Prioritizes "Energy Independence", a progressive advocacy organization with over 3 million members, recently held neighborhood meetings to discuss which issues the organization should prioritize in it's 2006 grassroots activities and campaign ads.

In an online poll of it's members on top 3 priorities for the next year, Healthcare just barely edged out Energy Independence by 4,000 votes. And Energy Independence had more than double the votes of Global Warming. I think this shows that Energy Independence (Rather than just environmentalism) is clearly high on the progressive agenda.

Here's what they sent in their email announcement to members:
The results are in. We're proud to announce the MoveOn member choice for our new, positive agenda:

  1. Health care for all

  2. Energy independence through clean, renewable sources

  3. Democracy restored

These three goals were nominated, debated, and overwhelmingly selected by more than 100,000 people in local house parties and then online. Most groups would say this is a far too risky way to make such a big decision. But it's this grassroots consensus that makes this agenda different--and powerful.
So what's next? This month, we'll launch a major campaign for a clean energy future, starting by breaking the vise-grip of big oil in Washington with our "Oil Free Congress" initiative. Expect hundreds of local events, advertising, national media attention and accountability at the ballot box--and that's just for the first of our 3 new goals.

Of course, we won't let up in our work to end the war in Iraq, and we'll still respond to immediate threats in Congress. But our new agenda will focus our long-term work, offer voters a positive, inspiring reason to support progressives on Election Day, and push Democrats to think big and fight hard.

And they end with this plea for new new members:

Let's be clear: we've chosen big goals here, and seeing them through won't be easy. There are powerful interests who prefer things the way they are, and we'll never match them in sheer dollars or backroom deals.

Our strength lies where it always has: the voice, energy, and creativity of 3 million MoveOn members. If we're going to make health care a right, power America with clean energy, and restore our democracy, we're going to need as many likeminded folks on board as we can get. So today, we're turning to you to help build the team.

I realize that TOD attracts people from many different political persuasions, but I think we can all agree that this is a major watershed. In the past progressives focused most of their political efforts related to energy on the defense - stop nuclear, stop drilling, stop everything...even the Kennedy clan coming out against off-their-shore wind power. Now MoveOn has a clear mandate to push in a positive direction for energy independence. The risk, which is already evident in their "Oil-free Congress" idea is that scapegoating and name calling are considered "positive action". Another risk is that they fall for some "sounds good, but is completely unrealistic one-shot solution", like "We'll just do it like Brazil on ethanol".

They must realize that, when it comes to the Politics of Oil, the Discourse Must Change

The clear path to energy idependence is to dramatically reduce demand for energy in an economically responsible way that is sustainable and equitable. This means everything from Alan's rail electrification proposal to taxing gasoline to finding ways of using less fossil fuels on the farm. It may even require more nuclear!

And I think the folks over at Daily Kos have produced a pretty good blueprint.

But still, this is progress for those of us deeply concerned about peak oil and it's potential impact on economics and our society. While a few years ago, energy was pretty low on the national consciousness, it is now atop the US national political agenda. How that plays out, depends on us good citizens bringing sanity, data and logic to the debate.

Energy independence is a dangerous concept.  It implies that if we can become independent of foreign source of energy, mainly oil, that all is well, the nation is secure and we can go back to what we do best, consuming the rest of the world's resources. Why should we be any more independent of foreign sources of energy than we are indpendent of anything else?

There is a state of being, a value that is more important and significant that energy independence and that is fossil fuel independence.  What have we ultimately gained if we become independent of the middle east while, we at the same time ravage our mountaintops and the atmosphere with domestically produced coal and Canadian produced oil sands, all the while plundering our topsoil with Iowa produced ethanol?

Using big oil as the enemy is a dangerous paradigm. It misdirects  us from the real source of our problems, that being us.  We would not even be talking about this if it weren't for high gas prices. If they don't rise much higher, we won't be taling about this a year from now.

Let me add that a cursory review of the plan indicates it is better than anything currently in congress.  They get it; carbon must be controlled.
tstreet makes a good point.

However, energy independence is a worthy goal and a great starting point for the real debate on energy.

Most important is redefining the term to include independence from energy.

The sooner the US is not starting wars for control of energy, the better.

"Our strength lies where it always has: the voice, energy, and creativity of 3 million MoveOn members."

All you need to do is watch "A Bug's Life" for a little inspiration.  The grasshoppers may be strong and scarey, but once you realize the ants have strength in numbers anything is possible.

The most dubious progressive/liberal response I have heard (and I am myself am left of center), is the idea that PO is a "Big Oil Company" plot to maximize profits by driving up the cost of oil--the dreaded right wing conspiracy.  Which of course sits very comfortably with the dreaded left wing theory that PO is a plot to choke economic growth.  
Bart, over at the Energy Bulletin, and Alanfrombigeasy helped me out with a proposed op-ed piece for the Dallas Morning News, scheduled to run on 6/11/06.   It's a defense of the Peak Oil concept, in response to an anti-Peak Oil article by a writer for Reason Magazine.  In a sense, this is a response to my "Open Letter" on the Energy Bulletin.  In any case, following is the last part of the article (DART = Dallas Area Rapid Transit):

"There will be massive efforts with unconventional oil, such as Canadian tar sands and the tar and very heavy oil deposits in Venezuela. However, I predict that unconventional sources of oil will only slow--and not reverse--the decline in total world oil production because of the time and energy needed to expand production of these "oils".

"Without question, we have to reduce greatly our energy consumption to account for this new reality. What can we do? I have seen two very sensible proposals.

"The first is that we fund Social Security and Medicare with a tax on energy consumption, especially at the gas pump, offset by reducing or eliminating the highly regressive payroll taxes. Doing this would unleash enormous free market forces against profligate energy use. The second proposal is that we electrify our freight railroads and encourage freight to go by rail instead of truck with any of a variety of economic incentives while building electric urban rail systems, such as DART, at a rate much faster much faster than today's pace. Incidentally, both strategies will also find favor with those concerned about global warming."

The Daily Kos plan is complicated and begs the question, "what haven't they thought of"?   Instead of a complex mix of incentives and disincentives and all sorts of complex regulatory schemes, wouldn't it be simpler to institute a comphrehensive carbon tax that would be sufficiently high to incentivize all those nice things we like, i.e., more efficient cars, less cars, more mass transit, more wind energy,  more solar energy, less coal, cleaner coal, more rail transit, less road transport, compacter cities, more walking, more bicycling, more solar water heaters, on and on and on.  

It does make sense, however, to set up a body or use and existing body, to monitor how we are doing each year and adjust  the tax accordingly to ensure that we meet our goals. And we do need specific goals for carbon reduction.

On the other hand, the Kos approach may be more politically feasible.  Because the carbon tax is relatively simple, and  I mean relatively, perhaps it would be easier to shoot at ensuring that it is dead on arrival.  I guess we need to impose costs and a little pain without people noticing, the American way.  

I have replied to Moveon's email with the basic facts raised on this site. So far no response. Political discourse must be based on facts, not spin, and displays of H/L graphs of the US, together with graphs of US oil consumption with imports and domestic production, should be widely promulgated.
Conservation, i.e. "demand destruction" is a political topic that no politician wants to discuss, because it can be marginalized easily before a uninformed public, or more emphatically, a public that doesn't tolerate any bad news.
To our TOD technical people, we have all heard the Cornucopian/Optimist sorts bang the drum for "technological advances" that we defer PO for "decades".  We hear about use of horizontal drilling, CO2 injection, "bottle brushing", and water flooding as means to increase oil recovery.  Question: what is the crux of the disagreement concerning the efficacy of these techniques (and perhaps others) in delaying PO?  I have seen some posts on this but would someone be willing to provide a concise summary?  It would be much appreciated.  
I am not a PO techno-guru, but let me try:

  1. Rational people understand that there is a finite amount of crude buried in the Earth's crust. We don't know the exact amount. We call it Q. We know it is basically a one-time collection that will not be replenished by magic pipleines coming out of the sky from alien space ships.

