Peak Oil Denial: The Liberal’s Dilemma (Pt 4)

We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, emotional and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture and society at large. After forming our beliefs, we then defend, justify and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments and rational explanations. Beliefs come first; explanations for beliefs follow….I call this process, wherein our perceptions about reality are dependent on the beliefs that we hold about it, belief-dependent realism. Reality exists independent of human minds, but our understanding of it depends on the beliefs we hold at any given time….
Once we form beliefs and make commitments to them, we maintain and reinforce them through a number of powerful cognitive biases that distort our percepts to fit belief concepts. Among them are:
Anchoring Bias. Relying too heavily on one reference anchor or piece of information when making decisions.
Authority Bias. Valuing the opinions of an authority, especially in the evaluation of something we know little about.
Belief Bias. Evaluating the strength of an argument based on the believability of its conclusion.
Confirmation Bias. Seeking and finding confirming evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignoring or reinterpreting disconfirming evidence. [1]

[NOTE: This is the fourth in a subset of my ongoing series entitled Looking Left and Right (which began here; see Category sidebar for all links). This is about Peak Oil, but addresses the considerations and potential solutions from a different perspective than purely fact-based and/or he-said—she-said ones which too often dominate public discourse. With the caveat that I have NO professional expertise/training in psychology or its related fields, I’ll look at emotional and psychological “tricks” and traits we all use—Left, Right, and in-between—to bolster our beliefs and opinions as we do battle with our “opponents” in the increasingly polarized political forums which too-often dominate our culture.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else-by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate
– Francis Bacon [courtesy of David McRaney]

As I observed in that first post of this Looking Left and Right series:

We all act much the same way, ideologies notwithstanding. Human nature, I suppose. The more important questions: might we benefit from a bit of introspection before doing more of the same?…We obviously wouldn’t be making use of these psychological tricks of the trade if they didn’t provide us with benefits and gratifications. So is that it? Shrug our shoulders, admit that we are all guilty from time to time and then … nothing?
Might we consider the possibility of being ‘better’ than that? If we choose to solve what might appear at first blush to be overwhelming and even insoluble problems, we need more. We need more from our systems, more from our leaders, and more from ourselves.
There is a great deal at stake for all of us, and we might all be better served understanding not just what we do in asserting and defending our beliefs, policies, and opinions, but why. Appreciating that might make a world of difference … literally!]

In the first three installments of this mini-series (here, here, and here), I began an examination of what my semi-snarky, decidedly liberal perspective viewed to be a perfect summation of stereotypical right-wing nonsense regarding fossil fuel production and gas pricing, relying on the concept of cultural cognition as described by Dan M. Kahan, Yale University and Donald Barman – George Washington University [link to PDF download]. I’m doing so in the hope that this might afford Peak Oil proponents—and those who doubt—a window into how the discussion has been approached to date, and more importantly, how to get past the stumbling block of ideology (my own and the “others”). We’ll need all the intelligence, expertise, and assistance we can get to find some practical adaptations and solutions.

I ended the most recent post of this series with a listing of the points Mr. Folks made in the above-referenced article. I “replied” to one of his many criticisms of President Obama—specifically the failure of his policies and actions to lower gas prices—by providing a lengthy list of recent articles demonstrating rather convincingly (or so I like to think) that no President has the ability or power to lower gas prices (not even a socialist-Marxist-not-born-here-America-hating liberal like Obama … and have you noticed he’s not Caucasian?).

Gas prices are set on the world market for all the reasons explained by those with far more knowledge of such things than me. And since all those reasons have little or nothing to do with adopting a balls-to-the-walls “drill baby, drill” strategy, complaining that Obama’s ineptitude is only raising gas prices is … nonsense! Red meat for some; not much nutritional content.

Why continue to make an arguments which facts quickly debunk? How does this help?

As an aside, a bit more than a year ago I offered this:

During the Bush Administration, the United States’ Energy Information Agency issued a report (updated and confirmed in its 2009 follow-up: ‘Impact of Limitations on Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf’) in which its analysis of the difference between full offshore drilling (‘Reference Case’) and restricted drilling (‘OCS limited case’) concluded there would be no impact on gasoline prices in 2020, and a whopping ‘three cent’ (that’s not a typo) per gallon decline by 2030.
GOP officials who continue to tout drilling never get around to mentioning that little factoid. Of course, they also never bother to mention any other facts about drilling off-shore or in the Arctic such as the extreme exploration conditions which must be accounted and paid for, the length of time that will pass before full production (such as it may be) will be reached (i.e., several decades), and an assortment of other bothersome little details which would only contradict the ‘benefits’ their sound bites imply. It goes without saying that there is no mention of the current political turmoil in the Middle East and parts of Africa … annoying considerations which most market analyst experts believe to be primarily responsible for recent price spikes. What good are experts if a good political sound bite is available instead?

When “dialogue” about a contentious topic features facts on one side and a genuine desire to find solutions, and fear-based irrelevancies and/or half-truths and/or misrepresentations on the other side, how can anyone expect meaningful exchanges and acceptable solutions? What’s the benefit in not having solutions to urgent challenges because ideologies must be protected first? There’s not all that much of an advantage in postponing shooting oneself in the foot.

Another argument posed by Mr. Folks: “For over 40 years the left has brought out one argument after another against fossil fuels.”

None of us are “against” fossil fuels. What we are concerned with are the facts about declining rates of production in the highest quality conventional crude supplies which have powered our society for decades. We’re simply not finding much of it any more (while what’s left depletes by the day); what we are finding is more costly to extract and refine; takes longer to bring to market; with inferior substitutes in lesser produceable quantities failing to make up for that decline … among other problems.

