[S]o we have this physical constraint that’s coming because of Peak Oil. There’s nothing we’re going to do about it. We can’t out-clever that. It’s just a constraint, it’s a limitation, there it is. We could manage it well or we can manage it poorly, but it’s there. We have a political system that’s not really geared for the magnitude of the change that we’re seeing, so the most likely outcome is that we’re going to wait, we as a culture are going to wait until we’re forced to deal with this. That’s probably going to come with  disruptions….




At some point, we’re going to have to accept the facts for what they are and begin the long, complex, not-always-satisfactory process of planning for and then implementing change on a grand scale beyond our individual capacity to fully appreciate at this moment. The strategy of disseminating misleading and/or disingenuous statements has been a “successful” one, if measured by the degree in which keeping the public uninformed or at best confused about the facts is the standard. But what happens when the reality of peak oil’s challenges becomes obvious to them as well?

Without the steady supply of high quality, affordable, always-at-the-ready crude oil to provide the energy which makes possible almost every aspect of our personal, economic, and cultural lives, adaptation and transition to a Plan B primary source of energy to sustain us and supply our needs will be a nearly incomprehensible undertaking under the most ideal of circumstances.

Then what?




While a defining characteristic of the conservative personality is the need for closure—satisfied by arriving at quick conclusions coupled with an inherent aversion to examining the full range of issues and perspectives on most matters—acknowledging that trait is a far cry from accepting it as the end of a discussion. The steady flow of statements uttered as if they were factual conclusions [among the more noteworthy examples are the repeated references to the “trillions of barrels of oil” yet to be extracted, with not a word of explanation as to why we’ll never have most of it] is but one confirmation of extensive research conducted on the behaviors and characteristics of both conservatives and liberals.

It certainly keeps the deniers focused on their cheat sheet of Happy Talk messages [whose prime objective is to disclose only certain facts favorable to their interests], while keeping them untroubled about consequences. No need to worry about any ambiguities when you can rattle off a few snarky comments to show off to loyal followers as the beginning and end of the debate—such as it is.

The inference they hope others will draw is that since the availability of oil has not come to a crashing halt today, nor has the world economy collapsed into itself as a result of the pro-peak oil arguments, proponents obviously don’t know what they are talking about. Nice to be able to get away with it, but the facts remain unbowed by those determined efforts to mislead.

Not one moment’s worth of effort on the part of those denying or disputing the fossil fuel production challenges we’ll soon be facing changes the reality that we will soon be facing fossil fuel production challenges.




When dealing with a finite anything depended upon by literally billions of governments, industries, and individuals in countless ways on a daily basis—a finite supply with no adequate, long-term substitute currently in place—the simple skills of subtraction and division tell us that there will be a reckoning at some point.

Peak oil’s impact will in all likelihood be a gradual one given the expected production from resources still realistically available. But with a resource this widely-used by as many individuals and entities as it is now and has been for decades, and with so many others waiting for their chance to modernize on the back of fossil fuel resources, those same math skills make it clear that the reckoning caused by supply disruptions—gradual or not—will not be pleasant.

We have some options left, but we need those casting doubt to start paying attention to all of the facts and how all of those facts will play out over time. That’s not their preferred approach, but it’s the only one offering all of us opportunities to deal with the reality of a depleting, finite resource.


NOTE: Taking a little break; back on September 13


~ ~ ~


Note to readers: In addition to my other blogs and writings at, I invite you to enjoy some brief excepts from my eBook political thriller:

The Tretiak Agenda

They began [here] on June 15, and will continue weekly throughout the summer



~ My Photo: a bit of winter surf in Gloucester, MA – 02.08.16



We face a choice going forward. There’s a kind of false dichotomy, a false choice that we’re being presented between policies on the left or policies on the right. It’s not left or right, it’s forward or backward. It’s a choice between investing in the future, leaving a better future for the next generation just like parents and grandparents did for us, or ignoring these hard choices and sentencing the next generation to a lower standard of living, to fewer opportunities, and a future that we could do better by. [With apologies for prior incorrect attribution: former] USDOT Deputy Secretary John Porcari

Looking Left and Right:
Inspiring Different Ideas,
Envisioning Better Tomorrows


Peak Oil Matters offers observations and insights about the realities of declining fossil fuel production, and its impact on our future well-being