  2. People familiar with oil well discovery understand that the total amount of oil, Q is not all contained in one central pool like a creamy nogut filling of a donut. Instead it is distributed as a series of super-large reservoirs (call them Kings) and then progressively smaller and smaller pools (Queens, Nobles, Knights, ... peons, subpeons).

  3. Once you peak out the Kings and Queens, to make up for the shortfall in per-day-production (i.e. 85 mbbpd globally) you need to start drilling ever larger number of holes into the ever increasing numbers of far apart and smaller and smaller wells to make up for the lost production from the big wells. You start swimming out into the Gulf of Mexico to find these smaller wells. You run up to freezing ANWR. These are economically painful things to do.

  4. At some point, the next round of smaller wells are just not going to be worth the trouble of going after even if you have this new super duper extraction technology. It's not that all the oil in the world "ran out". Instead the problem is that all the big King and Queen pools ran out and it is too much of an economic pain to try to suck blood from the peons. This is what has been happening in East Texas. There is still oil there, but spread out among thousands of slow bleeding tiny wells. The world is shifting from having huge pulsing arteries of oil oozing out to having just slow dripping capillaries. Now matter how great your techno-fix is, you are not going to make capillaries behave like aortas. (Well, maybe that is too medical of an analogy ... and too bloody also).

  5. Also, the better your extraction rate is, the faster your depletion rate becomes on the down side of Hubbert's curve.
As my screen name implies I an right of center on a continum from statist [Commies, Nazis and incorrectly labelled "Neo-con" who are only "Con" in the sense of being con artists] to true anarchists. I view central Governments as a necessary evil. My sincere hope is that the U.S. Government [for that matter any Government] will only do the minimum amount of harm [net / net] necessary to minimize the risk of gross harm to any one citizen.

The folks at the Daily Kos have IMO created a throughly unworkable hodgepodge of approaches ranging from the "no reason that that won't work" [such as solar water heaters] to the 50 percent carbon reduction sequestration edict scheme [Where were you when the lights went out for good?].

Pick an approach. Advocate that approach and complementary approaches. Advocate research that might provide real break throughs or even silver pellets even if out of the mainstream ... but for the love of logic don't buy into this shopping list as it isn't even for sale.

What makes a hodgepodge 'thoroughly unworkable'?

 Is it just the lack of a concise message?  Are you saying they should pick a particular project and let others pick up the rest of the list?

 Speaking as a hodgepodger/generalist myself, I am well aware of the shortcomings of losing focus and trying too many things, getting spread out too thin..  Then again, I see energy as complicated, life as complicated,  the solutions to losing our one, biggest draft-horse as a complicated blend of elements that will have to somehow be stretched out to fill a big shoe.  Some answers are supplyside, some are demand, and finding out what we actually need, after a few generations of having access to many extra 'wants'.

  You probably just got my goat by mentioning Solar Heating.  I think that's one of the best ways to free up liquids and gases for transp, but it's too 'Sweatery' for people to get all excited about.  It's so simple.  My house burns about 12gal/day of heating oil through the cold months, and there are millions of homes and businesses that do the same..  Solar air and water heating could knock a huge chunk of that out.. if China doesn't get ALL our copper before we decide to start really putting them in.  

My comments concerning solar water heaters shouldn't have got your goat in that I was trying to endorse that particulr silver pellet position. A basic no downside situation. Works almost anywhere ... better where there are more sunny days but if works everywher.

Read throught the list. Ask yourself if they aren't getting just a little too cute with the sequestration of massive quantities of carbon dioxide [to way below current levels if the goal is energy self suffiency. My suppostiion is that they tacked that one one only to appease one of the core left wing consituent groups -- the hard core greens.

AReduced CO2 emmissions is not bad objective, but the massive reduction that was proposed struck me as nothing more than pandering.

if China doesn't get ALL our copper

Our copper? Is this the same idea as OUR oil under THEIR sand?

You got it.
Would have referenced it if I could have, but I was referring to the masses of scrap metal that china is importing from us.  

"What's behind the thefts is the rising price of copper, brass and aluminum and the demand for scrap metal in China and Taiwan, some say. On Wednesday, depending on the grade, copper sold for $3 to $3.10 a pound at Ace Scrap Metals, 5900 Manchester Avenue, St. Louis. Aluminum sold for 70 cents to $1 a pound, and brass went for 90 cent to $1.75, depending on the grade." 16615E?OpenDocument

I don't claim the earth's mineral rights in the name of the US, but like the question of 'Energy Independence', I feel the issue is what we are throwing away, and at our own peril.  What we treat as junk and even as a simple, movable commodity could be, like copper, a resource with enormous value if we look to possible uses (like solar hot water) that might call for a stockpile that we, in typical short-sightedness and devoted Market-sensibility, have allowed to ship overseas instead of creating a strategic reserve, or at least applying to countless current needs here at home.

Well at least they talk about it.

Please, please name one right-wing blog that discusses energy issues without bring up the Oil-for-Food scandal or Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

If you do and they allow unfiltered comments (highly doubtful), I will rip them a new hole should they say something stupid (highly probable).

Well, since you mention it, ANWR has been discussed on Free Republic in much the same terms as on The Oil Drum.

There are more cornucopians there than there are here, but they do show up reqularly on The Oil Drum.

There are plenty of posters on Free Republic who can do the math, those that work in industry and know that if you don't drill you won't know but also know that oil is getting harder to find ...

You probably won't get a lot of support if you focus on caribou breeding grounds & migration routes. After all there are more caribou in the herd around Prudoe Bay than before that field was drilled. and there are also those that can recognize the difference between the Strikingly beautiful portions of the Brooks Range that seem to appear in ANWR stories and the not very photogenic Coast Plain where the targeted structures are located.

I personally have a mixed reaction to the ANWR drill / no drill debate. As an American, I would love to have it in reserve, except that it would be a reserve that could only be tapped after a five to ten year development effort which would not add much to security.

ANWR is not a silver bullet and may not turn out to be even a silver pellet. If I had to summarize my position on ANWR if would be that that both those that want to drill and those that oppose drilling are waging propoganda campaigns when what is needed is an honest examination of the facts.

If you decide to pay a visit to Free Republic, I would advise you to make reasoned arguments. If you try to "tear them a new ass" and you probably will be banned.

Free Republic?
I meant a place where you don't get banned for saying something that does not follow strict fundaminionist lines.

Besides, Free Repubic just gives me the creeps and willies. They don't call then Freepers for nothing.

In my comments on Free Republic I have addressed the factual basis for the peak oil concept; the near term desirability and longer term necessity of population control; the abject failure of the war on drugs; the creeping loss of freedom under Bush II [while giving plenty of credit for the same trend going back as least as far as LBJ with Nixon identified as the worst]; and the some of the idealogical failings of the Neocons as conservatives.

None of that has gotten me banned and I don't expect that it ever will.

I feel pretty much the same way about Democratic Underground that you do about Free Republic. I haven't spent much time reading Move On's writings, but I have not been impressed by their pronouncements as related by the main stream media. To each his own. Freedom of association is a good thing.

