[Carlhole]

The official energy story: A lesson in how to undermine it

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Energy Bulletin', 'I')t is now the official story in the United States that there is plenty of energy to be had in the world; it's just that energy that comes in the form of petroleum is mostly in the wrong hands, namely, OPEC-member regimes that hate us.

So, now the quest is for an ever-elusive energy independence that currently involves massive subsidies to ethanol makers, soon-to-be-massive subsidies to would-be coal-to-liquids makers, imports of oil made from Canadian tar sands, oil shale, new nuclear power plants, liquified natural gas imports, and offshore drilling.

There are also preposterous, but widely believed claims about the possibility of a hydrogen economy. (For a brief and intelligent explanation about why it is very unlikely to happen...

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')y contrast, those in the peak oil movement generally start a conversation about oil depletion with an attempt to explain Hubbert's Peak. It is a laudable impulse to want to educate people with all the facts. But it is not necessarily the most efficient way to sway a mass audience. Keep in mind that many of those proposing the solutions outlined in the first paragraph of this piece do not dispute peak oil theory. When confronted with the Hubbert Curve, they will quite confidently respond, "Yeah, we know all about peak oil. And, the solutions are already being perfected: biofuels, coal-to-liquids, tar sands, oil shale, offshore drilling, imported LNG, electrically powered transport from new nuclear power and so on." The challenge isn't to convince people that we have a problem with oil. People know we have a problem with oil. The challenge is to convince them that we don't have the solutions, at least not ones that will allow us to go on living the way we are now.

[shortonoil]

"The challenge is to convince them that we don't have the solutions, at least not ones that will allow us to go on living the way we are now."

MonteQuest said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')uess he hasn't done much reading on this site. That has been my argument since I started posting, as well as, many other members of peakoil.com.

[IanC]

You're right, Monte, but most people don't read this site (no doubt you have published in other areas, too). Even people open to PO won't come here and have their eyes opened.

I like his point about putting the deniers in the role of explaining why there won't be a hard crash and massive upheaval. All the talk about "renewables" and "new technologies" makes me sick. It's like their talking about this while packing their bags to go to their own PO bunker.

-Ian

[AirlinePilot]

This has always been one of the key tenets of my "cultural inertia" theory. There a few people equipped with the ability to grasp the full meaning of what PO is. They get that there is a problem, but fail utterly in understanding the magnitude of that which faces us.

This coupled with the desire to continue the current suburban consumption/growth based paradigm will paralyze most when the time comes that PO smacks them upside the head.

"No worries! tehnology will save us as the price of oil climbs! Then alternatives become cost effective. markets will transition and a new economic surge will happen....you'll see. we'll just do things differently than we do now"

I hear this just about every time I talk about it. You cannot make someone see a thing they dont want to see.

[malcomatic_51]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '
')To convincing explain our dilemma, it is necessary to present the declining available energy perspective to the argument. Unfortunately most people do not have a sufficiently analytical mind to grasp this concept, and this deficiency even applies to many so called pundits of Peak Oil. This makes the task, at best, daunting.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('malcomatic_51', ' ')I have found that even analytical people don't register the problem simply because those in authority have not announced it as a problem. They look around at a world that is pretty normal looking, everyone planning for the future and so forth.

[threadbear]

The message is being carefully crafted for different audiences. Peak Oil wasn't used as a reason to go to war with the Middle East because Americans didn't see themselves as thieving bullies. Self perception has changed though. People in the US are more agitated and anxious now. They are more conditioned to the idea of peak oil wars as necessary in a struggle for survival.

The Peak Oil message for a narrower, more highly educated audience has been there for a few years and has been disseminated by industry insiders, like Matt Simmons (he's pro-war or at least was), and also strangely by detached observers like Kunstler. (also a pro-kick their asses type).

Peak Oil, though basically true, provides a 'solid excuse' for resource wars, particularly if depletion curves are understood to be very steep, and most alternatives and conservation described as being next to useless.

And who does that message serve? Follow the money. It serves Oil interests and ultimately it may also serve the Nuclear industry. Neither is appealing. Look at the projected price of uranium. Some of the green eco focus is funded by fronts for nuclear industry.

Now that the original premise for going to war is seen as bogus, leaving a void of "understanding" in the mind of the average Joe, they will be more open to the "aha" moment where peak oil is accepted as the reason. Perhaps they will percieve the situation as govt looking out for tem all along. Sigh...They'll eat it up, at this point, and might even support further resource wars.

Trust noone.

