Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on October 16, 2016
Peak Oil & System Justification: Avoidance
The researchers found that being intolerant of ambiguity is associated with such conservative characteristics as unwavering certainty and strong loyalty to particular people and positions.
Conservatives don’t feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions. They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white.…
THE DRAWBACKS OF AVOIDANCE
As much as those on the Right seek to avoid ambiguity, nuance, and examination of the various complexities of most significant social, political, and economic issues, the resistance to acknowledging the potentially drastic impacts and implications of a peak in oil production and climate change cannot be fairly or honestly explained in a sentence or two. Our 21st Century planet is not exactly a black and white/either-or/yes-no world.
Of course, that immediately presents a bit of a challenge. Being pre-disposed to ignoring or dismissing any set of facts which create cognitive dissonance [or stimulate the fear they are actually trying to avoid], may offer some comfort, but….For those ensconced inside their denial bubbles, choosing to ignore the very information they’ll need to manage the conditions which arouse those very fears is a curious approach.
The conservative inclination to “cut to the chase” in decision-making and policy-making is a time-saver, to be sure! But once we get beyond kindergarten or first grade problem-solving, avoiding the complexities of modern society’s greatest challenges [with the myriad perspectives, differences, needs, purposes, and expectations which contribute to both the challenges and the solutions] by cutting to the chase is at its very best intellectually lazy. Actually, it’s counterproductive in the extreme.
PROBLEMS WON’T JUST DISAPPEAR
Those many components of the many complex challenges we face now or will soon enough won’t go away because some choose to ignore them. They simply drag the problem-solving process down that much more. They ignore complexity at their peril, and the failure to appreciate that complexity leads to the very outcomes they fear and object to the most. The point being…?
The likelihood of making matters worse increases exponentially the greater and broader the subject matter. Reducing complexities to simplistic conclusions has some advantages and reduces intellectual or psychological distress, but if effective and enduring problem-solving is the objective, this approach falls woefully short. We’ll all pay the price.
To the extent that an important issue is presented to people in a way that makes it appear especially complex, rather than motivating increased individual effort at addressing that issue, it may elicit increased dependence on the government [my note: or their preferred media and other influential voices]….
[M]aintaining unfamiliarity is an ideal way to protect the psychologically comfortable (even if inaccurate) belief that the government [my note: or their preferred media and other influential voices] is taking care of the problem.
THIRD-PARTY SOURCES: RISKS
We’re all bombarded on a daily basis with a variety of informational sources. Few of us—if any—are not ideologically skewed in some fashion so as to promote specific self-interests. Each of us only has a certain bandwidth available to seek and then digest what we need, competing as those sources are with the countless other demands daily living imposes on us all. Polarization facilitates the process by offering us only a slice of preferred information to satisfy our short-term needs, enabling us to solidify our beliefs, motivations, and understandings with like-minded others.
No one can deny that they don’t make use of their own preferred sources at least on occasion if not full-time. While there are obvious benefits in relying on information assimilated by others, we are also both ceding control over what we receive and risking acquisition of misinformation of one kind or another from those who may not necessarily have similar interests and pursuits.
In order to satisfy our inherently short attention spans it supplies only the amount of information we want, which generally is not that much.
So just as we need more information to figure out complex risk issues, we’re getting less.
In matters of either great complexity or broad impact, a quick turn to the familiar and/or latching on to the first bit of evidence arguably supportive of one’s position—in the process dismissing any other information—and/or jumping to premature conclusions thus carries a certain amount of risk. Shocking, perhaps, but there are times when those tactics are both wrong and entirely counter-productive if resolution is an objective.
So while few of us have the opportunity, means, or capabilities to immerse ourselves in those broader public conversations and policies, we should at a minimum expect that whatever our level of understanding or awareness, it is the product of an honest and complete dissemination of facts and concerns which will affect us—if not today, then soon enough. Truth still matters, although at times one wonders….
Idealistic perhaps, but it would be nice if we didn’t have to plead for truth-telling, full disclosures and just enough courage to work together to solve problems rather than expending so much energy to pretend they don’t exist.