Going to Freeper-ville is not the same as being able to make a comment on a big-time right-wing blogger pundit like Instapundit or the Powerline trio.  Accountability is spread out at Free Republic and you can't pin anybody down.  On the other hand the bloviators don't allow any dissension because you can't comment.

For instance, Instapundit has recently written some stuff here, but it is all nonsense and you can't comment.

And the Powerline bloggers only talk about Oil for Food and claim that Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is enviro-nazi stuff w/o addressing PO issues. And you can't comment.

As far as I am concerned, you have not provided a significant right-wing site that talks sensibly and openly about oil depletion with any kind of accountability.

Whatever. If you think Glenn Reynolds is a major voice for the right, you have a different opinion than I do. Do you want MSNBC to turn their site over to you so that you provide your rebuttal? Is that how it works? Is that how it has ever worked?

Where do you think that there is an honest debate underway?

I have previously expressed my opinion that both the tree hugging tundra loving caribou conscious types and the drill everywhere pave it now growth at any cost crowd are being totally dishonest about ANWR and many other topics.

BTW do you think The Oil Drum is discredited because people like you and me can post using a screen name if we so chose?

Here is a partial list of left-wing bloggers that have delved into the oil depletion debate over the years:
You will not find anything like that on the right.  They do not because it is not in their corporate best interests and it is not in the fundamentalist view of dominion over Earth. This basically covers the conservative right.
Interesting observation.
I think that for the "religious" right wingers, PO is an inconvenient truth because accepting it then raises the question as to what benevolent diety would leave his followers in such a pickle and leave so much oil under the soil of the competing diety --you know, the Muslim God.

Additionally, for right wingers who worship Adam Smith, PO brings in to question why the markets are heading in the wrong direction and driving society toward the cliffs. In theory, the markets are supposed to do what is best for all of us thanks to the intelligent design of the Invisible Hand. PO proves otherwise. Therfore it is an iconvenient truth for them too.

Step Back,

Either they worship Adam Smith or Corporate Interests. Of course, corporations are the concrete manifestation of Smith's abstract theories, so they only worship Smith in an indirect way. Cronies, nepotoads and others in their local business sphere are the real godz.

The question was: Why does the right avoid Peak Oil more so than the left?

I was suggesting that maybe because it conflicts with other parts of their ideology. That's all.

of course you are right, P.O. is a semantic mismatch with respect to Dominion over the earth in the case of the religious right.
Either they acknowledge it and it exposes them, or they ignore it and no one brings up their ulterior motives.
Good choice of words.
Peak Oil is an inconvenient "mismatch" for the ideologies of  many an organization or set of groupies, not just for the religious right.

  1. Free market capitalists don't like it because it means the Invisible Hand has been driving our auto-loving masses blindly towards the cliffs.

  2. Techno-fix geeks don't like it because it implies that they have not come up with the whiz bang fix (i.e. fusion) for this pickle of a problem.

  3. The Government-knows-best idealogs don't like it because it forces them to admit that the government did not see this one coming (refused to see it coming) and thus, just maybe governement does not always know best.

Wherever you look (except in the doom & gloom closet), Peak Oil is not one of those things that meshes well with the respective world models that the various groups hold so dear to their chests.
It meshes well with people that understand the world as a chaotic system, limited by finite resources and entropy. And I don't consider all these people doom & gloomers, just people that sit back and look in amazement at the incredible diversity that we do enjoy, i.e. realists.
I would beg to differ about that bit with the auto-loving masses and the invisible hand. To a large extent, their existince is due to the quite visible hand of the government and its spending priorities. Ever heard of the Interstate Highway Act? Imagine commuting by car with no interstate highways.
But the Invisible Hand gently enters the minds of our public officials and coaxes them into doing the "right" thing --namely enacting the IS Highway Act.

(Every religion has answers to such challenges. No need on your part to point to the lobbyists who cause the IH to enter the minds and souls of our good public officials. Those lobbyists are authorized and certified prophets of the IH religion.)

Eisoenhower naturally expected the Interstate highways to be toll roads and go bettwen cities but not necessairly through them.  ALmost all would be 4 lanes.

But his Secretary of Defense was the former GM President and talked him into making them freewuys, not oll roads and going through cities.

The rest is history, and many square miles of concrete.

I have a free market capitalist worldview but I prefer real markets with competition where new competitors can enter fairly easily.
I am definately a techno-fix geek, I can talk about dozens of large and small techno fixes.
I believe a government can be both strong and competent, if it concentrates on vital core functions.
I am even right wing, within Swedish politics of course.

But my combination might be quite odd, I am afraid I am an individual that will have a hard time finding the right group to work with for maximum mutual benefit. I kind of wish I were  a social group starter good at handling humans and relations and not only a man of ideas and fuzzy logic. :-/

Actually, the oil peak is great for the Apocalyptic type. Rapture sold separately. The rapture occurs (and nobody is worth rapturing!) so it occurs stealthily. Then PO triggers wars famines, pestilence, and all the other biblical fun and games. Assuming PO triggers an apocalypse, the rapture believers have a rude awakening, as nobody gets raptured. They must admit to themselves either there was no rapture - or nobody was worth the bother. What a crappy choice for the fundamentalist.

Am I the only one who gets the impression that fundamentalists are mentally ill? Religion is getting in the way of thinking logically to try to mitigate PO and its problems. A rapture, if it occured and people were in fact raptured, it would be an instant disaster. Planes would fly on autopilot until they run out of fuel a la Payne Stewart, cars, suddenly unmanned, crash and cause gridlock. Trains continue on course and crash Payne Stewart-like, and ships drive until they run out of fuel with the tanks on suction. It's yet another case of religionists advocating disasterous violence onto unbelievers.

Almost all human beings are mentally ill --just to different degrees.
The plan at Daily Kos is more automobile business as usual.

They need to phase out the problem, not put it on life support.

Just like Air America Radio, replete with ads for a politician running in Calififornia here on the platform of decreasing gas prices, and the ads from GM to only pay $1.99/gal for gas as long as you buy a big hulking cadillac or SUV from them.

You folks in NYC would really laugh if you came to the Bay Area - huge SUVs abound, I see more hummers here than I ever saw in right-wing Orange County.

What about AAR?  I am listening to the Marc Maron Show as I type and they are talking to Chris Payne, director of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" for a good half-hour.  That's good that they take advertising from GM, as they skewer them at the same time.
Out here in California, Air America doesn't talk about electric cars. They talk (in the commercials, which they of course approve) about buying a new SUV or Cadillac.
You are wrong, which is what I was trying to point out.
Marc Maron is on the Air America affiliate in Los Angeles KTLK.  If you want to listen to the show from last night on electric cars, you can go to the archives at AAR or find the torrent for free at
Reminds me all the Whole Fooders here in supposedly green Boulder, Colorado who drive their SUVs, even Hummers to the store to buy their sack of not necessarily organic lettuce. Not to mention all that oil to produce all that spandex.
I agree that they are trying to find ways to perpetuate the widespread use of the automobile while saving energy at the same time -- the have your cake and eat it approach. I would prefer more emphasis of trying to minimize auto use, but I see that as an approach that would be dead on arrival with the American people.  I live in a tourist area and it is sadly obvious to me that people love their cars, especially their big cars.

I think that a high carbon tax on all carbon emitters would be a better approach than the one they are using.  Combine this with carbon credit for everyone and you provide rewards to the non car users. As it is, you are rewarded for buying a more fuel efficient car but you get nothing if you have no car at all.  This would also help those poor who cannot afford to buy or operate an automobile.

