[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ') It almost of if he's saying, well I'm okay folks, I have my ranch and nice car and I won't be using less fuel because of Jevon's paradox, so two fingers.

[threadbear]

Monte--Nine bucks an hour? Capitalist pig, or what?

[Wildwell]

MQ: About time you got rid of that car and urged others to do the same. I might take you a little more seriously then. Actually I think you have same basic ignorance of facts outside your own area of expertise, just because you get mails of support doesn’t mean you're right. I have observed an intolerance and ignorance of anything I have tried to say, even though they have been backed up with hard statistics. Have I ever said, PO is not a problem? Never. Do I think wanton consumption is going to go on and we will be driving around in circles in cars and taking 3 foreign holidays a year? No. These are major psychological and economic problems. So what’s your problem? It simply isn’t practical to all live on a farm/ranch for everyone and nor is it desirable or necessary. The fact remains your country has wanton consumption, way above everyone else, I’d like to see you encourage less car use, and more sustainable development in towns, then I’ll start to take you more seriously. Well done for the work you have done so far.

And what agenda do I have? None as far as I'm aware, I'm just a little more well informed in some areas than other people.

What you have to say is the doctrine of a few very hardcore environmentalists; you have any sort of development because of your love of nature. That’s understandable. I’m not saying in the very long term (1000s of years) you’re wrong. But we cannot predict the technology in that time, so it is a matter of conjecture. When we hit the limits of growth, which is also a matter of conjecture because we don't know what events may happen, it does not mean die off as you well know. The entire PO is conjecture (other than oil is a finite resource which at some point will run out) not a matter of fact and you should be prepared for debate, this does not mean people are ignorant.

[Doly]

I have noticed there is quite a lot of difference between the American and the European attitude in regards to peak oil: what are the best things to do and the like.

I guess time will tell what is the best attitude in the end... but I'm betting on the European.

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I') have noticed there is quite a lot of difference between the American and the European attitude in regards to peak oil: what are the best things to do and the like.

I guess time will tell what is the best attitude in the end... but I'm betting on the European.

[ohanian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') get so frustrated by seeing the same arguments over and over - "People are resourceful, they'll think of something" "Scientists are clever, they'll think of something" "We can transition to alternative technology" etc etc, you know all that, you've heard it all a million times.

I get sooo frustrated and angry with these same lame arguments, but I'm asking myself, what's so wrong with groundless optismism that things will work out for the best?

What do you think?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'M')Q: About time you got rid of that car and urged others to do the same. I might take you a little more seriously then.

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'M')Q: About time you got rid of that car and urged others to do the same. I might take you a little more seriously then.

[accept_death]

Sorry if I missed something or this is too far off topic, but I'm curious, what kind of car does Monte have? What mileage does it get and what is his justification for having it? I don't mean this in an inflamatory manner, just trying to size up peoples differing additudes towards what should or shouldn't be done in the face of peak oil.

As for the initial inquiry, I'm far less offended by denial than I am groundless optimism. The latter just shows more disdain for reality. It also shows a kind of arrogance, the kind that got us into this mess to begin with. I associate optimism with a "we're really afraid of change, but we'll think of some way to continue our wasteful lifestyle" additude. Denial seems to stem from the acknowledgement that things are going to change, they are going to change for the worse and there is not much we can do about it, might as well just forget about it. Neither additude really changes anything about the situation. They are more personal ways of dealing with Peak Oil. Denial tends to ring closer to reality, so for that reason I find it more noble. Groundless optimism is for those living in fantasy land, where they will be far more shocked when TSHTF.

[Wildwell]

There's groundless optimism and groundless pessimsim here, because no one can predict the exact outcome. They can say, well humans made war over resources in the past, why should they be different over this one? Wars are of course mandated by governments and it’s not yet concluded how one would be started over oil, other than maybe by conspiracy. So whatever anyone says, it’s a grey area.

Then we don’t know how much different taxes, conservation, shifts away from road and air transport (which uses 67% of oil) will make.

