PeakOil is You
All Techno-Messiah Waiters Please Stand Up
by EnergySpin » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 21:40:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')OP! So do we just stand there like a stupid bloated TV media junky pus gut puffy bellied women/humanoid brain dead on corporate logo ass rape sodomification and let the vacuum nozzel suck us up.
Kind of graphic, but still a pretty accurate description
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
-
EnergySpin - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2248
- Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
by jtmorgan61 » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 01:19:48
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')OP! So do we just stand there like a stupid bloated TV media junky pus gut puffy bellied women/humanoid brain dead on corporate logo ass rape sodomification and let the vacuum nozzel suck us up.
We start by figuring out what they're going to do, spreading the word around, and trying to figure out what to do next. I think I have a good handle on what they are going to do and why, as does Matt and as do you.
I think 100 years of "civilization" have blunted their risk taking initiative and made them much more hesitant to risk their position in a blatant, fast grab for even more power. I still maintain that they are going to try to grow and grow and grow their way out of this one, and that they will continue to slowly consolidate their power as they arguably have been doing for the last 30... 40... well, a long time. And that they can almost certainly get away with it for another 20 years at least, though it would be better for both the people and the planet if they didn't.
The dominator culture (and I think we all know roughly what I mean by that, although it can be tricky to put a finger on all of its various facets) is still in control of the masses right now, although those of us who are starting to break free can find that hard to believe. It's not going to come down as easily, quickly, or decisively as most people on this board would like, although I believe it will ultimately be destroyed (in time for the environment... not so sure about that).
Rather than advocating that things stay the same, I'm saying we have to take a good look at what reality is right now, and why it got to be the way it is, and take one step at a time. It's never a particularly fun thing to look at, either globally or personally, because if it were a pretty picture we'd already have accepted it.
-
jtmorgan61 - Lignite
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
by Falconoffury » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 03:58:19
Jtmorgan, you say that alternatives such as coal to oil and thermal depolymerization will keep us going until 2020. That all depends on what you mean by keeping us going. It may lessen the effects of post peak, but I don't see how it can prevent a worldwide economic depression. The USA is so badly overextended with its high current account deficit, high personal debt, and housing bubble, that there looks to be no way of avoiding a recession within 2 years from now.
Since our economy requires growth in order to survive, keeping us going really means keeping us growing. With oil's depletion rates and population growth factored in, I just don't see how converting coal to oil is going to keep us growing. It has potential, but that potential being realized is unlikely. Prices of raw materials such as steel, oil, and natural gas make building any construction project less attractive. The business elites are only interested in making money, and they are perfectly happy doing that the easiest way possible: downsizing. The only thing that could start widespread coal to oil projects is political will, and there is none. Peak oil is still considered a "tin foil hat" subject. Some companies will build coal to oil plants in coming years to take advantage of the profits, but we don't just need some coal to oil plants. We need a major movement towards building these things, but there is no political will. All the political will these days has to do with the war on terror, which is really just the war to control key fossil fuel regions.
Jtmorgan, your plan all boils down to an age old argument, that the free market will adapt and keep us going. Economists live in a world of calculations on paper and imagination, but neither of those places fully encompasses the real world, where everyone else lives. The only way that coal to oil technology could make a real difference is if the world fully accepts peak oil and its ramifications. Failing that, the best we can expect is a few new plants being built here and there by various corporations. Expect depletion to move faster than our ability to adapt. By the time the world wakes up, depletion will have us firmly in its grasp and the dieoff will be ready to go.
Since our economy requires growth in order to survive, keeping us going really means keeping us growing. With oil's depletion rates and population growth factored in, I just don't see how converting coal to oil is going to keep us growing. It has potential, but that potential being realized is unlikely. Prices of raw materials such as steel, oil, and natural gas make building any construction project less attractive. The business elites are only interested in making money, and they are perfectly happy doing that the easiest way possible: downsizing. The only thing that could start widespread coal to oil projects is political will, and there is none. Peak oil is still considered a "tin foil hat" subject. Some companies will build coal to oil plants in coming years to take advantage of the profits, but we don't just need some coal to oil plants. We need a major movement towards building these things, but there is no political will. All the political will these days has to do with the war on terror, which is really just the war to control key fossil fuel regions.
