Peak Oil Matters

“China is still going to run circles around us. Policymaking by the political process is no match for a command economy. To cite just a few examples: The U.S. has committed a total of $13 billion to rail development, while China is already building a $556 billion high speed rail system that will link all of their major cities in five years. The U.S. has no energy plan, while China is embarking on a $740 billion comprehensive energy plan to see them into the future, with vigorous support for renewables. China is on track to do more about its future emissions than the U.S., even while it has just surpassed the U.S. as the world’s largest consumer of energy.

“It’s time to rethink our strategy. We would do well to follow China’s model. Instead of taking a political approach, circling the wagons around the eco-warrior camp and battling the fossil fuel industry, we should be developing a serious energy plan based on science, encompassing all forms of energy, to unite all parties in an unreserved commitment to the great task of energy transition. Because oil depletion is relentless, time is running out, competition for fuels is only increasing, and we’re the most vulnerable player at the table” [1]

I mentioned in my last post that we’re going to need an energy policy—courtesy of our federal government. That is not to say that business and industry has no role. Quite the opposite: once the policy and strategies are in place, business and industry will be the vital cogs in carrying out those plans. We will have no choice but to let loose the capabilities of the market to do all it can to effect change. This is definitely not an either-or situation.

But at the risk of stating the very obvious, with no national policy to guide us, we’re going to have 500 businesses and industries charging off in 500 different directions, each with their own notions and agendas. Pretty certain that that approach won’t work. Let’s be clear that this is going to be two-pronged approach (three if you count the fact that citizens everywhere will have a role to play and a responsibility to fulfill; we/they cannot be sitting on the sidelines waiting for others “out there” to do what’s necessary).

And if we are going to have a national policy, we’re going to have to have an activist government that speaks with one voice. That is going to take some doing! I’ve been following politics for more than three decades, and I have never seen it this polarized, nor have I seen so much nonsense masquerading as truth passed among us. That will have to change.

What this all means is that the strategy of “no” and denial no longer has a role to play in the dialogue. We’re getting too close to the point where changes are going to be imposed, and while we may very well still have 10, 15, 25 years of crude oil available to us, we also need 10, 15, 25, or more years to effect a transition away from fossil fuels into an economy and infrastructure dependent on something other than crude oil and fossil fuels. Even the most wildly optimistic among us recognize what a potential long shot we now face.

And if this is all seemingly impossible to implement, the bonus is that we’re going to be doing all of this with a steadily declining supply of fossil fuels available— not just to implement the transitions and all that that entails, but also to use for our every day personal and business needs and wants. And just to make this all even more interesting, let’s not forget that billions more around the world will be looking to do the same. (An aside of considerable note: the United States is no longer the world’s leading energy consumer. China is now the world leader. We cannot afford to ignore the ramifications.)

The math doesn’t work at these levels.

Panic is an option, but as with denial and just saying no, it’s not especially beneficial, assuming we’re interested in any semblance of a prosperous future.

The great thing about our nation is the wealth of opportunities it affords all of us, even in the midst of the twin challenges of Peak Oil and global warming (and let’s not forget the Great Recession). But with the choices afforded us comes responsibility for dealing with what those pursuits will bring. If we continue to choose to do nothing, or deny, or pretend, or just simply remain ignorant of the evidence and truth about Peak Oil and the problems of a warming planet (damn those facts!), the consequences will also be our responsibility.

Anyone who thinks that those strategies are the best choices right now should plan some time for careful and serious reflection.

What we may need most of all is courage. Courage from our leaders (in both parties) to first admit to the truth and then convey those facts to us honestly. The time to deny or “refudiate” for sheer political or electoral gain has passed. We cannot afford politics as usual. Leadership is needed to not just tell us the facts we don’t want to hear. Leadership then requires setting aside idealistic differences and recognizing instead that party affiliation and a philosophy about the role or non-role of government has no place in the dialogues we need to engage in. These challenges are bigger than that.

We also need courage from the media to report the facts and the truth and to call out once and for all those who disseminate disingenuous information and outright lies for political or self-serving gain. The levels of outright meanness and an utter disregard for anything remotely resembling integrity must be loosed from public discourse once and for all. Right-wing messengers will suffer the effects of Peak Oil and global warming every bit as much as the most ardent tree-hugging liberal.

The narrow-minded philosophy about limited government and the occasionally insane rantings about socialism and conspiracies and a president born on Mars and what-have-you need to be left in the dark. They confuse and lead astray those most in need of the honest expression of facts. We cannot afford those strategies any longer. That time has come and gone, so those who choose to continue to engage in these mindless games for reasons they probably cannot clearly articulate either must find common ground with the truth. We’ll have enough fear to contend with as it is. Let’s not add fuel to those fires with political lunacy that enflames but does not inform or educate—or help.

