PeakOil is You
Anger, fear and obsession
Fear mongering
by Ludi » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 14:01:12
I'm accused of fear mongering when trying to discuss Peak Oil. I'm told alternatives will become practical when oil reaches a certain price, and that there won't be any sudden change, just a gradual decline in supply which will be replaced by alternatives. I'm not seeing any numbers to back that up, but what can I say to the optimists? I wish they were right but I'm not seeing the numbers to back up their claims...
- Ludi
by Cash » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 14:28:07
Ludi, for those who say that alternatives will become feasible once oil reaches a certain price, remind them that people were saying the exact same thing back in the 1970s during the energy crises of that decade. "Once oil reaches $15 a barrel, solar energy will be feasible. When oil reaches $18 a barrel, extraction from oil sands (or shale) will be feasible. When oil reaches $20 as barrel, alcohol will be economical." Well, we're well past all those benchmarks, and I don't see any of it coming true.
The problem is that all of those alternatives DEPEND ON OIL TO BE CREATED, and as oil increases in price, so do the alternatives. The manufacturing process for the silicon chips used in PV panels, the natural gas required to produce the steam needed for oil sand extraction, the steel/carbon fiber/copper/labor required to build a wind generator. All depend on cheap oil-provided energy. If our society/civilization were really serious about preparing for Peak Oil, we would be using the current availability of relatively cheap oil to build the factories/windfarms/educational facilities/research we need to face a post-Peak Oil future.
Obviously that isn't happening. The best advice I can offer -- having been there-done that in my own life -- is to stop trying to persuade people. Stop even mentioning Peak Oil to friends and family unless they bring it up first in a way that tells you they are open to talking about it. You won't change any minds, and you may just alienate your friends and family in the process. Prophets truly are without honor in their own lands.
BTW, they are right in one respect. When we reach Peak Oil, it will not be followed by some sudden cliff-like drop in production. The other side of the Hubbert Bell Curve goes down as gradually as it went up -- *all other things being equal.* If global realization that we're on the downside of the curve brings all sorts of resource wars, internal revolution, and external conflict, all bets are off.
If you're interested in learning more about the *possible* future, I suggest you look for a copy of Michael Klare's "Resource Wars" and Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations." Klare talks about the coming conflicts over increasingly scarce resources, from oil to water to minerals, while Huntington analyzes the coming clash of cultures, such as our current one between the West and Islam. If you think it's bad now, these two together will convince you it can only get worse.
Klare BTW has a new book out. I haven't had a chance to look it up yet, buut the comments I've read so far sound promising.
Cash
The problem is that all of those alternatives DEPEND ON OIL TO BE CREATED, and as oil increases in price, so do the alternatives. The manufacturing process for the silicon chips used in PV panels, the natural gas required to produce the steam needed for oil sand extraction, the steel/carbon fiber/copper/labor required to build a wind generator. All depend on cheap oil-provided energy. If our society/civilization were really serious about preparing for Peak Oil, we would be using the current availability of relatively cheap oil to build the factories/windfarms/educational facilities/research we need to face a post-Peak Oil future.
Obviously that isn't happening. The best advice I can offer -- having been there-done that in my own life -- is to stop trying to persuade people. Stop even mentioning Peak Oil to friends and family unless they bring it up first in a way that tells you they are open to talking about it. You won't change any minds, and you may just alienate your friends and family in the process. Prophets truly are without honor in their own lands.
BTW, they are right in one respect. When we reach Peak Oil, it will not be followed by some sudden cliff-like drop in production. The other side of the Hubbert Bell Curve goes down as gradually as it went up -- *all other things being equal.* If global realization that we're on the downside of the curve brings all sorts of resource wars, internal revolution, and external conflict, all bets are off.
If you're interested in learning more about the *possible* future, I suggest you look for a copy of Michael Klare's "Resource Wars" and Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations." Klare talks about the coming conflicts over increasingly scarce resources, from oil to water to minerals, while Huntington analyzes the coming clash of cultures, such as our current one between the West and Islam. If you think it's bad now, these two together will convince you it can only get worse.
Klare BTW has a new book out. I haven't had a chance to look it up yet, buut the comments I've read so far sound promising.