Well, I think this is whistling in the dark, if not to say out and out nuts. We are on the verge of attacking Iran. Iraq and Afghanistan are disasters, genocidal in scope. All the other stuff is nice, very "nice", but absolutely meaningless if the Bush crew is able to continue widening the "long war". The next steps will set the world on fire, and make it far easier to "disappear" our remaining liberties. Health care? You've got to kidding.

As for energy independence, the Bush team has a plan to achieve it: war. That challenge has to be faced head on. Folks, I don't know what year it is-- 1934, 35, or 36. But it's one of those.

Ray McGovern (retired CIA) used to give the PDB to the elder Bush. He's screaming at us. The are others, Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds These are not old lefties like me--they are former administration officials.  

Move On has moved over in my opinion. Great issues in ordinary times--not now. When the house is on fire, you don't just continue watering the plants.

Yeah, as a life-long progressive, I still relate to these causes - but I think that they have not really grasped the impacts of the energy issue, and the gravity of the situation.  I don't think they realize how far gone the democracy is, or why it's happening, and the relationship to oil.  

Also, while "Energy Independence" MIGHT mean conservation, I'm afraid that to most people it really means that we'll grow the fuel for our SUVs on that cute farm we all remember from those Litte Golden Books were read as children.  Sure gives one a warm, comfortable feeling, doesn't it?  Keep in mind that most people have no idea what a farm actually looks like, nor any impression of Big Ag.

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that people blame it on a conspiracy of Big Oil to rip us off, because of course that's exactly what they're doing - it's just that that's not the whole story by any means, nor is it happening in the way they think.  But how do we expect the average channel flipper to get past that first impression?  Do you think there's any chance the impression of Big Oil conspiracy is intentional?  It sure is an effective distraction.

And yes, health care costs are crushing common people and small businesses alike, but it's great for the big pharma biz.  But hell, I'm hoping to have enough money for food, and to be able to keep my home, heat it, do maintanence, educate my kids, etc.  

So in the end I think that we need to make energy conservation the first part of any agenda (and climate change probably second).  Unless we get a handle on energy, there won't be any need to worry about health care, and we sure as hell won't get our democracy back.  

Do you think they'll let us vote on who to fight next (after Iran) - that'd be might democratic don't you think?

Hi Twilight,

I just checked on what oil prices were on this date last year -- under $50. Today NYMEX was at $72.75.

If reserves are this low already, with the summer season just beginning, then by fall people's priorities may become very focused. The whole damned system could be falling apart.

Move On lost my support when it became clear they were ignoring the Iraq war.  To my mind they are - like most Democrats - enablers of the worst sort.

And you're right on about the plan - which Democrats supported in cahoots with Republicans.  It's nothing new.  The objective of every US Administration post WWII (re: George Kennan) has been to maintain control over vast global resources for the benefit of a few, and damn whomever gets in the way.

That control has in fact been achieved at a terrible price of death, torture, collective punishment, assassination, regime change, terrorism, pre-emptive war, resource depletion, poisoning the environment, blatant lies, hypocritical posturing, whatever it took.

It's a terrible truth that much of our "non-negotiable" lifestyle derives from crimes against humanity and the planet.

But that control and lifestyle is inexorably slipping away, helped in large part by the unbelievably corrupt and dangerously incompetent BCR regime.

Yet while the world is on fire, most of us seem barely able to fiddle, must less complain, or stand up and fight against the horror.

Even wonder why peak oil can't seem to reach the mainstream? This is one example of why. Consider what happens when someone who just heard of peak oil visits TheOilDrum. If they are not part of the left, what you refer to as progressive, they will see you treating MoveOn as a credible source, decide you are all a bunch of mooonbats who don't deserve to be taken seriously, and probably dismiss peak oil as another fantasy only believed by people who wear tinfoil hats.

Yes, I know this is an ad hominem. But remember it wouldn't be used so often if it was not effective.

Why Peak Oil can't reach the mainstream is that the change that PO prescribes is Hard Work, which doesn't sell papers.

 The issue doesn't have an easy 'Enemy' to paint up, like Saddam, it tells us we've got to change the way we live, which strikes at the conservative part of all of us.  We have our ways in place, change it?  Now? .. Maybe tomorrow.

The tags "Liberal" and "Progressive" are taking a beating, especially right now, since there is a lot that needs to change, and a lot that will change, whether we've prepared for it or not.  It's too easy to shoot the messengers that want to tell us that it's time for some changes.  I think the bashing of words like liberal have made it a given that an openly liberal group like Move-On is considered an 'unreliable source', while openly conservative groups seem to inherit (untaxed, of course) the veneer of authenticity and authority.  

I see both Liberal and Conservative perspectives as essential for us to function.. I compare it to our hands, conservative when we're grasping, liberal when we're letting go.  Just to toss a ball, you have to do both well, and you also have to know when.   It seems like right now, the conservatives are just clinging stubbornly, and the liberals are refusing to take hold of anything too firmly.. (seems too conservative, probably..)

but So What if we're called moonbats?  It was moonbats who got women the vote, who protested Vietnam.  It takes courage to say 'The system is out of whack.. we're going to have to make some changes' when you know all the other kids are going to laugh at you, even if you're right.  Some of those tough-guy conservatives at Fox could take some lessons from the geeks who can stand up to derision and looking like a fool, but still staying there, cause you know you're right.

MoveOn is undoubtedly a partisan organization. But which of their campaigns are so extreme that MoveOn should not even be mentioned on The Oil Drum? Here's a list to choose from.
Major parts of the "progressive left" have regarded peak oilers as "moonbats", not just mainstreamers and rightists. The issue isn't appearances. The issue is: what are the facts?

TODers range from right to left and all points in between. I happen to think Cheney and Rumsfeld are covert peak oilers. I passionately disagree with their remedy. I don't understand what the problem is?

That is because progressives are fairly immune to wedge issues. A few dissidents here and there make no difference to the majority opionion in the Democratic party or Greens for that matter. On the other hand, the rethugs require a united voice that dares not mention oil depletion or their entire facade breaks apart.
The correct term is "TinFoil Hatus Americanus."



Yeah, that Roscoe Bartlett guy sure is an example of the "raving looony left" if there ever was one. And what's with this Richard Rainwater guy? Why does he hate capitalism SOOO much? People wonder why Peak Oil is not taken seriously, the answer is obvious: when you've got dreadlock sporting moonbats like Bartlett and Rainwater as your leaders and prominent spokespeople of course you're not going to be taken seriously.

And then there's Pat Robertson! Enough with the whacky Shirley Mcclain Gaia worship 1970s new agey stuff already guy.



There have been a multitude of threads here on TOD that if I had stumbled across on my first visit would have sent me packing - thinking it's just a bunch of right wing whack jobs.

I hardly see this post as a glowing review of the MoveOn agenda - it sure looked to me like there were a lot of reservations too.  But if I can stomach a discussion noting that the 700 Club actually did a decent discussion of PO, I think you can deal with one about MoveOn.

Right wing wack job here... :)

Twilight....I hereby eat humble pie on two subjects.

Alleged Marine Masacre appears to have near overwhelming evidence.

My fiance was kept in interrogation for four hours earlier this week on arrival to the US.  She is a 29 year old Columbian studying her Phd in Brazil and they interrogated her for four hours!  No contraband and a valid visa and this is the treatment she recieved.  Anyways maybe we are drifting toward a police state.  I sent lengthy emails to several local, state, and federal politicians but have not heard back LOL.