Most of all, and what may ultimately be the most difficult part (and at the same time serves as the singular tipping point that determines our long-term successes, or failure): we need to summon our own courage. We need to understand that we are at a defining moment in the course of our progress as a nation and yes, at the risk of over-drama, our civilization. We need to buck up and recognize that each and every one of us is going to experience disruptions in the years to come. The fact that these disruptions aren’t likely to be felt any time “soon” is irrelevant at this point. We need to start thinking beyond next Wednesday.

No one is running out of oil tomorrow or next week or next month or even five years from now. Earth is not reaching the boiling point any time soon, either. But the evolution of those problems and the consequences arising from their steady march will grow more impactful every day. Soon enough there will come a point of no turning back: we will have either begun the process of undertaking the massive changes needed to carry on without fossil fuels while staving off inescapable damage of an ever-warming planet, or we can stand by helplessly and watch our children and grandchildren suffer the ravages of our ignorance and neglect.

Sacrifice will also be required of all of us. No one wants that. That’s a given. However, we’re not going to have much of a choice. So the sooner our leaders, at our behest, begin to set aside the nonsense they toss across the aisles and engage in meaningful dialogue about the future of our economy, our nation, and the world at large, the better our chances of finding our way to lives of meaning and success and yes, prosperity—different though the definitions may be.

We’re in the first inning of a very, very different game now. The rules have changed, and how we “play” must change as well. Understanding must come soon.

{Note to my readers: A death in the family last week took me out of town and thus curtailed my posting activity, and now a family vacation with members from out of state makes it likely that this will be my only post of this week. Thanks for your patience; I’ll be back by the middle of next week.}

Sources:

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-nelder/beyond-carbon-legislation_b_657495.html – Beyond Carbon Legislation: Energy Transition by Chris Nelder; July 26, 2010

I’ll follow-up my last post by starting with two truths that (I hope) seem beyond rational dispute:

* “If the ecological catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico tells us anything, it is that we need a new national energy policy—a comprehensive plan for escaping our dangerous reliance on fossil fuels and creating a new energy system based on climate-safe alternatives. Without such a plan, the response to the disaster will be a hodgepodge of regulatory reforms and toughened environmental safeguards but not a fundamental shift in behavior. Because our current energy path leads toward greater reliance on fuels acquired from environmentally and politically hazardous locations, no amount of enhanced oversight or stiffened regulations can avert future disasters like that unfolding in the gulf. Only a dramatic change in course—governed by an entirely new policy framework—can reduce the risk of catastrophe and set the nation on a wise energy trajectory.” [1]

* “[I]nfrastructure is really about the quality of life we want for ourselves, our families and our communities. It affects our lives each day.
“It’s the roads and bridges we drive on, the schools we learn in, the trains we ride on, the water we drink. It’s the energy grid that powers our TVs and refrigerators and the dams and levees that protect us. Like the skeleton in our bodies, it is the framework that every other important thing is built on.
“Without a strong and vibrant infrastructure, our nation will fall behind our competitors in productivity — and lose the high quality of life Americans have enjoyed for decades.” [2]

Michael T. Klare’s excellent discussion about the need for a new energy policy dovetails nicely with those of us concerned that we’re soon going to be faced with the problems and challenges of Peak Oil (oil production and supply no longer being unable to match oil demand). We’re going to have to figure out how to make do with something else. Unfortunately, for all the talk of alternative energy, something else doesn’t exist yet … at least not in sufficient quantities or adequate scale to even come close to enabling us to make effortless and consequence-free transitions away from fossil-fuel-based economic growth and industrial production. That’s a decades-long project under the best of circumstances.

Governor Ed Rendell has been an ardent and tireless advocate of infrastructure spending, and he is absolutely correct in his assessment about the importance of adequate and capable infrastructure. (The fact that this op-ed piece was co-written with Senator James Inhofe—the very same right-wing Senator Inhofe who has indicated that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”—is more than a bit surprising, but give credit where credit is due. Let’s hope that the good Senator understands that this requires that government play a key role. The money and planning for infrastructure investment is not going to come from the marketplace.)

The problem is clear but hardly a simple one: How do we match the need for a new energy policy that will enable us to continue to grow our economy and expand opportunities for all with the fact that we have no infrastructure in place to support that growth with anything other than fossil fuels as the engine? Spending countless tens of billions of dollars on roadway improvement or bridge repair or sewer renovations (while using lots of fossil fuels in the process) are perfectly appropriate expenditures if we are looking to boost demand, create jobs, and solidify the foundations that enable us to grow and prosper.

But those specific kinds of expenditures may very well lead us on roads to nowhere. We cannot—we must not—expect that in the coming decades we will have the same lifestyles or enjoy the same products and services; the same suburban environments; the same industries; the same modes of transportation, and the same lots of other things for one simple reason: we are not going to have the quantities, affordability, and availability of fossil fuels that would continue to make those things possible as they presently exist.