Cash
- Cash
by mindfarkk » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 14:35:03
i think it is safest is simply to lead the horse to water and let them draw their own conclusions , which is only fair anyway. i can't say i've made up my mind entirely, and i was predisposed to understand and accept these concepts. someone who has never really seriously considered environment or energy issues, or economic/political theories, is going to have a really hard time assimilating the hows and whys of PO.
i was thinking about this today. obviously the implications of PO are, for many americans, pretty radical. it means, potentially, losing everything; it means accepting a huge abyss of the unknown, being unable to fully control or prepare; it means, maybe most of all, a complete loss of identity, since most americans derive their identity from their possessions and other "signs" of their social position and status, such as their jobs.
this experience is for most US citizens, and maybe many or most citizens of industrialized nations, or even the world, literally or potentially traumatic. introducing the human mind to ideas or experiences it is not prepared to assimilate will result in one of two things; rejection (where there is a choice) or psychological trauma. noone - and i mean noone - volunteers for trauma. i don't think it's possible. a great many people in this world have trauma thrust upon them but i believe, although i can't prove this myself, that the very nature of trauma means that it will be resisted until broken. you can't "will" yourself to undergo trauma because it's the very mind that wills that is being damaged == in the experience.
so i think the best way is to lay the groundwork with the demonstrable facts, let them stew, and if you are socially conscious enough to be concerned with what happens to your community, dedicate yourself to preparing and planning how your community can react to various economic outcomes. because if worse comes to worst, you will have an awful lot of people confused and terrified and absolutely vulnerable to any kind of control of leadership. if TSHTF they will follow anyone who offers them a solution that will allow them to make sense of the world again and find their place in it, no matter what that solution looks like. the bad news is that the bad guys can, and almostly certainly will, take advantage of this. the good news is, so can you. if you have a plan, and people are feeling lost, they will grab onto the first thing that floats past. but i think for most people you will have to wait until they can't find any way to resist what's happening.
in a sense this has already happened, with the 9-11 attack and the coordination of support for the ensuing war and current administration. the neocons seized the opportunity to consolidate a populace whose world had been turned upside down, because we felt safe and insulated from outside attack, and suddenly we felt vulnerable and uncertain of our facts. the neocons stepped up the myth-building and here we are. paralyze the critical faculties with fear, then step in with solace and security. zap, console. zap, console. it's negative/positive reinforcement in training. move away from the pain, move toward the comfort.
if PO is unbearably threatening and painful, people will move without any thought into the comfort of denial, and the harder you work them the more elaborate their defences will become.
but, when the comfortable position becomes more painful than post-PO solutions, they will move toward the solutions in a panicked rush. the question is, what solutions will they find first?
i was thinking about this today. obviously the implications of PO are, for many americans, pretty radical. it means, potentially, losing everything; it means accepting a huge abyss of the unknown, being unable to fully control or prepare; it means, maybe most of all, a complete loss of identity, since most americans derive their identity from their possessions and other "signs" of their social position and status, such as their jobs.
this experience is for most US citizens, and maybe many or most citizens of industrialized nations, or even the world, literally or potentially traumatic. introducing the human mind to ideas or experiences it is not prepared to assimilate will result in one of two things; rejection (where there is a choice) or psychological trauma. noone - and i mean noone - volunteers for trauma. i don't think it's possible. a great many people in this world have trauma thrust upon them but i believe, although i can't prove this myself, that the very nature of trauma means that it will be resisted until broken. you can't "will" yourself to undergo trauma because it's the very mind that wills that is being damaged == in the experience.
so i think the best way is to lay the groundwork with the demonstrable facts, let them stew, and if you are socially conscious enough to be concerned with what happens to your community, dedicate yourself to preparing and planning how your community can react to various economic outcomes. because if worse comes to worst, you will have an awful lot of people confused and terrified and absolutely vulnerable to any kind of control of leadership. if TSHTF they will follow anyone who offers them a solution that will allow them to make sense of the world again and find their place in it, no matter what that solution looks like. the bad news is that the bad guys can, and almostly certainly will, take advantage of this. the good news is, so can you. if you have a plan, and people are feeling lost, they will grab onto the first thing that floats past. but i think for most people you will have to wait until they can't find any way to resist what's happening.
in a sense this has already happened, with the 9-11 attack and the coordination of support for the ensuing war and current administration. the neocons seized the opportunity to consolidate a populace whose world had been turned upside down, because we felt safe and insulated from outside attack, and suddenly we felt vulnerable and uncertain of our facts. the neocons stepped up the myth-building and here we are. paralyze the critical faculties with fear, then step in with solace and security. zap, console. zap, console. it's negative/positive reinforcement in training. move away from the pain, move toward the comfort.
if PO is unbearably threatening and painful, people will move without any thought into the comfort of denial, and the harder you work them the more elaborate their defences will become.
but, when the comfortable position becomes more painful than post-PO solutions, they will move toward the solutions in a panicked rush. the question is, what solutions will they find first?
-
mindfarkk - Coal
- Posts: 441
- Joined: Tue 07 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
by Aaron » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 18:05:33
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')lternatives will become practical when oil reaches a certain price
Sustained higher energy price is the peak oil argument.
What they miss is that these alternatives won't bring the costs down, but rather join the energy mix at a higher price.
Compared to hydrocarbons, almost all alternatives will become viable eventually... that's no argument.
Replacing oil with more expensive alternative means higher energy costs.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he other side of the Hubbert Bell Curve goes down as gradually as it went up
Not necessairly...