What do they say, Matt? A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested?
And a conservative is supposed to be a liberal who got mugged.
Both quotes should tell you that the US reds and blues aren't as far apart as media pundits would like us to believe - and behave.  There's a lot of advertising dollars to be had feeding partisan hatred.
The Reds and Blues are far apart on the wedge issues, those issues that are compared to real issues minor or insignificant but get people riled up. I need only mention abortion and gay marriage. Compared to oil wars and PO, these issues are all but meaningless by comparison, though allowing both slows childbirth.

Obviously, those wedge issues rile up the religious nuts, who can never understand PO anyways. They think the bible is the only science they need. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

Oil Rig:Might be a good idea if you invest in a few of those throw-away cell phones from Walmart (if you want to have any confidentiality). You sleeper right wing guys are the ones they REALLY don't trust.
That's a bummer how your fiance was treated.  We've developed a culture of fear - people are constantly told to be afraid, but there are no specifics and they have no understanding of what is happening.  So everyone and everything that is different is suspicious.  It feeds on itself.
She said what hurt her the most, was that her interogators were immigrants or children of immigrants.  I don't have a problem with a baggage checks or questioning, but if there is no contraband and the documents check out, move them through.  Politeness is in order also, they repeatedly accused her of lying, and were very aggressive.
I should have added that once you get the fear instilled, just add a quantity of power over others, and watch the ugliness pour out.  Few people are given to much introspection.  They're not thinking about what they're doing and why, they're just feeling and acting, and all their frustrations and prejudices come out.  

If it works like that with airport security people, no one should be surprised when things like Haditha happen, nor believe it was an isolated incident.  But the "few bad apples" defense is already in full swing.  

I believe it was in Sebastian Haffner's Memoir that I read about how the state seeks ever to involve you in its misdeeds, even small ones, so that you become an accomplice.  And once you get used to doing and accepting things that you know are wrong - well, it's not so much worse this time is it?  The people who interrogated your fiancé are participating in this, as well as the people who accept it as ok.

Your first two paragraphs describe a passive mob psychology and I can buy the possible/probable existence.  Third paragraph is an active socioengineering/psychological programming.  I don't know if I can buy its existence.  I see the fear analogy but I doubt an illuminati plots these things.  Have you read the chappelle theory?  It is this website about how oprah and bill cosby and other succesful prominent black americans brought the comedian down.
Matt, I am still trying to determine what there is that is conservative about Bush II. About the only thing I can think of is that he has nominated a few judges that actually believe that the U.S. Constitution has a fixed meaning. At that even the strict constructionists on the court are hardly as described.

In terms of you comments about the slide toward a police state, I fear that you are correct. My quandry is I am not certain whether liberal Democrats or the Neocons would take us to that state more rapidly.

Phoey. I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. There must be some true small government civil libertarians out there somewhere.

We can only have small government in a sparsely populated technologically unsophisticated society. The little people need a big government to protect them from the abuses of the rich and powerful. Want a small government? Try Somolia.
Small government, not no [central] government as in Somolia. The highest level of functioning government in Somolia as I understand it is the clan, or if you prefer the tribe. Think the U.S. Constitution as written and amended. In particular think about the meaning of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and how we got to where we are now.

Technology probably limits abuses to a greater degree that it aggrevates the plight of those on the bottom. Think communication. Think mobility. Tell me why you believe that a backward society is more predisposed to value and protect the rights of an underclass?

actually "strong vs. week" is not the same as "big vs. small"
700 Club did not do a decent discussion on peak oil -- Pat Robertson actually advocated the assassination of Hugo Chavez.  

Robertson is a money-grubbing opportunist who has made alliances with African thugs concerning the precious metals market.

Robertson evidently wants a piece of the Venezualan action.

I agree - my comment was intended to mean that was the gist of the discussion on TOD, not that I agree with it.  I kept quiet on that one!
OK, I sometimes forget that the undercurrent discussion in the comments is completely different than the slant of the top-level posts.
The whole idea of oil depletion is only believed by those stupid liberals.
It is possible the mainstream are sheeple. As Jimmy Swaggart said: "If God didn't want them sheared, we wouldn't have made them sheep".
It is also possible that the mainstream sees that they are referred to as sheeple, says "well ** you too" and decides the whole Peak Oil thing is just a bunch of elitist liberal loonies.
Everything can be learned. Nothing can be taught. Everybody has the right to be ignorant on any subject if that is their choice. If intelligent thought has become so alien to the mainstream American in 2006, why worry about it?
Energy independence is a mealy mouthed evasion. It's presenting yourself to the masses as saying "screw the Ay-rabs" - a message that already belongs to the other side - while keeping your real aspirations to yourselves. That's not good politics or good policy.
But as long as AIPAC rules the US, no mainstream organisation will have the stomach for anything more serious.
They're not saying screw anybody.
They're saying we're vulnerable with this grossly imbalanced energy relationship, and owe it to ourselves to get off this drug.  When they say independence, I do not believe for a second that they are suggesting that we somehow produce domestically as much as we consume from imports today.  You know that they would be promoting both intense conservation measures and the development of renewables.

  I also dispute the suggestion that there is something anti-arab in their message, just because our trading tryst with S.A., Qatar and UAE would be (theoretically) interrupted.  It can also be reasonably understood from this Progressive Org, that the rebalancing of our energy-trading in the Middle-east would start to remove some of the extreme imbalances of economic power in the region, and start to improve the prospects for decent governments and relationships between neighbors.  Oil money has brought little to the people, and too much to the Monarchs and Ruling Elites.  Even though our contributions in aid to Israel are prodigious, so also are our accounts-payable to S.A. and the like, and yet none of this has 'purchased' peace for the area.

What A/P to SA and the like?
They get the cash in oil sales instead of USAID.  
I assume you are joking. If SA didn't have black gold, they would be getting money from the USA just like Ethiopia does.
<rant>  The real problem with Move On is that they have diluted their anti-war message and sold out to the Democratic party. I held my nose and voted for Kerry, but I remember his pro-war rhetoric. Hillary Clinton is just as bad if not worse. She is a prostitute to the war mongerers.No doubt she will forget about peak oil for car companies donations and the Auto unions support. Energy Independence was Jimmy Carter's theme, and while I have no doubt as to his honesty, sincerity and decency, his ineffectiveness made things easy for the neocons and theocratic nuts to take over the Republican party and destroy  free elections.
   If the peak oil community allows our message to be coopted by either of the moribund political parties and compromises to let this debate enter the field of partisan politics the whole world will lose, just as the American Anti-war movement has been lost to Move On acting as an adjunct to the Democratic Party. Let those who have ears , listen, 'cause you don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows
you wrote:

"If the peak oil community allows our message to be coopted by either of the moribund political parties and compromises to let this debate enter the field of partisan politics the whole world will lose"

I hate to say it, but I would venture to guess that the "peak oil community" (I'm excluding the neocons here) has very little influence on what THE (because they're the same) political party that rules this nation does. Campaigns are solely about coopting messages and other dirty tricks. I don't think it is organized, the media are just lazy dumbfucks--plus they're also massive corporations that tow mainstream culture line.

MoveOn, and FrontPageMag, and all this that and the other thing "dot com" with overt political agendas is just engaged in a shell game of diversionary BS. Or, if you wish, "insignificant minutiae" plus retarded neverending debates about morality...