Then there’s the question of new technology, for all we know there could be a new energy machine siting in a lab somewhere. It’s also unclear how scalable nuclear, renewables and other forms of energy are. So there’s a whole lot of grey areas, it’s not really set in stone. Infact it’s pretty dum to predict an exact course, no one that has ever made predictions have got something 100% correct.

Lastly, it depends on your current country of residence, life situation and so on.

For some reason I’ve been shot down in flames numerous times for slightly disagreeing over outcomes or showing alternatives – not complete alternatives. This is also not surprising, because once some people have decided and have faith in something then anyone questioning that is not quite the ticket. I'm not 'business as usual' far from it, more powerdown.

On cars, it’s worth noting that if everyone was prepared to give up cars and flying, we wouldn’t have a peak oil problem for at least another 50-100 years, hence why it’s an issue.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', '
')For some reason I’ve been shot down in flames numerous times for slightly disagreeing over outcomes or showing alternatives – not complete alternatives.

[Wildwell]

You say my arguments don't hold water, which ones? I'm not even sure you know what my arguments are. List them.

Are you aware than 5 million jobs (1 in 5) were lost in the UK of the introduction of oil? No problem here if the airlines don't fly.

The pollution caused by road and air contributes to climate change which costs jobs, creates soil degredation and so and and so forth. I woud have thought you'd be all for it! Of course I'm not seriously talking about getting rid of them overnight, it was a point to provide if you can find alternatives then the problem is not as severe as is being made out. Admit it, you won't get rid of that car because you don't want to do anything about it.

13.3 million jobs are connected to the US automotive industry about 1 in 8. But as you keep saying, all labour saving devices are going. Maybe they could transfer to rickshaws and working in the fields?

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

I would like to know how wildwell got to 539 posts without showing what an idiot he is before now....

You admit that you aren't doing anything but claim you won't take others seriously cause they aren't doing what you declare they should. I got one word... TROLL

Speaking of which doesn't this person remind you of Ailrickson?

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('uNkNowN ElEmEnt', 'I') would like to know how wildwell got to 539 posts without showing what an idiot he is before now....

You admit that you aren't doing anything but claim you won't take others seriously cause they aren't doing what you declare they should. I got one word... TROLL

Speaking of which doesn't this person remind you of Ailrickson?

[DamianB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '.').. what's so wrong with groundless optismism that things will work out for the best?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DamianB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '.').. what's so wrong with groundless optismism that things will work out for the best?

[vegasmade]

Wow, this thread has gotten way out of hand. As is typical of modern humans, we can't agree to disagree. That, in and of itself, will doom us to the worst possible PO scenario. As people of many nationalities, us registered members of this forum need to be leading the way to change. We can all agree some sort of change is needed, right? If you answer no, please get outta here, you're wasting our time. If you answered yes, what the hell is going on here? I'm a recent addition to the members here, and haven't always been progressive with my posts. That's my fault and I will try to change. Collectively though, the in-fighting must stop. The members here represent less than 1% of oil users worldwide. If we can't begin to find reasonable solutions, together, then we might as well stop wasting our time and sit back and enjoy the show. Nothing has progressed in the last three pages of this thread, no solutions, and no good answers to the original topic. Some of us will never fully agree, that's to be expected. What can be expected is more time wasted, fighting. Where's the middle ground? the compromise?
I understand that different regions will require different solutions. But if your region can convert to renewables, others may end up burning coal or worse. The point is that the clean user is still affected by the dirty, we're all in this together. Also, it isn't just about us now. Many of our members have kids and families, look at my signature. We don't count, only the future does. That may be the most important thing to remember.
Instead, we (as people aware enough to be viewing this site) need a real strategy for the future. Condeming those with cars, those without, those with optimism, those without, and anything else is fucking silly. Ultimately, we need a plan. That plan, first, must start with awareness. (we can agree on that, right?) Second, each of us needs to begin with small steps toward the future, individually. Lead by example! If you're a gas hog, start rolling it back. If you're mister green, keep at it, and do anything to be greener, that is possible. For many humans, giving up the auto is impossible. We all don't live in homes, in areas, that we're built before cars existed. Some of us need cars/trucks to make a living, so condemnation on that level is groundless and anti-solution. Third, we need to focus locally. What's the saying? You can't tell your nieghbor how to live if your own home isn't in order. That may be the biggest reason behind any pessimism/optimism. Fourth and finally, either have some fact behind your argument or don't argue. Speculation and conjecture are fine if you note that that's what it is. Good facts can't be argued, only denied.
The thing we, as posting members, need to be doing, is developing a way to go mainstream. Otherwise every barrel we don't use, will be wasted by someone else. 100% green, renewable energy is possible. It will be expensive and require many decades to implement, but it is possible. Hey, the sooner we start, the easier it will be for everyone to make the necessary changes. Let the pundits and talking heads fight, we need to work. Every barrel used today is one less to power our conversion, every vegetable grown green means one less needs to be grown black.
As far as GROUNDLESS OPTIMISM, who cares! Really, it's irrelevent. Pessimism too! The only thing that counts is our actions. So let's all stop the bickering and grow up. Together we stand, divided we fall. At minimum, the only division should be between informed and clueless. Anything else is counter productive and ensures the toughest of realities for everyone else to come.

