Peak Oil Denial: The Liberal’s Dilemma (Pt 6)

[NOTE: This is the sixth and final installment of a subset of my ongoing series entitled Looking Left and Right (which began here; see Category sidebar for all links). This is about Peak Oil, but addresses the considerations and potential solutions from a different perspective than purely fact-based and/or he-said—she-said ones which too often dominate public discourse. With the caveat that I have NO professional expertise/training in psychology or its related fields, I’ll look at emotional and psychological “tricks” and traits we all use—Left, Right, and in-between—to bolster our beliefs and opinions as we do battle with our “opponents” in the increasingly polarized political forums which too-often dominate our culture.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else-by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate   – Francis Bacon [courtesy of David McRaney]

As I observed in that first post of this Looking Left and Right series:

We all act much the same way, ideologies notwithstanding. Human nature, I suppose. The more important questions: might we benefit from a bit of introspection before doing more of the same?…We obviously wouldn’t be making use of these psychological tricks of the trade if they didn’t provide us with benefits and gratifications. So is that it? Shrug our shoulders, admit that we are all guilty from time to time and then … nothing?
Might we consider the possibility of being ‘better’ than that? If we choose to solve what might appear at first blush to be overwhelming and even insoluble problems, we need more. We need more from our systems, more from our leaders, and more from ourselves.
There is a great deal at stake for all us, and we might all be better served understanding not just what we do in asserting and defending our beliefs, policies, and opinions, but why. Appreciating that might make a world of difference … literally!]

In the first five installments of this mini-series [links * at the end of this post], I’ve examined what my semi-snarky, decidedly liberal perspective viewed to be a perfect summation of stereotypical right-wing nonsense regarding fossil fuel production and gas pricing, relying on the concept of cultural cognition as described by Dan M. Kahan, Yale University and Donald Barman – George Washington University [link to PDF download in Sources [1] below]. I’m doing so in the hope that this might afford Peak Oil proponents—and those who doubt—a window into how the discussion has been approached to date, and more importantly, how to get past the stumbling block of ideology (my own and the “others”). We’ll need all the intelligence, expertise, and assistance we can get to find some practical adaptations and solutions. [Quotes below are from the above-linked article by Jeffrey Folks unless noted otherwise.]

So where are we? I’ve done what we’re inclined to do when people don’t accept a position/viewpoint offered: I’ve supplied lots of reasons why the “other side” is wrong about Peak Oil. As I stated at the conclusion of the last post, this is not a philosophical discussion, as some political issues are more apt to be addressed.

That he has not yet been able to do so must pain the president greatly. He must also be irked that high gas prices — the same high prices he has worked so hard to create over the past three and a half years — now pose an obstacle to his re-election.

What’s the point in saying things like this when we’re trying to deal with real-world problems? How do we get beyond the “you are crazier than I am” model of public discourse if facts cannot be rationally debated in the first instance? (Does this gentleman and his many peers who have suggested much the same seriously think that any President of the United States would deliberately pursue a policy so completely at odds with the interests of practically every citizen in the country so that he or she can … uh … uh … why would someone do this?) How does this help any of us?

Idiotic viewpoints are not the substance of sound decision-making, so what is the point?

Our prescription, counterintuitively, is a more unabashedly cultural style of democratic policymaking. Those interested in helping citizens to converge in support of empirically sound policies—on guns, on the environment, on crime control, on national security—should focus less on facts and more on social meaning. It’s only when they perceive that a policy bears a social meaning congenial to their cultural values that citizens become receptive to sound empirical evidence about what consequences that policy will have. It’s therefore essential to devise policies that can bear acceptable social     meanings to citizens of diverse cultural persuasions simultaneously. Because culture is cognitive prior to facts in the policy disputes, culture must be politically prior to facts too. [1]

But when legitimate problems confront all of us, how do we abide by the decorums suggested if nonsense is the starting point for one side of the debate? I hope there is a limit to the usefulness of this kind of strategy … sure wish we were there already.

What’s the vision and expectation for the future? The effects of Peak Oil (and climate change) don’t lend themselves to being bent into shapes conducive to conservative or liberal ideology. There is no one obvious solution which smacks almost entirely of liberalism (and vice versa) which one “side” can legitimately promote. Too many aspects of our everyday lifestyles—both personal and industrial—will require a broad range of adaptations and transitions well beyond ideological constraints.

There is undoubtedly some comfort in thinking that one’s ideology will ride to the rescue, thus  avoiding all the unpleasant psychological contortions relinquishing such beliefs would necessitate if change is necessary. We get that, too.

I’ll say again: I’m willing to wager that almost all Peak Oil proponents would be delighted to be proven wrong so that we don’t have to endure the inevitable magnitude of changes our beliefs suggest. But what worries us is the fact that the problems will be of such scope and and impact and complexity that we feel strongly that planning must take place now—by all of us, both Left and Right—and we’re not seeing enough honest, intelligent, rational analysis from those whose contributions will be every bit as important and meaningful. The ideology sponsoring practical and effective adaptations and solutions won’t matter to us if they work. We just don’t think it’s all that unreasonable to expect that the contributions are grounded in the realities of what we face.

