[KiddieKorral]

I've decided to write my column for the school newspaper about peak oil. Here's what I have so far.


I’m sure everyone’s seen the latest Chevron commercial. If not, here’s approximately how it starts:

“It took us 150 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We’ll use the next trillion in 30.”

Doesn’t sound too alarming, does it? That’s until you learn that those two trillion barrels of oil are about all of what the earth’s given us.


Damn this writer's block. How should I frame the issue for a high school newspaper? Good talking points? Anyone? Anyone?

[PenultimateManStanding]

I don't know, KK. The Peak Oil situation is intrinsically alarmist. I remember one time when I put the famous bell curve up on the board for a class and said we are at the top. A girl quickly assessed it and said to me 'you are lying!' There is a big taboo about alarmism. The more dire the threat, the stronger the taboo. I really don't see any way to sugarcoat it. Just let them have it without any attempt to sugarcoat it is what I would suggest. Then stand back and watch the sparks fly! Let us know how this turns out, please.

[stu]

Start off by talking about oil in current affairs. Surely everyone is aware of the high price of gasoline. After that mention how oil is a finite resource and therefore production will peak. Mention the US domestic peak as an example.

Make sure you angle the story so that you are showing both sides of the discussion. It's good journalism and less alarmist. Mention theories from both sides-market forces theory for the optimists, Questionable reserves from OPEC countries for the pessimist side. Get some quotes from people who are authorities on each theory (you'll find them in other news reports) and throw in important facts and figures as well.

End it with a summary of both positions and a conclusion that is neutral and gives the impression that either side could be right.

[PenultimateManStanding]

This is really a profound issue and I'm suprised nobody has anything to say to KK about it beyond Stu and me.

[KiddieKorral]

It's an opinion column, not a story.

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KiddieKorral', 'I')t's an opinion column, not a story.

[deconstructionist]

I like bringing up the Chevron commercial. stay on that theme... Shell and ExxonMobil both put out recent studies that support peak oil theory. you can find links to the studies and much analysis elswhere on this site. Airlines are going bankrupt due to fuel costs. talk about the problems we're facing right now due to supply/demand problems and offer some proof that the issue is not simply due to hurricaine season. show that major industries are being effected by this--it is a real issue right here and right now.

i would avoid framing it like "in 30 years there will be no more oil." not that you wrote that in so many words... peak oil is not about running out, as you know. it's about supply not meeting demand, and the havoc that can wreak.

i would also avoid giving creedence to any theory that says it's not going to be a problem. instead put the positive spin on it by talking about things that can be done right now to use less--as using less is really our only recourse. drive less, walk or bike more. shun consumerism. if you shop, shop at locally owned businesses. get grassroots, etc.

best of luck clearning the writer's block. i'd be interested in seeing a draft.

[smiley]

I can't write an opinion for you, but I would probably do something like this. I think the main purpose of such an article should be to get people to think. Keep the argument simple, avoid going into details. Don't throw in too many references or numbers, people don't like that, (reminds them of class).

The beginning is very strong, I would stick to that. However thirty years is not going to impress many, so I would continue with the following question:

So in thirty years the oil is gone, but what will happen in the meantime?

Then I would explain the EIA view. I would stress that until then the EIA scenario assumes that until then it will be business as usual. The oil will be flowing continuously at a constant price until one day all the wells dry out. Just like that.

On the opposing side I would introduce the ASPO view. Between now and 5 years the oil flow will start thinning. As the stream becomes a drip less oil will be available at a higher price.

Then I would force the audience to choose. Which of the two views do they deem more likely?

And finally I would ask them to think about the consequences. How do they see their lives with less oil or even without oil. How will they move, how will they heat their homes, How do they think their food will be transported to them? Do they think that someone is going to solve all these problems for them?


This is what peakoil is all about. One group of people says we have thirty years to prepare, one says less than 5. Who is right? And we cannot afford to be wrong.