Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on April 1, 2016
Peak Oil: Are We Not Better Than This?
I’ll confess that I hesitated before starting this series. It was too easy to again just dive into mockery and sarcasm over pieces written several weeks ago by those who refuse to give credence to the concept of peak oil and/or its implications. [It’s also the gateway to yet another round of verbal grenade lobbing which generates a lot of high-five’s with fellow ideologues, but little else.]
I’ve contributed my share of mocking on numerous occasions, to be sure. It’s just part of the ongoing Left-Right hostilities….Tiresome. Pointless. Embarrassing. Damaging … always.
That exercise would have been gratifying to me, but only me. I need to have a more enlightened response to the question posed above. Doing more of the same will produce more of the same, and few of us seem to be benefitting from that strategy these days.
At first glance the subject matter of this series [Friday-only, and for a number of weeks to follow] may seem to be yet another opportunity to take down yet another [two, actually] light-on-facts, right-wing Happy Talk offerings generated for public consumption. Like so many others of similar content and intent, they played well to the far reaches of the Right, judging by most of the comments, and they were consistent with the messages offered in opposition to all things Obama and/or progressives.
Neither those comments nor the material offered by the two writers for their respective conservative publications [American Thinker and Townhall, to be discussed later in this series] were much different than countless others supporting the same essential message: but for President Obama, America would be great, yadda, yadda, yadda; and we have more than enough energy resources available to us for almost forever, yadda, yadda, yadda.
From my decidedly left-leaning perspective, it’s not especially useful; it’s barely truthful; is filled with bold assertions and statements supported by … well, not much, and as for its informative value to the public? Nada. The comments by and large reflect an unfortunate lack of understanding and appreciation of the energy challenges ahead. The commenters, like the authors, have also consumed enough of the right-wing Kool-Aid to suggest that nothing offered in this series is goings going to matter at all. But that’s no reason to avoid avoid the attempt.
Maddening, to be sure, but if I followed my initial inclinations, I would be doing little to advance the cause and primary purpose of this blog and the efforts of others urging greater awareness about Peak Oil. I’ve been guilty of getting away from that intent on more than a few occasions….
Those of us concerned about the implications of peak oil have assumed a mantle of responsibility to better inform the public about all of the facts regarding fossil fuel production and supply … a flawed effort at times, no doubt—good intentions notwithstanding. But there are facts and realities about current and future energy production and supply which aren’t offered to the public nearly often enough. Likewise, the reliance on limited snippets of pseudo-information from the more vocal opponents to our message is both puzzling and worrisome.
Their contributions are instead clearly intended to reinforce a Cornucopian point of view which can only be supported by readers if what’s offered contains as little genuine factual information as possible. Those tactics substantiate [as do the comments themselves] what a great body of research consistently confirms about the characteristics of the conservative personality: an avoidance of any ambiguities; little appetite for nuance or broader discussions; a need for closure—demonstrated most often by strict Manichean thinking while simultaneously hanging on to the first reasonably valid piece of evidence supporting one’s viewpoint as the beginning and end of a dispute—and the expected vitriol directed at those who disagree, regardless of the reasons or rationales.
It’s the standard MO for those on both the Left and the Right, although [subject to my own biases] the rancor and dismissive treatment of those on the other side of the ideological divide seem much more pronounced when directed at progressives. There are occasions when I’m convinced more intelligent and reasoned debate could be found among a random group of fourth-graders.
But to do nothing and take no steps to challenge the misleading nonsense which continues to dominate public conversation is the greater abdication of social responsibility. Powerful interests and entrenched beliefs make a difficult challenge that much more difficult. An intensely polarized electorate is not eager to pause for even a moment to listen to what the “enemy” has to say. It’s a game we’ve learned to play well, but at what cost?
Massaging a few facts while ignoring a great many more is a tactic that has worked well for those organizations and individuals whose interests do not match those of the consuming public. It’s also done for political gain, of course. And there’s no question that certain industries have benefited greatly by keeping the general public mis-, under-, or un-informed on matters of national/international significance.
There is actually more than one side to the energy supply story.
The narrative of energy abundance is certainly more appealing for any number of reasons, but we have some issues to deal with in the not-too-distant future. Knowledge is the first order of business, disquieting as the facts may be. Finding ways to persuade those resistant to the information is of vital importance, but that may be the most challenging aspect of all.