Whether it is ‘peak oil,’ ‘carbon emissions,’ ‘can’t drill our way out,’ or ‘no quick fix,’ every argument has the same goal: to force Americans off fossil fuels and onto expensive, government-regulated green alternatives.

That certainly sounds ominous, and it coincides nicely with the Right’s “liberal control over our lives” meme, but at what point can we expect a legitimate examination of the facts about what we face and realize that there is no one solution that fits all? Like it or not, green alternatives are going to be necessary. Given how far behind they are to already-established, depleting-by-the-day energy sources, some government involvement and oversight is simply going to be part of the mix. If you truly believe that 300 million-plus people and or tens of millions of business each trying to figure out on their own how to deal with diminished fuel supply is the way to go, then best wishes!

Paranoid nonsense about “government control” and “boots on the neck” and assorted other conspiracy-laden premises simply have no place in the dialogue. Thinking that the absence of government is part of the solution is unrealistic—plain and simple. We appreciate the “values” such perspectives support, but it is way, way past time for us to all move beyond the psychological fixes. Reality beckons, and absent meaningful involvement, planning, and contributions from anyone and everyone with valuable expertise, we’re all going to be neck-deep in avoidable troubles. We’ll have enough that aren’t avoidable as is. Let’s not make things worse.

Wouldn’t all of us prefer having a say ahead of time, comforted by the realization that we all took part in making meaningful contributions?

Who wants to sacrifice anything about current lifestyles as Option Number One? Bad, last-minute, overwhelming surprises are not my preference, and I’m having a difficult time thinking that they are anyone else’s, either. Blind Faith is still a better rock band than strategy, and it’s certainly not the one I want guiding me and my wife and our children and my family and my fiends into a future where the inevitable outcomes of using finite resources finally come to roost. I don’t think I’m at all unusual in stating that I want a good future for myself and family in good communities with happy, successful, and prosperous citizens living freely. That’s not going to happen as long as too many of us prefer occupying their time with fear-induced paranoid concerns that do nothing but promote more of the same by their adherents and more ridicule from those who cannot accept that perspective. It just does not help!

So do we stand our ideological grounds until there’s no question at all what reality has in store, or do we start doing what good businesspeople and well-intentioned families and communities do: plan ahead? We want good solutions and plans for how best to transition away from a fossil fuel-dependent way of life because that is what facts tell us is necessary. Control doesn’t factor in to what we seek, as convenient a fiction as that might be to the Right and as easy as it is to find “facts” to support the fears. “On your own” may appeal to some, but it will prove to be of very limited utility … dump it now.

We all need to be better than that. “Business as usual, every man for himself” have served in many cases great purposes, but changes are looming. The definition and routes available for continued prosperity are going to change. We’re drawing down just about all of the remaining easy-to-get-at stuff which produced such breathtaking successes and advances. Now we’re in a global world of infinitely greater complexity with billions more people wanting what we have, and there just won’t be enough of that remaining easy stuff to go around for everyone to either maintain or attain the standards of the good life we’ve grown accustomed to.

That’s not ideology. It’s math.

When Obama tells us there’s no quick fix, he is not suggesting that we should get started on a fossil fuel fix.  He’s saying that since there is no quick fix with fossil fuels, we’re better off dumping them and moving on to renewables.

That’s actually not what the President is saying at all. Having used finite resources for nearly two centuries in an ever-increasing complex, technologically-sophisticated world, how does one not think about Plan B given the facts about current crude oil supply and production, and the facts about what producing the gazillion barrels of unconventional reserves buried underground or beneath ocean floors entails? No business owner, coach, of leader in any endeavor or profession ignores facts and relies instead on hopes and suppositions. Not the winning formula….

But if the fossil fuel fix is not all that quick, the green energy fix is glacial.  In fact, it is no fix at all, because no matter how many windmills and solar farms we subsidize with taxpayer money, it will not be enough to fuel even one tenth of our energy needs….
When Obama proclaims there is no quick fix, he implies [says you!] that we must give up on increased domestic production of fossil fuels and turn to alternatives.  But those misnamed ‘alternatives’ are not really alternatives at all.  Wind and solar now account for less than 2% of America’s energy needs.

Absolutely true! But using up more of what’s not as available anymore as the sole option will only work for a while longer, and if we have done absolutely nothing to plan an alternate route to get is to the destination all of us hope for, what happens then?

I see that as perhaps the single greatest failing of right-wing philosophy in the face of Peak Oil:  Yes, we’ll need all of the marvels of “human ingenuity” and great technological inventions. But without recognizing and accepting the simple truth that we’re drawing down a finite and depleting resource which necessitates almost unimaginable adaptations and transitions to Plan B, the limits of human ingenuity and technological prowess will inevitably be reached if we keep tweaking the finite resource. Just how does the market on its own develop guidelines about what needs to be done, how, when, in what priority, where, and assorted other considerations?

There is no intellectually honest way to believe that the world can continue its near-total reliance on fossil fuels for much more than another decade — a paltry window of opportunity. We also know that we cannot wait until they go into decline before reaching for renewables and efficiency, simply because the scale of the challenge is so vast, and the alternatives are starting from such a low level that they will need decades of investment before they are ready to assume the load. The data is clear, and the mathematics are really quite straightforward. [2]

So now what?

Peak Oil Matters