cavity ...
pretenders... naked under their pretty POSTERCHUILDRENS clothing... Yup.. all naked on the inside.
And Pink? Yes, until cooked... hey, how are those coals coming along anywaY??? Here and NOW i mean ;p)))
MOTHER SAID i kin say, "Ucka-A, OuYa-A"... Okay ladies? (just teasin' don't shit yerselfses tightsphincter boyze wit butt-suits-O-Plenty )
Educate ONE (tech/shop) Teacher or local person at a time in an area that will HELP your community Next Yea.
Just an example of some "coupons" made and sent to local Very Responsible-Type-HAIRCUT&SUIT school person a couple week ago... just an idea, wtf ??/...
----------------------
This Coupon Good for TWO (2) Seats in:
Solar Lifestyle: Intro to Renewable Energy!
Date: Saturday, March 4, 2006, 9 am to 5pm
http://www.the-mrea.org/workshops.php?id=1048283348
Are you interested in living a more sustainable life based on renewable energy, but don't know where to start? Then this is the workshop for you. Kurt provides participants with a broad overview of what renewable energy is, how it works and how it can be used to power or heat your home.
Topics Include:
- passive solar home design
- solar cooking
- wind electric systems
- solar water heating
- solar electric systems
Course Instructor:Kurt Nelson, SOLutions
Course Location:
Midwest Renewable Energy Association
7558 Deer Road
Custer, WI 54423
Course Materials/Prerequisites:
Materials:
- note pad
- pencil
- lunch
Prerequisites:-none