With knowledge comes an awareness of what we’ll be facing. A deeper understanding of all of the relevant facts leads to a broader perspective on both the positive aspects of our impressive technological gains and the sobering realities. Dependence on finite resources has its limitations, and there are unpleasant consequences ahead if we just continue to continue doing the same. Being wrong about this would be ideal, but we—I—have serious doubts about that outcome being the likeliest.
It’s a much more attractive choice to focus on nothing but good news, of course. But when the good news is propped up by a script light on the realities, heavy on both the qualifiers and bold assertions intended to be accepted as gospel truth [they’re not, by the way], the Happy Talk loses a lot of its initial appeal. Postponement of discussions and/or obstruction just to obstruct and oppose are not ideal problem-solving strategies—not when the stakes are as high as they are as regards climate, public policy, and energy supply.
Making the public aware is crucial. Learning all of the facts a day [or two] early will be a much better option than a day late on issues of such critical importance and widespread impact. [Actually, a lot more than just a couple of days advance notice is the goal … a lot more days….]
Worse still, as the articles I’ll be discussing make clear, there are still legions of fellow citizens who take great delight in coughing up hot-button phrases and clever insults [not always on point, of course], both as the sum total of their involvement and as indicators of their awareness and understanding—or, more accurately, lack thereof. Will there be a time when just scoring points for the team—without concern for outcomes, rules, or facts—stops being the only objective? Ignoring, trivializing, or mocking the potential consequences [or the messengers] does not afford “the opposition” a shield from unpleasant outcomes. Ideology affords few such protections.
It might be gratifying to be correct about the message we peak oil advocates are compelled to deliver, but it is much more important that we all understand and prepare for the energy supply challenges ahead. Outright rejection and mockery are the instinctive responses over most contested issues of the day, but we can only hope that sooner rather than later enough of the participants start wondering What Happens If…?
That would require accepting the fact that the other side actually has some valuable, truthful information to share. Ideological noses might be bent out of shape as a result, but if that’s the worst outcome, we’ll all be grateful for having made a more determined and honorable effort to work together.
Conflict begets conflict. When is enough, enough?
To be continued next Friday….
37 Comments on "Peak Oil: Are We Not Better Than This?"
Plantagenet on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 1:55 pm
Peak Oil is a scientific theory—not a left vs. right or R vs. D issue. Some people assume the Ds support the idea of peak oil, but in reality the only real advocate for peak oil in the history of the US congress has been an R. The Ds mostly support business as usual— for instance in this campaign Hillary is taking big bucks from oil companies for her campaign, and Obama ran for president in 2012 by boasting that under his leadership the US now had a 100-year-long supply of natural gas.
Cheers!
Boat on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 2:13 pm
I don’t remember either party talking about peak oil. I do remember the R. blaming the D. for lack of US drillin, lack of refinery building and the high price of gasoline.
Of course fracking proved all that to be lies. Decades of BS.
GregT on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 2:14 pm
“An intensely polarized electorate is not eager to pause for even a moment to listen to what the “enemy” has to say.”
Left and right, Rs and Ds. Divide and conquer, the oldest strategy in the book.
GregT on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 2:19 pm
“Of course fracking proved all that to be lies. Decades of BS.”
Of course it was. Thanks to fraking, America is now energy independent. Peak Oil is dead, long live Oil!
onlooker on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 2:21 pm
Peak Oil a glimmer into limitations of Planet Earth. This one along with others seem to be conveniently forgotten and ignored by the political process, campaigning and hot button issues. Nobody benefits from acknowledging limits. So we continue living in delusion. Dream on all the delusional people, reality will soon shock us out of our delusions and illusions.
HARM on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 3:27 pm
The core problem of Peak Oil theory, much like Ehrlich’s much derided Population Bomb, or the Meadows’ Limits to Growth is that predictions based on such theories (or computer models, as with LTG), is that there are just too many variables to get the exact timing and other details right.
People here mock anyone who disagrees with even the most extreme (and unlikely) doomer prognostications and label them as “cornucopians”, even when so called “cornucopians” only differ from the doomers on timeline or other specifics, not the ultimate outcome.