~ My Photo: Eastern Point Sunset, Gloucester MA © 08.04.11
We face a choice going forward. There’s a kind of false dichotomy, a false choice that we’re being presented between policies on the left or policies on the right. It’s not left or right, it’s forward or backward. It’s a choice between investing in the future, leaving a better future for the next generation just like parents and grandparents did for us, or ignoring these hard choices and sentencing the next generation to a lower standard of living, to fewer opportunities, and a future that we could do better by. Former USDOT Deputy Secretary John Porcari
Looking Left and Right:
Inspiring Different Ideas,
Envisioning Better Tomorrows
27 Comments on "Peak Oil & System Justification: Avoidance"
rockman on Sun, 16th Oct 2016 3:06 pm
“…the resistance to acknowledging the potentially drastic impacts and implications of a peak in oil production and climate change cannot be fairly or honestly explained in a sentence or two.” So true. Just interesting that a distinction is made between those on the left and the right. Had this been written by someone on the right it wouiwouild have been virtually identical word for word. Except substituting left for right and liberal for conservative.
And some folks wonder why there’s a growing unlikelihood on any consensus.
penury on Sun, 16th Oct 2016 3:59 pm
The last paragraph is the truth of the matter, except it does not matter which choice you make a lower standard of living and fewer opportunities (whatever that means) is what your children or grandchildren are assured.
Harquebus on Sun, 16th Oct 2016 7:09 pm
“Animals have their instinct; we don’t have that luxury because our brain is in the way.” — Davy at peakoil.com
Dredd on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 4:47 am
“Polarization facilitates the process by offering us only a slice of preferred information to satisfy our short-term needs, enabling us to solidify our beliefs, motivations, and understandings with like-minded others.”
Focus on the facts, not on who is asserting them, as a conservative & liberal recently did (Banker Jekyll Will Hyde Your Money – 12).
blah on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 6:38 am
There is no such thing as ambiguity in math, science or nature. Only not enough information. Peak oil is a fact. If it happens now it will collapse economy, society and population. Both left and right ignores different facts to protect their own feel good beliefs. >90% of people are in denial.
paulo1 on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 10:01 am
Terrific article. Sheepishly, I accept I mine sources of information, although some internet sites, (both left and right) are extremely intolerant of dissension. I have been equally attacked by both sides when I point out inconsistencies, with the ‘left’ being as intolerant as the ‘right’.
rockman on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 11:29 am
“I have been equally attacked by both sides…”. Of course you have you pinko Trump supporting redneck gay homophobic liberal.
Even worse I’ve always suspected you were a cat person.
paulo1 on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 1:37 pm
Rockman,
What on earth did you mean to say? (Go ahead, call me dense). By the way, I hate cats, boyo. I have a feisty little Jack Russell that is my shadow. 🙂
Davy on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 2:42 pm
Probably a comment hack Paulo. Does not sound like the Rock I know.
Ghung on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 3:20 pm
Sounds like Rock’s sense how humor is in fine form today.
Ghung on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 3:23 pm
… sense OF humor…
“…redneck gay homophobic liberal”?
rockman on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 8:24 pm
“Sounds like Rock’s sense how humor is in fine form today.” I can always count on my buddy Ghung to identity with my goofy sense of humor.
Paulo – I see your Jack Russell and raise you two miniature schnauzers.
Boat on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 8:42 pm
The conversation of peak oil is still misrepresented even though it’s future path is increasingly clear. Demand seems stable at 1.3-1.5 mbpd into the future as it has been the last 6 years. So yes there will be new peak oil highs. EV’s at some point will kill new demand. 2030-2035 seems like a safe enough estimation. Then we can kiss peak oil discussions good by with plenty of oil left for the transition.
No bell shaped curved will emerge on the charts, it will take decades to replace 1.5 billion or so cars and trucks. Tech and pricing will decide if the FF market stays in command of shipping, semi’s, trains etc. So yes FF will still be a diminished but large market. Think in terms of 50 mdpd instead of the current 96 in 2045. I will save this post and check in 10 years.
Ghung on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 9:09 pm
2045? Hey Boat, if you’re still around, you’ll be in a soup line somewhere.
