Peak Oil Denial: Abundant Nonsense

We don’t like bad news, particularly when it has very long term implications. Individually and collectively we tend to slip into denial mode, focus on diversions, become numbed to the reality of the situation, cling to anyone willing to assure us it just ain’t so, that things are going to get better. You can’t live your life in crisis mode.
We have, in recent decades, turned this into a political institution; the denial industry. The primary objective of the denial industry is not clarity but rather to create confusion and conflict in the minds of the public by creating the impression that there are legitimate differences of opinion between experts and scientists. It is a strategy honed and perfected around the issue of smoking, a strategy they have continued to use, often with the same players, on issue after issue and now dominating the debate over global warming and peak oil.
But it is a generational culture shift that has facilitated the success of the denial industry. With the growth in accessible information through the media, the internet, cell phones and more, people have abandoned seeking answers to their questions through independent thought and instead turn to various media for those answers. They have abdicated to others the right to tell them how and what they should think, to define truth. It has been a key part of the technological dumbing down of society, nowhere more obviously than in North America [1]

Nothing like a good dose of right-wing paranoia and scare-mongering to start the day! [A good straw man argument is just a bonus.]

Doesn’t Understand or Doesn’t Care?

The theory, called ‘Peak Oil,’ says that since oil is a finite resource, we will run out in the near future, causing massive economic disruption. This is often used as an argument for increased political control of the economy.
The problem with this theory is that it assumes that humans won’t find new ways to do more with less, that they won’t find new sources of oil and natural gas, and will not find ways to use fuel more efficiently. [2]

The concept of peak oil involves no such assumption, although right-wingers continue to insist otherwise. [“Facts suck!” continues to be a prime mantra.] Conventional crude oil and its adaptation in countless aspects of everyday living for more than a century has been one of the defining technological achievements of mankind. Who doubts that? Proponents of peak oil merely point out the fact that for all of our technological prowess and creativity, we’re still dealing with a finite resource, and the “easy” stuff is no longer “easy.”

As for the “This is often used as an argument for increased political control of the economy” statement, it’s a nice (but subtle) display of right-wing paranoia to fan the flames and keep followers suitably agitated. You’d think after 70-80 years of waiting for that to happen, the far Right might consider moving on to some other cockamamie concern. (By the way, we’re still waiting for “trickle-down” economics to start working, but it’s only been thirty years, so I guess we’ll have to be patient.)

A Vote for “Doesn’t Understand”

Deniers point out that fossil fuel production has been on the rise in the last few years [true], as if that fact alone is enough to wash away the doom and gloom which proponents of peak oil apparently delight in sharing. The same author as quoted above said this [in connection with a bet he was offering to another writer]:

If the Energy Information Administration’s 2013 Energy Outlook shows that production is declining, indicating a peak, you win. If, however, production is still climbing, I win.

If nothing else, that comment demonstrates the man does not understand the concept of a peak. The reality is that U.S. production peaked more than four decades ago. Read carefully almost any commentary offered by the Happy Talk cheerleaders about the rise in production: they all toot the horn but never get around to pointing out the truth. Instead, they offer disingenuous and misleading statements by making comments along these lines: “Last year, production was the highest it’s been in the past _ years, and there’s every indication it will continue for at least _ more years.” None of them dares mention that recent production increases still do not and will not exceed that 40-year-old peak, nor do they point out that while all this fracking marvel is taking place to boost production, we’re still dealing every day with declining rates and depletion of the superior conventional supplies.

Remember: Facts suck!

The concept is actually fairly simple and straightforward: Let’s say that in 2000 you earned more money in one year than you ever had to that point, reflecting a steady rise in salary over many years prior to 2000. Let’s use $150,000 as that high point. But since 2000, you’ve never reached that $150,000 salary mark again. For the next five years, your annual salaries were:  $112,000 in 2001; $109,000 in 2002; $98,000 in 2003; $106,000 in 2004, and $102,000 in 2005.

And while all of this is happening, expenses of daily living are both on the rise and you have more financial obligations as well—larger family, larger home, etc., etc.

But in the last eight years, your annual salaries were: $119,000 in 2006; $114,000 in 2007; $122,000 in 2008; $126,000 in 2009; $123,000 in 2010; $129,000 in 2011; $131,000 in 2012, and in 2013 you are on pace to earn $134,000.

What’s your peak earning year? The recent increases are nice, but does that change the $150,000 peak in 2000?

Misdirection and disingenuous arguments serve a purpose; telling the truth to the public, unfortunately, isn’t it.

More to come….

peakoilmatters