As George Monbiot famously declared, “We were wrong on Peak Oil, there’s enough to fry us all.” U.S. and global production keeps on reaching new highs, something that was blithely dismissed impossible here a few short years ago. Peak Oil must happen at some point, but it’s been pushed off so far in the distance, most of us will likely never see it happen.
The housing, stock and credit bubbles are now fully reflated, and Wall Street has never been more powerful, exerting its pernicious influence everywhere in the world, while everyone else stands powerless to do anything about it. Far from an Age of Consequences, we seem to be living in the Age of No Consequences for Oligarchs. Where anything goes and nothing matters –as long as you belong to an elite faction.
HARM on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 3:45 pm
@onlooker,
From where I’m sitting (U.S.) “reality” is a quaint but long discarded theory, a charming relic of the past, much like reason, fiduciary responsibility, honesty, compassion, charity, human decency, etc.
How far can our collective delusion continue? Who knows, but “this sucker” (as a folksy former President put it) shows no signs of going down or even slowing down. The Matrix continues, stronger than ever.
Truth Has A Libral Bias on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 3:55 pm
@plant
Peak oil is not a theory it is an observation. Anybody with grade 12 would know that. You are obviously a fucking retard.
onlooker on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 4:03 pm
“The Matrix continues, stronger than ever.” No Harm that is just part of the delusion, the Matrix. The System is buckling, jobs are being lost not to be replaced, downsizing is booming. Infrastructure problems are getting worse. Money is funneled along for unsavory war and greed and the Main St economy is being hollowed out more as people flock to govt. assistance in record numbers like food stamps. So not stronger than ever but slowing collapsing and that collapse will only get faster and faster. You can cheat reality but not its consequences.
Anonymous on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 4:03 pm
When did the ‘polarized’ electorate in the americant empire ever have any say or input deciding energy policy in the uS?
Im pretty sure, it was NEVER. The only thing the uS ‘electorate’ gets polarized over is coke vs pepsi, ford or chev, or Dancing with the star v Survivor.
onlooker on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 4:05 pm
Im pretty sure, it was NEVER. The only thing the uS ‘electorate’ gets polarized over is coke vs pepsi, ford or chev, or Dancing with the star v Survivor.
haha love that line.
HARM on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 4:21 pm
@Truth,
Name calling is seldom conducive to constructive debate, no? Aside from that, Planter was *defending* not attacking Peak oil. And for the record it *is* a scientific theory, based on… observations.
GregT on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 4:45 pm
“The only thing the uS ‘electorate’ gets polarized over is coke vs pepsi, ford or chev, or Dancing with the star v Survivor.”
Come on Anonymous, everyone knows that Survivor is the more realistic reality show. Take the ‘actors’ out of the jungle, dress them up in business casual, and they’ll do the same shit to each other in the corporate board room. As real as it gets. 🙂
Boat on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 5:19 pm
GregT,
” Thanks to fraking, America is now energy independent. Peak Oil is dead, long live Oil”!
Learn to read charts. PS Peak oil sets new highs on a regular basis. Try to keep up.
onlooker on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 5:24 pm
Boat you never cease to amaze. Your fracking and shale dreams are just that. Try to keep up with what is happening on the NET energy side of things.
marmico on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 6:17 pm
Try to keep up with what is happening on the NET energy side of things.
An EROI decline from 100 to 10 means that for every 100 units of gross energy there is a decline in net energy from 99 units to 90 units.
Assume that in 1965 [2015], EROI was 100 [10] and 99 [90] net units ended up in your gasoline tank and each unit was a gallon. At 14 mpg in 1965, you could travel 1,386 miles on 100 [99] gross [net]units. At 23 mpg in 2015, you could travel 2,070 miles on 100 [90] gross [net] units, or 50% further.
Try to keep up. EROI is not a big deal.
Davy on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 6:26 pm
“The housing, stock and credit bubbles are now fully reflated” Harm is China reflated because China is all that matters. You don’t have another spare China laying around do you? Wall Street and housing are irrelevant in the global system compared to China. Without 10% Chinese growth deflation can never be overcome. Deflation and decay have random unpredictable outcomes meaning any day could be our last normal day or normalcy could drag on in a slow death.
Truth Has A Libral Bias on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 6:48 pm
@Harm
You’re a fucking retard too.
GregT on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 6:55 pm
“Try to keep up. EROI is not a big deal.”