The problem is that people are really fucking lazily (intellectually) in this country (the US). The general population is in a daze of electromagetic TV waves and cultural blather about celebrities and individual-interest stories... The future is going to be a lot less about the individual and a lot more about the group.

The Army of One... christ sake, we are running our army with a CEO... and training all of our officers to become little CEOs...

The US government is the largest corporation in the world, with no spending limits--this is something you want to be in business with, and the good old ethanol lobby knows it--not to mention the leech that is the defense department... Should I not even bring up the projections for all the federal entitlement programs? Health care? Hah! People my age will be damn fucking lucky if we even get social security... Hell, the baby-boomers will be lucky. I'm sure those crackpots over at DKos know exactly when Social Security and Medicare go insolvent--god bless 'em =]

The PO community is hardly cohesive, and from what I've seen it is made up of very disparate messages and POV. Not to mention, that since the topic is such a massive issue, it can be upsetting to some. What is it that fucker Plato said? Every city-state is constantly at war with every other city-state? Something like that. Anyway, I think about it as at any given moment everyone (in the competitive sport world known as "professional politics" or "internation finance") is coopting as much as possible in whatever manner that benefits one the most. This is surely how it will play out in American politics in the short run. It is already happening...

Chevron is taking the "Join us and make the world a happy better place, we're nice, fluffy fluff fluff"

Exxon is like "fuck you, you whoring honkwinder--I'm gonna take my profit and shuve it up your PO-ass because I have so much, and I'm only going to get more! Sppppfttt, I spit on your planet... Driver, take me to my Lear Jet."

The American people lament: "Gas is to expensive, you gouging us! Go get us some freakin lower energy prices, even if you have to burn the soles off the feat little children in Kkyrgyzstan."

Hillary Clinton (the really bright genius that she his!) has decided to go with: "Hey everyone, lets grown lots of corn, waste time, money and not address the issue while at the same time making it look like I really know anything about something"

BP goes the route, "Hey, look, we made our gas stations FUCKING GREEN!!! YOU SEE THAT BYOITCH! That's right, and we're Beeeeeeeeyond Petroleum, you see, because we now have GREEN GAS PUMPS and have a little shed in new england that prints some little boards that supposedly absorb some light? I dunno, you'll have to check on that since I need to go think up some more colorful mostly GREEN ads to be printed on non-recylced paper in many millions of magazines.

Okay, that is enough channeling messages for one night. Sleep beckons.

Good night you ghosts in the ether.

Rock on Mr. F.
MoveOn is almost as irrelevant (but as "good intentioned") as Noam Chomsky.

People don't like experts, get you used to it.

You're all "experts", "elitists", etc...

For fucks sake, why don't you go find Jesus and stop complaining about "energy". You can buy it in a bar, you know, just like gold--and it's cheaper!

No, in all seriousness--I think the politics of "central planning" are most likely going to be too little too late.

Market forces are going to take hold. And people will respond accordingly. I happen to agree with that little Weasely Pulitzer-cock Daniel Terdgin that the crude price will do a "undulating" sort of dancing sway back and forth--but I do not agree with his 99% chance assessment that that will buy us time to replace global decline rates from 2-6%

Fact of the matter, things will not change until the American consumer is squeezed a wee-bit more... It seems like this event is getting closer--and I would define it as surpassing the adjusted price of oil in 1980-81.

Which is around $95... and when that happens there is sure to be a pullback eventually because of retarded (no, not in the "special" sense--but more as in Coor's stadium ) economic growth. My long winded point is that market forces will are going to dictate policy, not the other way around--which MoveOn thinks they can magically achieve....

I would put this on par with the Clinton's "National Health Care Plan". Hah! What a joke... With the way the treasury has been run since the beginning of this century--I'll be surprised if health care is a political priority as PO hits. Health care comes after a lot of other basic services--at least good health care does.

Daily Kos is for people who just love to read the newspapers about all the fucked up shit going on and then they constantly talk about it. Much like us with energy, hey, come to think of it they aren't so bad. =]

Just a little to into discussing politics as if it were sports, which it sort of is...


Damn, a reasoned discussion, that surprised me, I was expecting to get flamed for my last comment. While I can see the the benefit in a wide range of viewpoints, I'm often hesitant to point people to the oil drum because I'm afraid of what they will think when they see the comment section. A group like MoveOn raises a red flag with many people even if they have evolved since the election, the admiration of Carter doesn't sit well with people who only remember him for the Iran Hostage situation or see him as legitimizeing dictators, even my mom, who has always voted for Democrats, dislikes him. Then there are those who apppear to wish for America's downfall or even the collapse of civilization altogether
When you point your good Amurrican Christians to the oil drum , make sure not to mention that damn foreigners sometimes post here (hopefully the name won't tip off the sheeple).
The only thing I have heard "bad" about was that they had hosted some anti-Bush videos that somehow equated him with Hitler. But this was all debunked as the videos happened to be contributed submissions from an ad contest and not generated by the MoveOn staff.

BTW, the videos did not win.

the Iranian hostage situation has been proven to be out of his control. members of Regan's election campaign have admitted to talking to the Iranian hostage takers to refuse to release them till after the election in exchange for less harsh punishments.
"people who... see him as legitimizeing dictators"

What is the perception?  Who was he supposed to be legitimizing?

Everyone on fire here today - great stuff and enuf to probably form a political party around. That Carter is remembered for his hostage "failure" (like, what was he supposed to do prior to the Perot-inspired helicopter "rescure" debacle?)is unfortunate, but then again since the Shah was the product of Operation Ajax in 1953 - one of Kermit Roosevelt's major achievements at the CIA - and the Mossad-CIA trained SAVAK that at times made Saddam's secret police look like Boy Scouts crushed all Iranian liberals (scuze me, Communists), created an ignition point that was hardly Carter's fault. But then again, Truman somehow personally "lost China" after our staunch ally the Kuomingtang faded away. (That General Stillwell called Chaing a "fucking coward" led to his swift replacement.) Problem with Iran was it became part of Nixon's "Twin Pillars" strategy for containment of the Commies: After the Brits announced withdrawal from "East of Suez" at the time the US military was otherwise occupied in Vietnam, Israel (post its excellent display of its ability to kill Arabs in the '67 War that Israel started) and Iran were provided a cornucopia of US military hardware to "contain the Communist threat" in the Middle East," a failure of logic of stunning proportions - Muslims were about as eager to adopt an aethestic system of economic determinism as Zionism. At any rate, Carter got hit on the head by one of the falling Pillarss, the other one is still being unquestioningly being proped up by eager majorities in Congress lapping at the AIPAC doggie bowl. Reminder: Just after 9/11, OBL sent a missive outlining his objective - to bleed America white in endless conflicts in the Middle East. Perhaps executing the enemy's gameplan is not the optimal strategy for victory? PS: Not nice to call Noam Chomsky irrelevant!
I know... but, it's just when I drink I take on an aire of Christopher Hitchens and I just have to start reviewing obscure novelists of the 19th century while fantasizing about David Horowitz giving me a foot massage. Then it pops into my head, I gotta dis someone, and Chomksky is the far left's altarboy. I just love shooting myself in the foot, like most liberals =]
Does everyone agree that Peak Oil at its core is NOT a political issue?  It's is a geological phenomena.  The issue of Peak Oil crosses political boundaries.  We will ALL have to deal with it.

It is the reaction to Peak Oil that is political.  Right now, neither party appears to be doing much about it.  It is obvious why.  It is a game of chicken.  Which party will be the first to deliver the bad news?  As more of the general population becomes aware of Peak Oil and the longer neither party deals with it, the greater the anger grows amongst the populace.  That is why the MSM lid on the subject has been held down tight (until very recently).

