[PhilBiker]

Bush and his government are investing lots of money, time, and effort into alternative energies without the press making a lot about it. We know Hydrogen's a dead end with little promise, but they're investing in that to make sure I guess. Wind is being ramped up. Nuclear power is coming back online - Bush is supporting streamlined licensing and applications are being submitted to complete many unfinished facilities.

[julianj]

As far as the UK goes, it seems to me that most of the politicians have the current worldview in spades....i.e. they haven't a clue, and think that the dominant paradigm goes on for ever....for example CLV101's posts about how UK airtravel is going to increase, and I've had conversations with UK civil servants who were utterly baffled by the idea that the USGS and IEA might be wrong.

There's only about half a dozen peak oil aware MPS and MEPs, including Colin Challen, and John Hemmings (who reads this board).

Somebody asked John Hemmings about this at an informal Powerswitch get-together (in the pub, as you might have guessed!) and he said that MPs had so many different pressures and priorities that it wasn't surprising that most couldn't, and wouldn't, focus on one issue, to the exclusion of others. So PO gets lost in the "noise".

That said, I agree with Venky, that TPTB in the US are far more aware; I think the UK establishment just goes along with bonkers US schemes, because that's what we've done for a long time - its sort of a cultural cringe: the top bully got supplanted and now hangs about in the gang because that's where the fantasy of dominance remains.

(I don't think the majority of British citizens want this, but the Establishment has a different view, and holds to its belief that Britain is "Great" and "Punches above its weight in international affairs". An ugly aggressive metaphor.)

So it's more like we - the "West" (which includes places like Australia) are sleepwalking into disaster.

I'm not sure I quite believe the genocide scenarios: 1. because they could go so wrong: bioweapons have a habit of this and they might wipe your own population out instead.

2. What happens if you get caught? I imagine that the recipients would be a tad angry and want retribution.

3. Linlithgow is right too: we've speculated about what might happen for example, if China pulls the plug on the US economy - it seems we're all in this together.

And finally:

Elites like the status quo - violent turbulence is bad for them - pick your particular revolution, so I think they have a vested interest in "business as usual".

[Carlhole]

Ray Kurzweil was on CSPAN-2 the other day, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. He said that the growing science of solar nanotechnology could provide 100% of our energy requirements by 2030 or so.

More and more, it looks like there WILL be a substantial technofix to our energy problems coming from emergent nanotechnologies with solar and other applications.

NO WAY will this scientific/technological explosion we all live in be reversed by an empty petrol pump. Things will just change...not that such a paradigmatic change could not produce some violent wrenching, of course - like maybe a war in the Middle East.

Emerging Uses of Nanotechnology

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Emerging Uses of Nanotechnology in the Energy Industry', '
')
In 2004, governments, corporations and venture capitalists spent more than US$8.6 billion worldwide, and national and local governments across the world invested more than US$4.6 billion, on nanotechnology R&D. This is the last year that governments will outspend corporations on nanotechnology activity as the focus shifts from basic research to applications development. Approximately 1,500 companies worldwide have announced nanotechnology R&D plans. Eighty percent of them are start-ups, 670 of which are in the United States. A key driver is energy independence.

In the United States, activities related to energy include (key agencies in brackets):

· Energetic materials for propulsion, explosives (DOD)
· Catalysis, fuel cells, hydrogen (DOE)
· Advanced power systems (IA)
· Energy conversion and storage for space (NASA)
· Materials science and engineering (NSF)
· Manufacturing processes and equipment (NIST)
· Biomass conversion, hydrogen production, distributed power (USDA)

American nanotechnology companies are working on catalysts and photovoltaics. Nano-stellar is developing highly-efficient platinum nano-composite catalysts for automobile emission control, fuel cells and chemical industry applications. The next-generation technology will finally make solar power competitive. The new photovoltaics use tiny solar cells embedded in thin sheets of plastic to create an energy-producing material that is cheap, efficient, and versatile. Massachusetts-based Konarka expects to deliver its first commercial solar cells designed for use with consumer electronics like laptops, by the end of 2004.

There are opportunities to capture the benefits of nanotechnology in Australian energy through:

· Reduced reliance on fossil fuels and increased use of renewables, in particular solar energy and hydrogen
· Development of solutions tailored to Australia, e.g. distributed energy storage and production
· Growth of companies to manufacture components, catalysts and cells, based on new technologies
· Integration with specialist manufacturing industries, in particular medical and automotive.