Spoken like a true e-CON-omist.
Boat on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 7:36 pm
onlooker,
” Try to keep up with what is happening on the NET energy side of things”.
Explain yourself. BTU? Last world chart I looked at showed increased consumption for decades.
Harquebus on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 8:05 pm
As Truth stated, peak oil is an observation, not a theory.
“Ignore if you must climate change, biodiversity collapse, the depletion of water, soil, minerals, oil; even if all these issues were miraculously to vanish, the mathematics of compound growth make continuity impossible…” — George Monbiot.
makati1 on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 9:30 pm
Back and forth. Back and forth. The deniers will never see reality and the realty seers will never change the set mind of the deniers because, deep down, they do see and it scares them shitless.
The “Peak Oil” topic is a red herring, dragged across the unthinking persons path to distract him/her from seeing the real collapse all around them, obfuscation at it’s best, while the elite drain the last drop of the peasants blood. It sure creates clicks, or whatever, to power the internet site, but does nothing to change things.
If you cannot see the chaos and collapse happening more and more all around you, you are making a deliberate effort to not see it. To not understand that it means the end of your easy way of life is a sign of stupidity or, at best, ignorance of interconnected systems. Or both.
You cannot force someone to see what he/she wants to ignore. I have given up pounding my head against that wall.
“Former Defense Secretary Says US on “Precipice of New Arms Race” as Obama Plans $1 Trillion in “Small, Flexible” Nukes”
“The U.S. Is In For Much Greater Civil Unrest Ahead”
“Fragile five’: These OPEC producers are on the verge of collapse if oil prices don’t stabilize soon”
“A fifth of the world’s population will be obese by 2025 as one in nine go hungry”
“Mysterious Bacteria Linked To At Least 17 Deaths In Midwest”
“El Niño falls short leaving California in drought”
And on and on in http://ricefarmer.blogspot.fr/
Pass the popcorn. The show is getting exciting.
Practicalmaina on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 9:41 pm
Well said Makati, does not matter the price or barrel count, everyday tens of thousands at the bottom will starve. The price of oil has no effect on them, the wars for it, water stolen in pursuit of it, and climate destruction it results in will make their homelands more unlivable. So people can feel important in their suv.
HARM on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 10:55 pm
Peak Oil most definitely *is* a theory. But scientific theory =/= “theory” in the way most non-scientists think of it (i.e., something not proven; up for open debate). People seem to get needlessly hung up on the semantics.
The “Theory” of evolution is firmly established (“proven”) by a colossal amount of physical evidence, genetics, laboratory testing and accepted by virtually every scientist on the planet (barring a few Creationist crackpots). Nonetheless, it’s still considered a “theory”, not a physical “Law” like gravity.
GregT on Fri, 1st Apr 2016 11:09 pm
Peak Oil is only a theory if you ignore the historical data, otherwise it is an observation.
onlooker on Sat, 2nd Apr 2016 2:26 am
Well said Mak, at this point only the willfully ignorant cannot see the collapsing dynamic underway.
sidzepp on Sat, 2nd Apr 2016 9:13 am
80 million new people joining the population every year. Meaning that the world is adding one Germany every year. Assuming that the average person needs 1/5 of an acre for food (there are varying estimates of acreage needed), 25000 square miles of land a year needs to be converted to farm land. Combined with decaying infrastructures, increased social spending programs in much of the world, and the rapid increase in total debt to 230 Trillion (http://www.mybudget360.com/global-debt-total-amount-of-debt-world-gdp-to-debt-ratios/ ) In addition, it is estimated that the average energy use per person is 75 million BTU in the world. Since oil accounts for about 32% of the world’s energy (http://www.c2es.org/energy/source/oil ) [One barrel of oil produces 5.848 million BTUs] Since the greatest population increases occur in the developing world, energy consumption is probably in the 10-15 million BTU range. Assuming the low end of 10 million BTU, therefore to support the new 75 million new people each year, assuming there is no great shift in energy sources, every year about 146 million new barrels of oil are needed to meet the growing population. We could go on the question of water resources and so on.
Some day in the future when are semi-nomadic descendants are wandering the wastelands of the world and they come across the crumbling edifices which celebrated our civilization, the will look in awe and wonder what majestic creature could have built these monuments.
