by GoIllini » Tue 03 Jan 2006, 19:26:50
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RacerJace', 'M')y approach has been to weave the point of peak oil into the discussion as seamlessly as possible and just state a few basic facts like the population overshoot and the market indicators like gold and other comodities rocketing up. Sometimes I go too far describing some of the doomer scenarios and cause the discussion to stall as everyone considers the horriffic outcomes. But generally I pick my respondant and offer the level of doomerosity infomation based on what I believe the individual can and will likely accept.
In most cases if I find someone curious enough about it I recommend Life After The Oil Crash or to just google 'peak oil'. I have then followed up with people and have found that most have a general understanding but no where near the comprehension or acceptance of its consequences. Most have even dissmissed it and considered going out with a bang (in most cases I'm not sure if this means go nuts with over indulgence and then commit suicide, but I'm assumiming it is).
In the context of the post subject... I've become somewhat board with peak oil. I've been aware of it since July 2005 and I've been obsessively watching this forum since about September 2005. In that time I've read almost every concievable point of view and prediction. On the whole it has been a major part of crystalising what I now believe. However I am starting to get tired of the same ol same ol posts about predictions of the economy and the human condition. What I find inspiring are the posts about how to prepare.. See the
Planning For The Future threads.
I think it does a real disservice to Peak Oil that we have a doomer website at the top of Google's search results. People are willing to accept the possibility that oil might hit $150/barrel and gas might cost $5/gallon. They aren't willing to accept the possibility that the world needs to change its worldview on energy.
Take a look at the Energy Technology thread right now. We're pretty convinced that nuclear can be a solution to peak oil. We have enough fuel recoverable at a net positive EROI- just from the ocean- to power the world for 5,000 years without reprocessing. (With reprocessing, it's enough for 250,000). Combine that with improving battery technology and PHEVs, and we might have a solution that avoids the doomer scenario. We can take a few steps to address exponential energy growth as we transition to nuclear, and hope that more is done in the next hundred years or so. I don't think we need a complete and utter paradigm shift in three or four years, and I don't think we need to be quite so shocking as to talk about stuff that will scare off folks within the first two standard deviations.
Here's how I sometimes frame it:
"A lot of smart oil geologists think we'll never see $35/barrel oil again. They claim that we've gotten most of the easy-to-find oil, and only the hard to get oil's left. Do you think it's time for us to start worrying about how dependent we are on oil?"
OR
"Why do you think oil prices are so high?"
(You'd be suprised. Most of my friends blame it on various groups a lot less than you'd expect. Then again, I'd like to think that most of my friends are pretty smart.)