PHOTOVOLTAICS (Dr Caruso)

Energy is an essential element for our livelihood and for the advancement of humankind. The majority of our energy is derived from fossil fuels, which we know to be a finite resource that has had a devastating effect on our environment. For some time now there has been a quest for cheap, reliable alternative energy sources which are sustainable. Renewable energy sources include wind turbines, hydropower, and solar power. This presentation focusses on photovoltaics, where light is used to produce electrical power.

[SHiFTY]

Wow the paranoid conspiracy theories are strong in this thread...

The ongoing turmoil in Iraq has shown the futility of 'resource wars'; in that the US would have been financially better off buying oil on the open market, and there would have been much more oil to buy. Even if Iraq had refused to sell oil to the US and sold oil only to, say, China; it would have freed up the capacity of other suppliers. I suspect control of oil supplies in a conflict zone is not worth the considerable cost and as such further resource wars are now less likely.

Politicians are only elected for a few years- we should not expect them to worry about distant future issues until they occur. Cynical, but it's human nature distilled. To give them ridiculous acronyms like TPTB is just attributing them with sinister malevolence that is probably not warranted (but great fun.) "Never attribute to evil that which you can chalk up to incompetence."

If peak oil does occur within the next 10 or so years, I believe nothing much will happen immediately- the doom and gloom on this forum is misplaced IMHO. Eventually a smooth transition to nuclear and other sources of energy will happen in the West and other sufficiently advanced nations. There may be a recession while the transition occurs, but maybe not- large investments in infrastructure generally boosts the economy.

The wildcard is what happens in the impoverished third world, especially the nuclear-armed nations. I suspect a breakdown of society on a large scale could occur there.

[Clouseau2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mark', '
')Is it possible that they are actually competent at something? I suppose so, but I think it highly unlikely. I believe they're just a dumb as a box of rocks.

[GrizzAdams]

I am skeptical about resource wars. Take Iraq for example, all the years of US invovlement in Iraq, have left the oil fields so damaged, that last I heard, totall recover of Iraq oil is at about 10% of what is in the ground. Also I am unclear, as to why a nuclear war, would produce much better results.

[backstop]

I'm amused to see that mine is among the most 'optimistic' of the posts to date in what seems to be a celebration of how hopeless is the situation we face.

To my mind this is sheer emotional indulgence, to the extent of ignoring rational discussion.

There has for instance been no clarification of "TBTB" as logically including all nations' governments, corporations, spiritual leaders, and others who contribute to the sum of society's course - rather there appears a conditioned assumption that power is, and continues to be, a monolithic American artifact.
And this is despite members' awareness of the coming utter loss of US credibility at home and abroad as oil supply ceases to grow and the very climate for agriculture is destabilized.

To ignore the possibilities of optimizing the global position, and the patently obvious probability of growing steadfast global efforts to do so, seems to me perverse and utterly self-defeating.
This is, of course, exactly the fearful apathetic disempowered response that fascistic elements in the US establishment wish to engender in their population, but it seems a shame that PO.com should so tamely serve their malign purposes, bleating all the way.

Given the propaganda, it is perhaps too much to expect America to elect a Gorbachov, with the goals of "glasnost & perestroika" --- transparency and re-structuring -- so Save-the-Humans is likely right in saying that

"The Empire is set on its course" --- which is of running into the sand.

No doubt as Rome was falling similar irrational despair became fashionable there, with the assumption that the world was ending -
However, here in Britain we at last threw the yoke of Roman slavery off the southern half of the island and prepared once more to repel boarders. (In Wales we succeeded in doing so for about eight hundred years and have maintained the language and distinct culture to this day).

Life goes on -- We can choose to wallow in the glamours of 'fin de siecle' emotion and allow the reactionaries to make the worst of it, or we can contribute to making the best of it by all means available.
And the first action is to recognize that our predictions shape others' expectations and thus their will to so contribute.

regards,

Backstop

[Ibon]

I voted that the TPTB don't know the full extent of the problem. There are certainly powerful individuals who understand the implications of peak oil and are advocating resource wars but they do not represent some hidden conspiracy that wield the power in the USA or any other nation. In fact the recent debacle in Iraq will prove that their strategy is as obsolete as an SUV. Resource wars suffer the same constraints as our society at large. They are not SUSTAINABLE. They consume huge amounts of energy, resources and lead to bankruptcy. This will be more and more understood by our collective society, particularly the conservatives, and by that I mean those traditional fiscally conservative. Global cooperation and diplomacy will most likely prevail in regards to energy because it is more sustainable. This wont come about because of an enlightened ideology but from the reality imposed with maximizing the efficiency of our depleted resources. You can not effectively run an economy, conduct resource wars and prevent domestic and global opposition. That is too much choas to contain. The US would need more than the 140,000 soldiers in Iraq trained in urban warfare to conduct a global resource war. Think about it. It's not going to happen.