So what we recognize as likely consequences affecting ALL of us calls for us to find ways to deal with the impact and find ways to adapt before the problems strike full force. So until and unless the Magic Technology Fairy finds an acceptable substitute at acceptable costs, in wildly abundant quantities, easily accessible, while providing the same energy bang for the buck, we’re going to have to rely on developing alternative sources of energy—recognizing that they are indeed no match for what fossil fuels have provided us. And by the way, we also recognize that billions of people around the world and their governments are also planning to use the conventional crude oil supplies still being produced. With their growing populations and increasing domestic demand, oil-producing nations won’t be exporting quite as much in years to come … while the magical shale oil and tar sands continue to fail to meet demand.

Worse than the decline of oil production is the decline of net oil exports. Net oil exporters, awash in the cash from their oil sales, are growing up and industrializing, which causes them to consume more of their own production and cuts into their exports. At the same time, rapidly growing economies like China and India are consuming an ever-larger share of the available net exports. As analysts Jeffrey Brown and Samuel Foucher have shown, available net exports have fallen at an average rate of about 1 mbpd per year from 2005 to 2010, from about 40 mbpd in 2005 to about 35 mbpd in 2010 (BP and EIA data, total petroleum liquids). On current trends, China and India would consume all of the available exports in about 20 years, while the U.S. is slowly squeezed out of the global market. [2]

Basic math; facts; reality—call it what you will—this is what we have to deal with. We are suggesting that what we perceive to be laughably ignorant paranoia-derived fears about socialist takeover from a Muslim-Marxist-alien-President should be left to the Fantasy Cable Network. Keeping the uninformed agitated and fearful is an at best questionable exercise, given the challenges Peak Oil is going to impose on all of us long before we’ve properly prepared.

(Perhaps if we could design energy-based solutions benefitting only liberals and progressives we could stop being concerned….)

“If only he could gain control over oil and gas drilling — regulatory control that still rests mainly with state governments — he would soon have his boot on the neck of America’s energy companies — extorting billions from them to further his political ambitions.” – Jeffrey Folks.

Seriously? Might there instead be some benefit to understanding the reasoning behind the “Liberal” approach to energy “policy” instead of relying on increasingly lame, pointless fears about mind-control and government takeovers and wild-ass conspiracies which at least 99.8% of us wouldn’t know how to contemplate if our lives depended on it?

I’m honestly saddened by that perspective. When reading statements that the President (and all liberals, I assume) are presumably plotting to “gain control” so that we can put a “boot on the neck” to help the President “further his political ambitions”, it is very difficult to look at those pronouncements as anything other than the rantings of a tinfoil-hat-wearing, paranoid loon. I’m betting that’s not especially constructive on my part if I’m trying to engage an author/speaker in mutually beneficial, problem-solving dialogue. I’m equally at a loss to understand how that perspective serves practical long term needs for one who thinks/fears such outlandish motives. At what point does that stop being the best option going forward?

We remain optimistic that upon reflection (ideology-free), of the facts at hand and recognition of at least the possibility Peak Oil advocates may be on to something, conservatives will have something of great value to offer all of us. But if contributions are going to remain at the fear-based level, coupled with an unwillingness to accept facts (and thus fail to offer the expertise and experience we’re counting on from you), what happens to all of us?

Of course it’s threatening to think that our lifestyles, systems of governing, and capitalist processes themselves may all face drastic changes in the not-too-distant future because of the facts and reality of Peak Oil and climate change! As I’ve stated repeatedly, I’m betting that almost every single Peak Oil proponent want nothing more than to be wrong! I’m certainly not the poster-child for Peak Oil advocacy and lifestyles. I have a very nice, capitalist, well-to-do existence: 7 bedroom summer home by the ocean, luxury vehicles for my wife and I, and assorted other technological goodies in quantities too embarrassing to detail. To hell with all of you, I don’t want MY life to change!

I just don’t see much value in ascribing super-secret, nefarious conspiratorial aims to someone ever-so-gently (too cautiously, perhaps?) trying to get Americans to recognize we ought to consider preparing for change before we have no choice … and no plans in place.

Two generations came to think of declining oil prices as normal, which accounts for the current sense of entitlement, the outrage at rising prices, and the search for villains: politicians, oil-producing countries, and oil companies are all targets of scorn in public-opinion surveys.
A substantial failure of education about non-renewable natural resources lies in the background of current public sentiment. And now, having underinvested in energy efficiency and security when the costs of doing so were lower, America is poorly positioned to face the prospect of rising real prices. Energy policy has been ‘pro-cyclical’ – the opposite of saving for a rainy day. Given the upward pressure on prices implied by rising emerging-market demand and the global economy’s rapid increase in size, that day has arrived….
Rather than anticipating and preparing for change, the United States has waited for change to be forced upon it….
Obama is correctly attempting to explain that effective energy policy, by its very nature, requires long-term goals and steady progress toward achieving them.
One frequently hears the assertion that democracies’ electoral cycles are poorly suited to implementing long-term, forward-looking policies. The countervailing force is leadership that explains the benefits and costs of different options, and unites people around common goals and sensible approaches. The Obama administration’s effort to put long-term growth and security above political advantage thus deserves admiration and respect.
Declining dependence on external sources, properly pursued, is an important development. But it is not a substitute for higher energy efficiency, which is essential to making the switch to a new and resilient path for economic growth and employment. A side benefit would be to unlock a huge international agenda for energy, the environment, and sustainability, where American leadership is required.
This effort requires persistence and a long official attention span, which in turn presupposes bipartisan support. Is that possible in America today? [3]

Good question.

More on the way next week.

Peak Oil Matters