P.S. Does anyone knom the average power usage for a computer? Let's combine that number with the average time spent viewing all this bullshit and hate-speech, and convert into barrels of oil. There's a waste of resources we're all guilty of.

[Liamj]

Nice rave Vegasmade, the trolling and personal attacks are dreary.
Can i radically summarise your plan/prioritising as..
Get it (awareness)
Do it (starting/advancing personal adaptation)
Grow it (draw local others into planning & adaptation)
Know it (base adaptations on actual evidence & experience)
A nitpicker might say Know it should come b4 Do it, but i think the first Do it steps are known to us all and require no extensive research (walk/ride b4 drive, prepare & if possible grow some own food, use less, repair reuse recycle...).

I think 'Know it' has much to say to Groundless Optimism issue. Being optimistic about e.g. coal-to-oil conversion would see me unbothered by oil depletion elsewhere (cos lots of coal here in Vic). But i Know that emissions from brown coal & pit depth/water issues mean no complacency possible. Being optimistic about ppls ability to change their habits and culture would mean dismissing any possibility of civil unrest in time of hardship, but i Know that much history conflicts with that belief.

My point is Groundless Optimism comes from the 'i dont want to know becasue it might challenge my assumptions' school. If your assumption happen to BE wrong, then protecting them is stupid, and dangerous. Keeping prepeak assumptions in postpeak world will result in white elephants, projects & ideas that can't & wont work.
So we see ppl leaping onto hydrogen cos it might let them keep their 'ride to work in style' egotrip. We see the 'markets will provide' mantra being applied, cos some ppl can't admit that that particular cult is a cult & they got sucked in.

Do we have the luxury of pissing away more cheap energy on ego-trips? (and theres no bigger egotrip than thinking your beliefs trump reality)

[Wildwell]

I’ve put together a summary of my arguments, because just to make it clear since I joined the site what stance I hold. Some people are getting very exciting about one or two elements of these, even resorting to name calling. I think most people will agree they are perfectly reasonable.