Our democratic system is like the corporate system, too short term in their strategies and policies. Corporations are beholden of their share holders and their strategy is for short term profit. Elected officials are in office for short periods and do not make the long term painful decisioins. For this reason the US in particular does not know what is really going on because their time line is so short term they are ignorant of the big picture. Maybe we collectively know but we are imprisoned in a system that constrains us from taking the painful decisions necessarry. Yes, that is more accurate.

I predict that following major economic disruption we will start rationing energy and start the transition over to long term thinking, what Japan and Europe have already initiated in their energy policies. The US will have no choice. To control the domestic chaos during this transition we will have the 140,000 soldiers who have been trained in urban warfare ready to be deployed to maintain peace and order here at home. They won find jobs anyway. Some us who love conspiracies will be saying that sending those soldiers over to IRAQ was part of a master plan in training them for the urban warfare required to maintain domestic peace and order. It always looks like some master plan but chaos is a far more catalytic ingredient, just like in biologicial evolution. TPTB are not steering us, we are being steered more by chaos.

[Ibon]

There is a simple logic that is building up a meme in our society that goes like this. "Why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars over in a country like IRAQ trying to turn them into a democracy when they dont really like us when we really need this money here at home to build up our own infrastructure to prevent events like Katrina in New Orleans. This meme explains Bush's low popularity amoungst the populace and this meme will strengthen with time as our resources deplete. This public opinion at home will not be conducive to voting neo-conservatives into office.

[0mar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'T')his public opinion at home will not be conducive to voting neo-conservatives into office.

[Free]

I voted for 4), but I actually think it's a mixture between 1), 3) and 4).

If I am reading through the posts it seems to me that there are roughly two camps:

One sees the TPTB as naturally short sighted puppets/parts of the current system/circumstances/populace who are uncapable or unwillingly of seeing the problem and dealing with it. Or in other words, TPTB is "us".

The other one sees TPTB as an independent actor, capable of seeing the problem, and planning and willing to act either for their personal advantage or the advantage of their "cause", nation, population, whatever.

I tend to lean to the first group, because, aside from Ockhams razor, I think control and power as it is understood most of the times is a mere illusion and fantasy. Everything is connected with everything.
We are all parts of the "system", the juggernaut that is called history, civilization or whatever, no matter how much money or power as an individual or group we have.

I don't deny though that goverments always have planned for securing ressources, and are increasingly doing so. Iraq war, Cheneys Energy task force, and Chinas feverish efforts to secure ressources around the globe may serve as an example.

However, things rarely work out as planned.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('0mar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'T')his public opinion at home will not be conducive to voting neo-conservatives into office.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', ':')!:


I’m convinced that what we will see over the next decade or two is a battle between the People and the Corporations as both struggle for true survival. The People for the most part will eventually opt for a PowerDown – better a little cold and hungry than dead. For the Corps, as Monte has pointed out repeatedly, a PowerDown is equivalent to death – the reason being that the entire structure of Western economics and by extension society is based on a paradigm of un-ending growth.

[chris-h]

Everybody is imitating the monkey.
And the monkey is brainless.
The only instickt of the monkey is to collect bright golden shiny items for him and his friends.
That is what everybody else is doing too.
peak oil ? bahhh who cares ...

[JustinFrankl]

I think you hit it on the head, Ibon, when you said "there is too much chaos to contain".

The events that unfold in the face of resource depletion, climate change, pandemic, mass extinctions, will be significant and far-reaching. And the path that we take there will be the sum product of 6.5 billion+ decisions about whether to trust government, trust your neighbors, trust the economy, trust the media, have faith in god for deliverance, fix the system, initiate new programs, localize and become sustainable, abandon civilization, panic, pillage, or destroy.

And above all else is our paradigm that the planet is ours to do with as we see fit. Which is an enormous part of what led us to the edge.