We can argue ad-infinitum on the date and time of Peak Oil and never reach a logical compromise. New technologies are bond to surface which will give the oil people power for moments, but at some point in time the dynamics of our oil based society will discover the topic. Will it be too late?
makati1 on Sat, 2nd Apr 2016 7:36 pm
sidzepp, or… the West just needs to consume less and distribute the food savings to the other billions. No more land needed, just better used. No beef cattle allowed. Eliminate zoning laws and let people raise chickens and plant gardens instead of grass. Use golf courses for food production. Etc. There is plenty of land, just not plenty of common sense.
Boat on Sat, 2nd Apr 2016 8:29 pm
mak,
U.S. exports of agricultural products to the Philippines totaled $2.7 billion. 2015
You still hungry?
Practicalmaina on Sat, 2nd Apr 2016 11:31 pm
Right on makati, efficienCy of water usage is going to become key in the states, local chicken or rabbit is a much more efficient source of protein. Boat does not realize that international food trade is not set up to feed but to profit. If it was about efficiently feeding people you would not be able to buy the most exotic fresh foods from around the world. People would eat affordable regional food, in season and not have their livelihoods cut out from under them.
GregT on Sun, 3rd Apr 2016 1:26 am
@Boat,
Fuck are you ever stupid.
marmico on Sun, 3rd Apr 2016 6:02 am
Tiny Dead Brain GreggieTee can’t keep up with the decline in energy intensity of the economy.
Wowser. 2015 U.S. energy consumption down to 5.97 Thousand Btu per Chained 2009 Dollar of GDP.
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec1_17.pdf
Spoken like a true innumerate parrot of the doom porn mantra talking points.
Fast forward to 2025. CAFE standards of 54 mpg (EPA equivalent of 42 mpg) @ EROI 10 means that JoeSixpack’s newly purchased vehicle will travel 3,780 miles or 170% more relative to his great grandfather’s vehicle.
Joe can drive from Miami to Vancouver on 100 gross units while Joe’s great grandfather ran out of gas near Davy Greenacres doomstead in Missouri.
Fuck are you ever a true innumerate parrot of the doom porn mantra talking points.
Practicalmaina on Sun, 3rd Apr 2016 6:21 am
By 2025 some cars are gonna get 42 mpg? Wow that’s…that’s not that great. I know small late 90s sedans that can get that on the highway, or older diesels. Hell Joe great-great-grandfather may have owned an ev, or if he lived in a city may have rode alectrified rail.
My car is aost a decade old and a cheap beater and I can get about that mileage on the highway depending on my driving, it does not mean that I do. Because since joes great grandpa’s days the speed limit has gone up significantly.
Practicalmaina on Sun, 3rd Apr 2016 6:33 am
Some good news though, big demand for the tesla 3, a coal producer responsible for 10% of the nation’s electricity is on the ropes, ad well as the number 2 natgas producer. The largest domestic oil and gas co is under investigation by what, six or seven states attorney generals. There is going to be chaos in the energy markets.
marmico on Sun, 3rd Apr 2016 7:45 am
By 2025 some cars are gonna get 42 mpg? Wow that’s…that’s not that great
You are another innumerate dipshit parrot. It means that your Georgia confederate flag waiving F-550 Ford pickup will get 30 mpg and the California bear flag waiving F-550 Firenza will get 60 mpg.
EROI is bull shit.
makati1 on Sun, 3rd Apr 2016 8:09 am
Boat, what the Us exports here is junk food and mostly unnecessary crap. Not staples. I shop in the wet markets inside and outside the city. They have ZERO imports, yet they feed the neighborhood quite well. Did you know that the Us imports about 20% or more of it’s food? Where does your chocolate and coffee come from? All those fruits and veggies you eat off season?
” In 2013, U.S. food consumption totaled 635 billion pounds, or more than 2,000 pounds per capita. Of this amount, imports accounted for 19 percent (123 billion pounds), or 390 pounds per capita”
http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-trade/us-agricultural-trade/import-share-of-consumption.aspx
Better try again.
Practicalmaina on Sun, 3rd Apr 2016 4:46 pm
Wtf is a firenza? no vehicle will ever get 30 mpg with a big ass flag flying from it, which is why telling hillbillys we produce all our own oil is so profitable,they will keep getting 11mpg for Merica.