Using labels of "progressive", "liberal", and "conservative" are a waste of time and discriminatory.  I am conservative when it comes to the environment.  I am conservative when it comes to energy.  I am conservative when it comes to my retirement money.  I am conservative when about the security of this country.  When I vote for a president, I don't vote for a party, I vote for a person.  Most recently, I have voted for Democrats, but I have voted for Republicans before too.

So what am I?  What one label can you slap on my forehead?  Will that label apply to me tomorrow?  Who the hell cares?  The real issue in my mind is who will step in and have the balls to do something meaningful about the sh*t hitting the fan.  Who's got the mop ready to do the dirty cleanup work?

The potential problem is that parties will "bind" themsleves to positions surrounding peak oil - as happened with global warming.  I mean, look at the past deadlock on that one ... if you are a good Republican you are supposed to read Crichton novels and suspect that whacko environmentalists made up the whole thing(*) ... if you are a good Democrat you are ... well, unfortunately Dems get the science on this one.  It became (might still be) a long stand-off as each party believed a different set of "facts."

Let's hope peak oil doesn't break that way ...

* - I am a "lapsed Republican" in part because of that war on science

and yet despite all of the bickering and mud-slinging on global warming. gore has idea that this thing can be taken care of in the decade he claims we have left to stop the 1~2 degree forecast from coming true.(the deadline for the 5~6 degree is supposedly 2050 or so if we continue on our annual rise) by only changing the political will..
am i the only one here who sees that it will take longer then a decade not only to change the publics mind about it but to get rid of those who would oppose the measures?
am i the only one here who sees that it will take longer then a decade not only to change the publics mind about it but to get rid of those who would oppose the measures?
While I fear that this may happen, I'm not sure it's inevitable.  Another hurricane season like 2005 will probably turn climate change into a campaign issue.  Further, some measures to offset warming (e.g. injection of sulfur into the stratosphere) are cheap and could be implemented by legislatures without needing a great deal of public support.
   I don't know whether or not sulphur will work but think on this.

When someone gets high blood pressure they can take many different meds.  Beta blockers for example.  But with those you can become impotent or too much and you die.  Calcium channel blockers ACE inhibitors....there are few meds without side effects.  These are the ones that were approved after significant trials.  There has been no testing of climate manipulation other than retrospective studies of what we have done accidentally.  Is it wise to dump sulpher willie nillie into the atmosphere?  I don't know.  I told my dad when he got high blood pressure to loose weight and eat healthy and exercise more.  Maybe all humans need to cut back, use cleaner energy and bike/walk more..

Matt Tipton

Salt is really important. He should try to cut it out completely (almost impossible if he eats a lot of processed food). Quacks always downplay this because it cuts into drug sales.
That's BS about salt.  Only someone ignorant of nutritional science will tell a artery diseased patient that salt is the culprit!  Cut out the cause: meat and dairy and hydrogenated fats.  You do that and you start reversing the disease ASAP.  Read the work of Dean Ornish and John McDougall, and you'll see just how reversible most diseases can become.  It pisses me off when people are made to eat saltless, bland versions of foods (meat etc) that are killing them.  If you're going to eat much meat and dairy, you're quite likely to die from it, so don't worry about the damn salt, it doesn't reverse disease.  And meds don't work at all either, at least if you go by the actual studies, and not PR.
As I recall, Nathan Pritikin devoted a chapter of his book to the problems of salt. Another was devoted to caffeine, another to nicotine. I have a copy somewhere.

Many health sites link salt and hypertension.

Veganmaster: On the salt/high blood pressure link you are totally clueless. I wasn't commenting on blocked arteries or any other health issues. It sounds like all your health knowledge comes out of a book. If the salt/high blood pressure link wasn't in your books then your books have some holes.
Read up on nephrology and how sodium ion interacts with ADH/osmolar pressure in the renal system.  Salt definately causes HTN as does genetics and many other factors.  Meat and dairy are not to blame for everything, although they do have more salt than vegetables.
The beauty of sulfur is that natural events have done the same thing many times, and the world is known to handle it just fine.  We can control the application and produce the desired effect with the minimum possible material.

Yes, we all need to cut back and use cleaner energy.  The sulfur is the first installment of the cleanup for what we've used thus far; it keeps the problem from getting worse, like setting a stain.

So we spray sulphur and the colder winters make people burn more fuel making more sulphur neccesary.  What if we just lifted sulphur limits on fuels? Is that the same type of sulphur or another form?  I think there are many unknowns.....

More nuke/solar/wind/hydro....

Less fossil....

More trees...

on the lines of sulphur in the sky...what about iron in the sea?

So we spray sulphur and the colder winters make people burn more fuel making more sulphur neccesary.
And if we don't, the hotter summers make people burn more fuel anyway.
What if we just lifted sulphur limits on fuels?
It's not in the right place.  You can dump a hundred million tons of sulfur in the lower atmosphere and get mostly acid rain the next week, or you can put a few million in the upper stratosphere and it'll do its magic for up to two years.

What we need to do is arrest the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and restore some of the polar ice cover.  Once that's stable we can decide what to do next, without being overwhelmed by events before we can act.

Is that the same type of sulphur or another form?
Pretty much the same, AFAIK.  If we're injecting it in the stratosphere we probably want to liberate it as H2S because that's the lightest non-elemental form.
what about iron in the sea?
It was a good idea but I understand it didn't work as well as many had hoped.
I must disagree on those calcium channel blockers. Most people do a pill in the morning becuse it acts like a stimulant like coffee. But if I drop a 35mg hit of nifedipine (a CaCB) it's like 36 hours' worth of doing meth! I do beta blockers now. Much better. Everyone is different. Now, the bit with SO2 in the upper atmosphere, you'd have to keep adding it as it comes down as acid rain. It's not persistent like CO2, the global warming gas. The SO2 "solution" is like software: Fix one bug, create another! Think of Microsoft, Windows, and those service packs that merely trade in old bugs for new ones.
   36 hours worth of meth seems like a side effect.  My point on meds is they all have side effects.  You take one then need another to balance the effects of the first.  The best drug combo I've seen is HCTZ with an ACE.  Very few side effects and hard to accidentally OD.  Verapamil a CACB is cleared through the liver but grapefruit juice prevents that.  The two together can kill you or put you in the hospital.  Anyway eat healthy.
I guess my point is everyone is different. I have my own strategy with meds. I use propranolol + clonidine to combat anxiety as well as keep a lid on high blood pressure. I chose to select those meds with side effects that are useful instead of take drugs to fix undesireable side effects. That strategy only invites a third drug to combat side effects of the second drug ad infinitum. Before I got on the meds, I had a shyness problem that has been mistaken for all manner of emotional problems. The result of not getting decent meds until way into adulthood was devastating.

As far as the one 35mg hit of nifedipine, I was a speeding redskinned-from-body-blush bipolar! When I went back to that doc, I DEMANDED a beta blocker when he tried to hand me an ACE inhibitor. After 36 hours-of-meth's worth, I made sure to take charge. Too bad I never got the propranolol as a kid. It would likely have saved me a LOT of heartache.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my rather lengthy first post last week, ELECTED GOVERNMENT IS INHERENTLY INCAPABLE OF DOING THIS."  Any politician who speaks the truth about Peak Oil will find his opposition well funded by countless, mostly corporate donors in the next election campaign.