The level of thinking we used to create these problems cannot be used to solve them.

[RacerJace]

As a few people have pointed out here.. the 'business as usual' approach is the most likely as this is what the capitalist economic machine needs.. continued growth.

My view is that the absolute need for continued growth will go on as long as the economic machine churns and burns away all our resources. Even if this ultimately ends up in small isolated pockets around the globe. TPTB are ultimatley the corporate gods, those who have the ability to make choices for the good of the shareholders, their own personal agenda and actions to justify their bonus income. However corporations, as entities transforming resources, have no conscience. The weak and defensless consumers and workers are and always will be the ones that pay for the foolishness of the corporate gods. Capitalism by nature has alway propagated a growing divide between the rich and poor.

[Ibon]

I was just reviewing today in an editorial about the $ 50 billion additional money that congress approved for the defense spending bill and how legislators next year anticipate an additional beyond that of $ 80-100 billion dollars for next year. We are fast approaching a half trillion dollars of money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. And this is only the opening act of the resource wars many of you predict? Financed by foreign money? That could have been used to build up a more sustainable infrastructure of light rail, public transportation and research into energy independence. Somebody tell me how long this can go on and how resource wars could be expanded before either the public cries foul or we bankrupt ourselves.

[khebab]

I voted #3. I believe TPTB is either not aware of the problem or has transferred the problem toward a potentially beligerant country. PO is too abstract, TPTB needs tangible threats with names (Al-Qaeda, China, Iran, etc.) so that they can act quickly and strongly. The movie Syriana was a good example of how TPTB thinks and will act. TPTB thought Iraq was too close of Russia, Europe and China so necessary actions have been taken to solve the problem! In this context, PO is not "there is not enough oil" but rather "China is consuming too much oil".

[donshan]

I think TPTB "are acting" to give Americans just what they really want- abundant cheap oil. As I see it there are two basic strategies for the US to cope with Peak Oil.

A. Use every power the US has to assure that the American oil companies are first in line for enough of the remaining world oil to keep the US economy growing and the US military "second to none". This is wrapped in a patriotic message, appealing to the American competitive urges to "win", and "nice guys finish last". It applies economic Darwinism and we don't intend to finish second. Is shows up as American's thinking, "what is China doing wanting a share of "our oil" from the Mid East, the Caspian, Venezuela etc." This also requires repudiation of the UN process, since giving every other country a "vote" is to dilute our power for unilateral action. This approach is aimed a a plentiful supply of oil to the US at low prices. This approach means our troops never completely leave Iraq and the MidEast. Vote for gas under $3.00 per gallon as long as possible, and who gives a damn about the rest of the world!

B The alternative is the cooperation/ fairness, "Let's all get along together approach". This would involve a system to share the remaining oil reserves with the world, using the UN to work out a new world order to mitigate the dilemma of Peak Oil. It would involve an "Apollo style R&D program to develop alternative fuels, begin massive conservation efforts, and "sell" the American people on a more austere lifestyle, with higher energy prices. It is a voluntary giving up of American opulence in order to share the resource pie with the Third World to bring up their standard of living while we get by with less. It is a repudiation of Adam Smith's economic "self interest first", and thus requires a whole new approach to Globalization of the world economy which would put "concern for others" above "self interest". Vote for $10 per gallon gasoline in order to fund the transition, cut demand, and leave a larger share of declining World oil supplies for the rest of the world.

Any politician promoting strategy B would be cut to pieces in any election so TPTB in ALL political parties will distance themselves from B as soon as the American people realize it means $10 gas and a different, more austere " American Dream".

A lot of Americans think they want strategy B, but they ALSO want $3 gas and luxury too. This is not a real option, it is a state of denial.

It is only when strategy A leads to chaos, that in our misery we will accept a strategy B leadership that can blend free enterprise economics with concern for others . Sad isn't it.

It will lead to a new strategy that "self interest" is best achieved by giving up a significant portion of one's wealth to those less fortunate. Winner takes all is a losing "self interest" strategy in the long run IMHO.

[Ludi]

It's utter nonsense to believe TPTB "aren't aware of the problem." Of course they are aware, how can you possibly believe they aren't?

Any option other than resource wars is political and financial suicide; of course they won't choose such a thing! War can be made very popular, it is a fine way to manipulate people into doing what is needed, whether business as usual or powerdown. Only under conditions of war would the American people willingly powerdown. They've done it before.