by Temperedoil » Fri 01 Dec 2006, 06:33:28
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ElijahJones', '
')
I believe (and hope to hell that I am wrong) that CERA is bought and paid for to give the most optimistic estimate possible while still maintaining a straight face. Their credibility alone means alot of people will waste five more years telling each other what a Saint Yergin is instead of insisting that we have a Marshall Plan for non-fossil energy in this country.
I like to think that CERA, the IEA, and others like them, have the best possible intentions in presenting the figures and analysis that they do. The reason that their figures do not match up to what people on the Peak Oil side of the debate offer is that they are likely to find it far too frightening a scenario to comprehend. Somewhere in there they will be thinking to themselves "this can't be true, this can't be real, this can't be happening", and so they choose to offer some form of reasoning - as much to themselves as to anybody else - to show that everything is okay and nobody has anything to worry about. They may well be just as concerned as we are about what is looking very likely to happen over the next twenty years, but just can't allow themselves to believe that something so monstrously disastrous could be happening in their lifetimes.
Given that it will mean that, basically, humanity has been running full steam down an entirely unsustainable path with absolutely no back-up plan in case things go wrong. Does that sound like something a species calling itself wise would allow itself to do, if it really was so wise and intelligent?
Some people might acknowledge that we got things wrong and now we need to start getting things right. Others, apparently like CERA, would prefer to think that we have been right all along and the path we are on is the right path, no need to change.