Jtmorgan, your plan all boils down to an age old argument, that the free market will adapt and keep us going. Economists live in a world of calculations on paper and imagination, but neither of those places fully encompasses the real world, where everyone else lives. The only way that coal to oil technology could make a real difference is if the world fully accepts peak oil and its ramifications. Failing that, the best we can expect is a few new plants being built here and there by various corporations. Expect depletion to move faster than our ability to adapt. By the time the world wakes up, depletion will have us firmly in its grasp and the dieoff will be ready to go.
"If humans don't control their numbers, nature will." -Pimentel
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"Bush, Bush, listen well: Two shoes on your head," the protesters chant
"There is not enough trash to go around for everyone," said Banrel, one of the participants in the cattle massacre.
"Bush, Bush, listen well: Two shoes on your head," the protesters chant
-
Falconoffury - Expert
- Posts: 1395
- Joined: Tue 25 May 2004, 03:00:00
by retiredguy » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 12:12:43
Falcon is right. JT's scenario is that the free market will develop alternatives to oil because there will be continuing demand and there will be money to make satisfying that demand.
On the other hand, I think that JT's scenario is very plausible, maybe even the most probable. Why? Because, after all, corporations are simply the extension of our own desires. If you are invested in the market, do you want your stocks to decrease in value? Your individual interest in making money puts pressure on corporate boards to make decisions that will be profitable in the short run.
The government is the wild card here. In WWII, the government mandated the rapid switch from consumer goods to war material by providing financial incentives to corporations to do so. The companies so involved didn't take a financial risk in making the switch.
To my way of thinking, this is what needs to be happening now, but isn't . The new energy bill simply encourages energy companies to continue developing ways to use fossil fuels.
And, unlike WWII, noone is asking the average American to sacrifice.
Given this, unless there is a significant change in public attitude, I believe that corporations will continue to do our collective bidding until it is no longer possible to meet our collective demands. By that time it will probably be too late to use the remaining fossil fuels to effect a peaceful transition to sustainability.
If you really believe a soft-landing is possible, you had better be working really hard to elect representatives that reflect your beliefs.
On the other hand, I think that JT's scenario is very plausible, maybe even the most probable. Why? Because, after all, corporations are simply the extension of our own desires. If you are invested in the market, do you want your stocks to decrease in value? Your individual interest in making money puts pressure on corporate boards to make decisions that will be profitable in the short run.
The government is the wild card here. In WWII, the government mandated the rapid switch from consumer goods to war material by providing financial incentives to corporations to do so. The companies so involved didn't take a financial risk in making the switch.
To my way of thinking, this is what needs to be happening now, but isn't . The new energy bill simply encourages energy companies to continue developing ways to use fossil fuels.
And, unlike WWII, noone is asking the average American to sacrifice.
Given this, unless there is a significant change in public attitude, I believe that corporations will continue to do our collective bidding until it is no longer possible to meet our collective demands. By that time it will probably be too late to use the remaining fossil fuels to effect a peaceful transition to sustainability.
If you really believe a soft-landing is possible, you had better be working really hard to elect representatives that reflect your beliefs.
-
retiredguy - Tar Sands
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: southern Wisconsin
by MattSavinar » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 21:53:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('retiredguy', 'F')alcon is right. JT's scenario is that the free market will develop alternatives to oil because there will be continuing demand and there will be money to make satisfying that demand.
On the other hand, I think that JT's scenario is very plausible, maybe even the most probable. Why? Because, after all, corporations are simply the extension of our own desires. If you are invested in the market, do you want your stocks to decrease in value? Your individual interest in making money puts pressure on corporate boards to make decisions that will be profitable in the short run.