Antoinetta III

Hopefully it is one of those things where no politician wants to step out first, but at some point them must sheepishly move forward together.
Peak Oil at its core is ... a geological phenomena.  The issue of Peak Oil crosses political boundaries.  We will ALL have to deal with it.


This is a little off track from what you are chasing after, but I think we should come to grips with the understanding that PO is not really a "geological" event. It is actually very political, very social, very cultural.

Imagine that we belonged to a society whose religion forbade the use of liquids obtained from underground. In that case, we would never have used oil at all.

In truth we belong to a society whose religion (Adam Smithism) calls for the selfish exploitation of all natural resources we can get our grubby paws on. Both the Democrats and the Republicans worship Smithism.

There is no fundamental difference between the American Red and Blue parties on this most basic of issues. The Smithism machine urges us to keep sucking on the oil straw relentlessly until it is sucked dry. (Picture the guy above sucking on an in-ground straw.) Then, when it is no longer "economical" to keep sucking, the markets will "provide" new alternatives. So why worry? The Smith will provide.

Peak Oil is not a geological "truth", it is an artifact of our societal organization. Hubbert's curve is not a Law of Nature. It is an observed behavior of large populations of capitalist resource extracters. They go for the maximized profit. They go for the lowest hanging fruit. They go for short term gain. Hubbert's curve is the outcome of this herd-like and mindless behavior.

step back...OK...what I meant is regardless of how it was extracted, we are close or past the 50% mark.  Hubbert's Curve and related analyses strive to describe the state of petrogeology.  These are scientific facts (for what they are worth in this day, age, and current administration).  Scientific facts are supposed to be apolitical by nature.

Now the extraction rates and consumption are based upon economic religions and political practices and may use the above analyses to make decisions, but at its core there is a scientific fact:

- One half the total volume of a light, sweet, viscous liquid has been removed from the rock-entombed, global vessel.

Hubbert's Curve and related analyses strive to describe the state of petrogeology.


I'm not here to start disagreeing with you.
It's just that a lot of lurkers visit TOD, see these comments and then come away with wrong headed concepts about what "Peak Oil" is supposed to mean.

It does not mean that we are at "the" 50% mark in terms of total underground quantity, Q.

Instead, it means that the human race is unwilling to continue extracting at a rate matching or exceeding the highest rate achieved thus far (perhaps 85 million barrels per day world wide).

No one knows how much oil is down there, not Yergin, not Simmons, not even AlphaDog.

It is kind of unimportant how much total oil is down there.

What really matters is how the oil is distributed, how easy it is to get at, and how willing we are to go after it.

The biggest pools have all been discovered (except of course if there is another Saudi Arabia under Antartica.) The human race is now busy chasing after smaller and ever-harder to-get-at poolings of crude.

We are teetering on stilts out in the ocean:

We are howling with the sled dogs up in ANWR:

As Dorothy said to Toto, "I don't think we're in East Texas anymore:"

At some point the stilts are going to be too expensive and the booty not enough to economically justify going after more of the same. That's when we will have passed peak.

Touche mon capitain...I tend to oversimplify at times.

I was trying to get people to stop using liberal, conservative, left, right, etc.  It's soooo 2004!!!  We need to move on from that type of thinking if we are to survive this intact.

Your previous post has fantastic imagery.  I especially enjoyed that last bit about Dorothy and Toto since I grew up in Kansas.

You give Mr. Simmons a run for his money on presentation.

two words.
prove it.
not with pretty pictures, or fancy catch lines, but hard peer reviewed scientific data.
i don't know where you were taught but it's pretty darn obvious that peak oil is a geological event because to know where the oil is you need to know geology, you need to know geology to know how oil is formed, where it can and can't form  and even how to remove it safely from the ground.
of course for a oil company to make money they need to know where the stuff is too, so they have been working with geologists and have basically gotten it down to accurate process.
peak oil is when no matter how many wells are dug, how many tons of oil shale is heated, one can't pull it out of the ground fast enough to beat or stay pace with (insert max output here).

to put it simply it's like this.

think of all the worlds oil as soda in a soda bottle, but this bottle doesn't contain normal soda. the soda has multiple layers each one getting thicker as you go from the cap to the bottom. the light sweet stuff comes out the essayist and the fastest. how fast you remove this light sweet stuff is the only thing you can control, but this makes the peak come sooner. peak is of course when you are nearly out or have run out of the light sweet soda in the bottle. the following layers are still technically soda but they are not light and sweet. they also won't come out as fast as the light soda no matter what you try. this is peak.

The  multi-layered soda bottle of your analogy (a good imagery) does not make prodction of soda at the top happen. Rather, it is the straw inserter and sucker that makes it "happen". Production rate depends on how deep he, the person is willing to go and how hard he is willing to suck --of course, until it is all sucked out, which then equates to end of oil rather than Peak Oil Production.

1.I agree with you 2.Your posts have great visuals
I respect all the diversity of opinion on the website and I'm glad we have a place for everyone to voice their point of view on politics, but let's be honest, much of this is just talk, not action. I think there will be a lot of talk at the national level and not a lot of action. The action will be at the local level. What's interesting to me about MoveOn's approach is that they had people meet with other local concerned citizens in their area to discuss these issues.

As Speaker Tip O'Neil famously said, "all politics is local". People in my neighborhood don't talk about global warming or resource depletion at community board meetings (sigh...) - they talk about illegal biking on the sidewalk, bad or overly expensive grocery stores and asthma rates. I see my job as building the connection between those issues in solutions like bike lanes and greenmarkets. And after 6 months of effort, we are starting to move the ball forward. Next week I expect them to add another greenmarket much because of the efforts of a few local citizens and the local newspaper just wrote an editorial (after we supplied the right information). And thanks to local TOD:NYC reader Damek, we are building a snazzy new help activate the local area to take action to environmental, resource depletion and community building.

How did I get to this place? Well, I completely disengaged from national politics after the last two elections. Gore, Kerry would have been much better, than Bush, IMO but Congress would have likely been extremely antagonistic on any domestic program to mitigate PO or GW.

Peak Oil is not going to be solved at the national level at this point, maybe if we had done something in the 1990s we would have built a different infrastruture and curbed the exurban / SUV boom. But now it's all going to be about local adaptation to new situations. The Feds can help or hinder, but I don't think they will be decisive.

I urge everyone to engage with your local elected officials, local newspapers, business leaders, join a few clubs (political or not), meet your neighbors, ask them what their concerns are and try to find connections between them and PO or GW. Be patient. Don't just yell at people. Don't talk down to people. Be humble. Listen to people. Be forthright about your concerns. Make your points matter of factly. Be persistent. Good Luck.

I naively thought we were going  to have a reasoned discussion of the Kos energy plan or, what is the best way to get from point A to point B.  Sad.
Did you see this thread?

I think it has many great ideas. Some are much more practical and likely to be enacted than others, but I think they have done a great job of pulling all these ideas together in one place.

Yeh, that thread is more like it.  
That was a good read. I particularly enjoyed the sections of comments about trains. Also the thread about "the car that runs on water" was pretty damn entertaining... hahah!

Only more illustrative of the systemic ignorance in culture of the first and second laws of thermodynamics....

USA simply doesn't stand a chance in hell of being energy indipendant. The only way they could be is if taxes are placed on oil/gasoline etc and or the economy is hit by a seriously hard recession.

I recently read Canada has 8 years of natural gas left.. I think the situtation in USA might be similar. Soon USA will be MORE reliant of foreign imports.

I think the focus should be shifted away from energy indipendance to simply reducing oil use.