1. Peak oil is a problem like no other. It will take a vast reconstruction of infrastructure and the way people live in their work and social lives. The date for peak oil is inconclusive, somewhere between now and 2037.
2. Peak oil is principally a Transport problem (70% oil uise) although Transport affects everything we do. Aviation is wholly based on oil and road transport is mostly based on oil. Both Rail and water transport are less energy intensive, can be run without oil and have the potential to be carbon neutral.
3. It not that case that energy has a direct relationship with economic activity as some tasks can vary in their energy intensity. A society can, in theory, become less energy intensive through conservation and changes in the way it does things. If it can reduce its energy take, therefore the scalability of alternatives, like renewable energy are less of an issue.
4. Overall the direct use in oil and gas in agriculture is very low. More, the transport of food has become more energy intensive on account of methods of transport and distance travelled.
5. I do not agree with some people’s *application* of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. For example, the scientists at the following website also agree: http://www.foresight.org/EOC/EOC_Chapter_10.html
6. There is a lot of ‘slack’ in society for conservation, especially the United States.
7. Reliance on foreign oil supplies is bad for any country, especially when that country is very reliant on nations that don’t particularly like them. The more oil is used means foreign powers have greater financial and psychological strength. Therefore it should be a priority of any nation that relies on foreign resources to become less reliant.
8. The burning of fossil fuel like oil is bad for the environment. This represents ‘external costs’. To much road traffic also creates external costs of congestion and increased pollution. Road accidents are also external costs. This system of transport is not socially inclusive and has low flow.
9. People should be educated to respect nature and the environment and use less energy where possible.
10. Growth in limited in a finite world, however in is inconclusive whether resources from other planets can be used.
11. The hydrogen economy depends on Fusion or massive advances in solar collection either on earth or in space. At the time of writing it is inconclusive whether enough energy can be collected to maintain this sort of economy. It is also iinconclusive whether hydrogen cars can be made cheap enough for mass market or enough can be made.
12. It should be priority of any government to reduce energy consumption and road traffic. The public must be educated to understand that alternatives are not competition but are valuable ways they can save time and energy.
13. Tax on fuel is not a bad thing if it reduces unnecessary journeys and is used to fund alternatives.
14. Around 25% of road journeys are less than 2 miles and 50% are less than 5 miles. Other car journeys are not necessary and do not generate significant benefits. Therefore there is room to reduce car use and switch to alternative such as walking, cycling etc
15. In many countries it is perfectly possible to go about life without cars and planes, not using each mode of transport does not mean sudden death. These modes use 55% of oil on average.
16. Growth does not mean benefit for everyone. Quality of live does not have a linear relationship with money. Friends, family and a certain amount of spirituality tend to be more fulfilling. A quieter and slower world and life should be seen as a positive thing rather than negative.
17. The exact outcomes of ‘Peak oil’ are inconclusive. There are many factors at play and issues of scalability, conservation, alternatives, technology, and psychology. However in the short term rising oil prices are likely to create headwind. Oil has only been significant since 1900 and important since 1945. Previously the world was built on coal. Coal powered rail traffic was the catalyst that built most of the old industrial society and Europe was fully developed by the 2nd world war through coal and rail, not oil. Newer countries like the US are most reliant on Oil using twice the oil per capita of the Europeans. The world changed from coal to oil and was partially rebuilt from around 1920-1960.
18. Poorer societies and those that are heavily reliant on oil will suffer the most. For example, in the UK if the price of crude oil doubles, this represents a 20% cut in road tax, which has a negligible affect on the economy. Yet, in poorer countries it may be the difference between being able to use oil at all. 1 in 6 of the world use the most oil, therefore the heaviest users may see significant changes in the medium and long term. Those most reliant will see the most changes.
19. Die off is more likely in poor countries, however this has always been the case.
20. Population growth is the heaviest in developing nations. The population growth in industrial countries among its indigenous population is very small or even in decline (eg Japan). Money, land availability and social factors have a large part to play in population growth in developed countries. It does not follow there is a population overspill. Developing countries tend to have the most population growth to maintain their subsistence and semi-subsistence style of living.
21. Economics dictates the tighter the supply, the greater the price and less and possibly more efficient the use As oil is not for 100 years or more it therefore follows that there is leeway for a certain amount of transition, using different transport systems, means of production and so on. The days of fossil fuel burning are now coming to a close in any case because of climate change concerns.
22. Governments do control use of resources or products in society. Why should oil be any different? If they are prepared to limit smoking and drinking it follows they are prepared to limit oil use.

Anyway, I have nothing more to add to the site, really need to get down to making better use of the energy my computer uses. Have fun!

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think most people will agree they are perfectly reasonable.