[Leanan]

Someone over at TOD had an interesting take on that article. He thinks Cobb missed something important: that peak oil is a story about American powerlessness, while global warming and 9/11 conspiracy theories are stories about American power. Evil power, but power nonetheless. Powerlessness is a much, much tougher sell.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'S')omeone over at TOD had an interesting take on that article. He thinks Cobb missed something important: that peak oil is a story about American powerlessness, while global warming and 9/11 conspiracy theories are stories about American power. Evil power, but power nonetheless. Powerlessness is a much, much tougher sell.

[catbox]

I'm sure, as with most big....gnarly...horrible things....most of the American citizens would/will continue to do as they are and do as they are told until nothing is coming out of the pump.
Then...blame someone besides themselves.

I say, put PO on the front page....it wouldn't change a thing..

cb

[steam_cannon]

The official energy story: A lesson in how to undermine it

Following their line of thought, the big problem is that people don't know ethanol won't be a good option, same with other biofuels and other ineffective alternatives. So the idea would be, instead of talking about peak oil, make up a bunch of websites or pages about why each one of these alternatives suck. They actually do suck, so finding material to support that position wouldn't be difficult. And add lots of links to other related pages / googlebomb to get to the top of the search engine list. And blog a bit too...

So get the truth out that the only Alternative Energy that we've got are bad alternatives that won't run a happy motoring future. Add in skepticism of future crop yields and then there you are, then everyone will be a DOOMER!


However, if someone were to take on a campaign like this, I suspect there would be a lot of attacks against this sort of movement from the Department of Defense "News Correction Unit" and possibly oil corporations as well. The 911 truth movement had great success, but I wonder if that is exactly why the News Correction Unit was created. Now they attack blogs with bullshit and cough up people with alternative opinions for news broadcasts. I suspect it would be more difficult to get an idea out today then just several years ago.

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kurt Cobb', 'B')ut my experience tells me that the peak oil movement will make much faster progress if it puts more emphasis on questioning those spouting the official story, thereby forcing them to come up with the detailed explanations.

[keehah]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow come the peak oil story isn't center stage?

[Twilight]

I agree that CO2 emissions and energy consumption are interchangable. One is a proxy for the other. This is an extremely important fact to bear in mind when reviewing policy statements concerning the former.

However, I disagree that any effort is required to conceal the energy picture. Silence is sufficient, because ignorance and lack of curiosity is the default. We hear a lot about climate change these days not so much because of a power-down conspiracy introducing the subject, but because the authorities have found they can use pre-existing public concern they once dismissed at great expense, as a vehicle for the wider consultation now necessary. Now, increasingly radical "what if?" questions can be asked in the public arena without spooking anyone.

Essentially the environmental movement has provided the political/industrial establishment with a smokescreen without realising it. And the establishment for a long time did not realise the utility of what it had been handed.

Strange how things turn out.

What is stranger though, is very few people in power actually mean energy when they talk about CO2 emissions. The majority of political figures are actually quite ignorant about energy, and have taken the euphemisms at face value. It's obvious really, when you can see what modest progress towards understanding they are making in the energy studies they undertake. The number of people who actually mean something else when they refer to future reductions in CO2 emissions is quite small. Just because someone is projecting massive long term CO2 reductions, doesn't mean any ulterior motives lie behind their words. They probably believe what they are saying.

But eventually, the terms of reference of this debate can be used to justify demand-destroying fuel taxes without acknowledging that demand is being artificially curbed to match and lead a supply curve that will decline regardless. It could become a recurring theme, "voluntary" actions being taken at great economic expense, ostensibly for the wider benefit of humanity, concealing as long as possible the fact that the timetable is being dictated by resource depletion.

In theory. Actually I doubt it has any chance of working, even assuming someone is going to try. But in the UK at least, the potential exists. We have this sort of politics.

[jdmartin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', '
') You cannot make someone see a thing they dont want to see.

[untothislast]

The global mindset is currently one which evaluates every action and aspiration against its potential for success in the quest for wealth and economic growth. This, realistically, is the only yardstick by which any of the eventual policies concocted for dealing with the crises confronting us will be decided. The bulk of the avoidable problems closing in on us at present: climate change, PO, loss of biological diversity, desertification etc, ultimately have as their root cause, the prevalence of this shared cultural and philosophical sickness.

And as we're collectively unable to think outside of the paradigm - unable to contemplate any effective course of action which might (heaven forbid!) lead to someone, somewhere, failing to make some serious money out of the deal - we're essentially stuffed.

[Grimnir]

Peak oil is center stage. You just need to be in the right theater.