The government is the wild card here. In WWII, the government mandated the rapid switch from consumer goods to war material by providing financial incentives to corporations to do so. The companies so involved didn't take a financial risk in making the switch.
To my way of thinking, this is what needs to be happening now, but isn't . The new energy bill simply encourages energy companies to continue developing ways to use fossil fuels.
And, unlike WWII, noone is asking the average American to sacrifice.
Given this, unless there is a significant change in public attitude, I believe that corporations will continue to do our collective bidding until it is no longer possible to meet our collective demands. By that time it will probably be too late to use the remaining fossil fuels to effect a peaceful transition to sustainability.
If you really believe a soft-landing is possible, you had better be working really hard to elect representatives that reflect your beliefs.
On the other hand, I think that JT's scenario is very plausible, maybe even the most probable. Why? Because, after all, corporations are simply the extension of our own desires. If you are invested in the market, do you want your stocks to decrease in value? Your individual interest in making money puts pressure on corporate boards to make decisions that will be profitable in the short run.
The government is the wild card here. In WWII, the government mandated the rapid switch from consumer goods to war material by providing financial incentives to corporations to do so. The companies so involved didn't take a financial risk in making the switch.
To my way of thinking, this is what needs to be happening now, but isn't . The new energy bill simply encourages energy companies to continue developing ways to use fossil fuels.
And, unlike WWII, noone is asking the average American to sacrifice.
Given this, unless there is a significant change in public attitude, I believe that corporations will continue to do our collective bidding until it is no longer possible to meet our collective demands. By that time it will probably be too late to use the remaining fossil fuels to effect a peaceful transition to sustainability.
If you really believe a soft-landing is possible, you had better be working really hard to elect representatives that reflect your beliefs.
The big difference between now and World War II is that the steps taken to win the war were very profitable as they involved INCREASING our use/consumption of energy.
Any appropriate strategy to deal with Peak Oil would result in less consumption. IE, telling people to ride bikes instead of drive cars. You think the auto manufacters are going to put up with that? Or the media which is dependent on advertising for things like cars is going to realistically report that the car needs to be phased out of the average AMerican's life?
Matt
-
MattSavinar - Elite
- Posts: 1918
- Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
by retiredguy » Wed 03 Aug 2005, 11:22:00
Matt,
I certainly understand the difference between WWII and now. That is why I'm not in the soft-landing camp. I'm simply saying that I can't see a powerdown occuring without government assistance.
An article in the recent issue of US News about consumer debt had an interesting lead. Seems that a young couple got used to a particular standard of living in the boom 90's. When their tech stocks crashed, they "chose not to cut back. "The truth is, nobody wants to sacrifice their lifestryles," says Cathy, 34."
This is the hurdle that must be overcome in a powerdown scenario, and it is a mighty tall one.
I certainly understand the difference between WWII and now. That is why I'm not in the soft-landing camp. I'm simply saying that I can't see a powerdown occuring without government assistance.
An article in the recent issue of US News about consumer debt had an interesting lead. Seems that a young couple got used to a particular standard of living in the boom 90's. When their tech stocks crashed, they "chose not to cut back. "The truth is, nobody wants to sacrifice their lifestryles," says Cathy, 34."
This is the hurdle that must be overcome in a powerdown scenario, and it is a mighty tall one.
-
retiredguy - Tar Sands
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Tue 11 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: southern Wisconsin
by Ludi » Wed 03 Aug 2005, 12:03:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('retiredguy', ' ')"The truth is, nobody wants to sacrifice their lifestryles," says Cathy, 34."
This is the hurdle that must be overcome in a powerdown scenario, and it is a mighty tall one.
This is the hurdle that must be overcome in a powerdown scenario, and it is a mighty tall one.
Yep, but it's interesting what can be made to seem hip and trendy, even a "simple lifestyle." This is actually a trend, a small one currently, but a small trend is a start. Toward smaller houses, smaller cars (the Mini Cooper is quite popular), less consumption. I think there really is hope for this trend. But today I'm an optimist.
- Ludi