If we believe the claims of Maximum Extraction technology like vertical wells, water pressure, bottle brush and others, the down slope could be much steeper than the upswing.
There is historic evidence of these technologies leading to a virtual crash in a well's production. (Yemen)
More important than how the "have" nations replace hydrocarbons, is how the "have-nots" handle things.
We already see resource conflict in several regions today. What happens to these already unstable regions as prices rise?
Do we really expect India, China & Africa to deploy a hydrogen solution?
Nuclear?
Solar?
The question is how will a deteriorating third world affect everyone else?
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron - Resting in Peace
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
by savethehumans » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 19:57:48
Thanks for that, Aaron! I can agree with most of what's said above, but I've never been comfortable with the "decline as gradual as the ascension" theory.
It's just basic physics, people: going downhill is a LOT faster than going uphill! Even if it's not falling off a cliff, it's gonna be speeeeedy!
It's just basic physics, people: going downhill is a LOT faster than going uphill! Even if it's not falling off a cliff, it's gonna be speeeeedy!
-
savethehumans - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1468
- Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
by Itch » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 20:57:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'b')ut, when the comfortable position becomes more painful than post-PO solutions, they will move toward the solutions in a panicked rush. the question is, what solutions will they find first?
You have some good observations in your post, mindfarkk. I think the asnwer to your question is based on how easy the proposed solutions may be. People enjoy putting in little effort to gain results. Get rich quick. Lose weight within days. Forget about studying; just cheat on the test.
In my opinion, convenience has been the basis for all invention, and people in the United States seem to be especially fond of gluttonous convenience. Unfortunately, dealing with an irreversible energy decline isn't very convenient, and I think that people are more likely to place their faith behind those who promise to return them to their state of complacency. Why would they want to change? They don't know of anything else, and learning how to live without automobiles, television, and and other shiny resource compilations would be difficult.
On a community basis, effective solutions will require an insane amount of sacrifice for most people. If they can do it, then that's great, but it would be so much easier to place faith in those who provide the necessities for survival, rather than actually being responsible for themselves. Most people do not know how to grow food, hunt, fish, and forage; repair and build a variety of materials; and defend their materials -- they know how to rely on others to do these inconvenient tasks. Very few people can do these things, and fewer people can do them to the point of where they can nourish themselves.
As you demonstrated in your Big Plane Crash example, people chose comfort, and resorted to posturing instead of sacrifice; they bought things from China and talked about how much they love their troops. I think that things will remain the same when things get noticeably worse. The bad guys will offer the easy solutions in exchange for their subjects to bend over further; the sensible people wil probably be destroyed.
On a large scale, the bad guys will win. They always do. If you are able to implement reasonable solutions in your local community, you will be very lucky.
-
Itch - Lignite
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
by uNkNowN ElEmEnt » Fri 31 Dec 2004, 22:35:43
This is bringing up some really good questions for me. Yes,t he bad guys do usually win but its usuallybecause they know (or have orchastrated) what is going on. But now, we have the knowledge. There might be a way for people to do things on a local level. STart with community gardens. you don't have to say why, say its a community building thing.
then when the SHTF, if you have convinced and got some people around to your way of thinking, if you control the food (or the community gardens you've helped your community to set up) who are the hungry masses gonna listen to?
Normally, we know there is no way in hell this would happen, but it might be possible to change things. let the masses follow you or your groups voice. but you have to have a plan for people to follow, something to put in place right away. (a soap box on a street corner could be handy too).
as for:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')that the very nature of trauma means that it will be resisted until broken
then when the SHTF, if you have convinced and got some people around to your way of thinking, if you control the food (or the community gardens you've helped your community to set up) who are the hungry masses gonna listen to?
Normally, we know there is no way in hell this would happen, but it might be possible to change things. let the masses follow you or your groups voice. but you have to have a plan for people to follow, something to put in place right away. (a soap box on a street corner could be handy too).
as for:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')that the very nature of trauma means that it will be resisted until broken
having spent 8 years as a prison guard and seen a great deal of trauma and the effects of it, I have to say this is probably the best way I've ever heard this concept expressed. everybody has heard that the tough hard oak tree that does not have any "give" in it will crack, split or break but the willow bends and survives the winds of change. but that doesn't talk about the trauma of it and what effect that will have.
-
uNkNowN ElEmEnt - Expert
- Posts: 2587
- Joined: Sat 04 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: perpetual state of exhaustion
![[smilie=laughing9.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/laughing9.gif "laughing9")
![[smilie=iamwithstupid.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/iamwithstupid.gif "iamwithstupid")
![[smilie=icon_rolleyes.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif "icon_rolleyes"){kind=icon}
![[smilie=new_Eyecrazy.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/new_Eyecrazy.gif "new_Eyecrazy")
![[smilie=dark1.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/dark1.gif "dark1")
LOL! ROTFLAMO!! 
![[smilie=5sigh.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/5sigh.gif "5sigh")