Boat on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 9:20 pm
So your a demographic expert on soup lines. How and where did you accumulate this knowledge. Experience?
GregT on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 9:58 pm
You’re far too optimistic Ghung. I’m betting that Boat loses his life savings in the market casino, and that the bank forecloses on his rental accommodations, long before 2045. I give it until the mid 2020s. The guy isn’t playing with a full deck……
Ghung on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 10:49 pm
Boat asks; “So your a demographic expert on soup lines. How and where did you accumulate this knowledge. Experience?”
I was a hobo/vagrant in another life, Boat. One of the most instructive times of my life.
makati1 on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 11:03 pm
Very optimistic to thunk that anything resembling today will be around even in 2025. 2045? LMAO!
Boat on Mon, 17th Oct 2016 11:45 pm
Mak,
In your world we would have been dead 10 years ago.
makati1 on Tue, 18th Oct 2016 12:17 am
Boat, I was not on here 10 years ago. More bullshit? But in less than 10 years you WILL see most of my “prognostications” come true. They are based on the real world, not the one you inhabit. Be patient!
NotALiberal on Tue, 18th Oct 2016 12:35 am
I really don’t think the Left will solve the problems either, name one major Left wing politician of a major country (or even a minor one) that openly talks about the dangers of peak oil. Good luck.
GregT on Tue, 18th Oct 2016 12:38 am
10 years ago, very few people could have imagined that the world’s economies would enter into ‘The Global Financial Crisis’ that began in ’08, that we still have not, and will not ever, recover from.
Sissyfuss on Tue, 18th Oct 2016 9:45 am
Paulo, you’re so confused. A Jack Russell is well known to be a cat in a dogs’ body!
Davy on Tue, 18th Oct 2016 10:33 am
Kind of funny how peak demand is never described as economic deflation by the mainstream. It is always represented as being caused by the progress of constructive change and never destructive change of economic collapse.
“Oil’s Biggest Threat: ‘Peak Demand’ Within 15 Years?”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-18/oils-biggest-threat-peak-demand-within-15-years
“A new report from the World Energy Council predicts that global demand for crude oil could hit a peak in 2030 at 103 million barrels per day. The scenario would require rapid and substantial advancements in electric vehicles, efficiency, renewable energy, and digital technologies – developments that are no longer difficult to imagine. Additionally, the report envisions a scenario in which global primary energy demand – which includes energy demand for everything including transportation and electricity – could also peak before 2030.”
“The prospect of peak demand has huge implications beyond just the price of oil. The concept of “stranded assets” – oil and gas reserves that might not get produced, either because of carbon limits or because prices never rebound – has quickly moved from a far-flung scenario to a very credible one in the span of just a few years. Stranded assets would lead to massive write-downs for oil companies, with today’s overvalued share prices destined for decline. The misallocation of capital could be unspeakably large.”
Apneaman on Tue, 18th Oct 2016 10:21 pm
Fragility, Decay, Collapse
These are some of Garrett’s conclusions from the paper:
“Global GDP growth requires energy consumption to grow super-exponentially, or at an accelerating rate. GDP growth is sustainable for as long as energy reserve discovery exceeds depletion.”
“When growth rates slow and rates of return approach zero, civilization becomes fragile with respect to externally forced decay. It lies along a tipping point that might easily lead to a mode of accelerating decay or collapse.”
“Innovation and collapse are two sides of the same coin. Increased internal connectivity allows for explosive growth when times are good, but also for exceptionally fast decline when times turn bad.”
http://megacancer.com/2016/10/19/fragility-decay-collapse/
makati1 on Tue, 18th Oct 2016 10:40 pm
Ap, good article.
” When the “minimums” are reintroduced through trade dispute or interruption of supply by depletion or war, the effect may be catastrophic. The minimum, the amount that can be obtained within a countries borders may call for a much, much smaller overall economy and population.”
Hmmm. 4% of the world’s population and 25%+ of it’s resource consumption. Guess where the pain will be highest? LOL
DerHundistlos on Wed, 19th Oct 2016 12:41 am
Well done, Sissyfuss!!!!!! I salute you.