Something else is needed.

I despair for our future only because I am concerned that we might not appreciate the collective national will or understanding needed to truly grasp and accept what is at stake. The disingenuous and occasionally misleading commentary that passes for facts, the pettiness, the idiotic ideas proffered by some, and the complete relinquishment of intellectual curiosity by far too many to the loudest, most narrow-minded and uninformed rantings of “leaders” and celebrities makes me question whether or not we will ever do anything more than advance in thousands of self-serving, incrementally small steps that will ultimately be of no benefit to any of us.

I worry that we lack the boldness of vision to recognize what we have to do and the opportunities we’re being presented with. I worry about what we stand to lose, and I wonder too often if we truly understand what we all need to do to at least try and provide ourselves with the best chances for prosperity in the years to come. Doing more of the same simply is not going to be an option for much longer.

We need to think beyond the next election cycle, and I am not convinced yet that enough of us are willing to do so. Our (and not always inappropriate or incorrect) selfish concerns for getting what we need—consequences-be-damned—stands solidly in the way of formulating and then implementing the plans we’re going to have to take in order to effectively move away from our dependence on fossil fuels and provide new foundations for future prosperity. (And let’s not forget that we will almost certainly find ourselves defining “prosperity” differently than we ever have. “Growth” is likely to take on a different hue as well.)

We lack courage. Or perhaps more accurately, we don’t know that we have the courage we need, and so we shy away from taking the big and bold steps that will be the only way to preserve some semblance of the lifestyles and industries and economic prosperity we believe is our birthright. And we will have to display that courage in the face of billions of others who want what we’ve had, as we’ve had it. There’s no way to satisfy all those demands and expectations if we continue on our present course.

Pretend otherwise or deny all you want if that is your inclination, but the facts about oil production are facts. The world has been using more oil than it’s been finding for forty years. There are no economics double-speak or market-based rationales that can spin that away. No one is hiding vast quantities of readily available and inexpensive oil anywhere. Before too long, and certainly well before we have put into place any solutions on national or international scales even remotely adequate to deal with the problems of Peak Oil, we’re going to be dealing with the reality of Peak Oil and its impact on almost everything we do.

So what do we do? What got us here will not get us there.

The truth, painful as it is, is that there are no perfect solutions and no guarantees about the ones we ultimately employ. We are in an era of great uncertainty, and we are going to have to each summon the courage to move beyond our comfort zones and understand that our expectations and desires to have life return to the heady and prosperous days of the recent past (however poorly created that prosperity may have been) are sure to meet with great disappointment. Things are going to be different; not necessarily bad, but surely different.

An added challenge will be trying to get several hundred million people here and many billions more elsewhere—billions who have witnessed the American dream from afar for decades and now want a piece of that for themselves—to understand this as well. Dashing their hopes and dreams before they can be reached is no easy or pleasant task. They will not acquiesce quietly. (And ask any billion of these people what we all need to do and we’re likely to come up with somewhere around 825 million different responses.)

We have our work cut out for ourselves.

We have opportunities, but no guarantees. So do we continue to make the perfect the enemy of the good? Do we wait for some fanciful perfect idea to solve the problems of declining oil production? Are we just days away from magic technology coming to the rescue? Are our geologists and oil explorers suddenly about to realize that they forgot to look at a huge chunk of this planet for oil? Do we play on misguided and narrow-minded fears perpetuated by some for reasons and benefits unclear at least to me, and regardless of the long term costs to others? Can we continue to afford to ignore the facts (and costs) surrounding the production of unconventional oil and the likelihood that this can solve our problems? Are we ready to move on from (or forget) the Gulf of Mexico tragedy and keep our fingers and toes crossed that that won’t happen again?

Do we continue to think in a nation of several hundred million people facing all the challenges we currently face and the ones we will confront in the near future, that we can all go it alone without the essential assistance of government? Do we really think that the unfettered “market” is the answer? Have we forgotten that much already? The financial collapse in 2008 and its preceding causes are not that far removed from us.

The costs to effect a meaningful transition are probably as close to incomprehensible as can be imagined right now. Trillions is a good bet. I’m not unmindful of the opposition to more government spending. Unfortunately, the arguments of some on the Right are less than truthful at best, but I respect the philosophy behind it, even if I completely disagree. I’m a firm believer that we need more stimulus money, and deficits (at least for now) be damned. Not a perfect solution by any stretch; but on balance I think this is the “better” option. (For an excellent and to- the-point discussion about public spending v. deficit reduction, see this.)

We are all in this together: advocates, deniers, and the vast in-between who don’t have enough information or concern to know which way to turn. And as much as it may chafe some who are disposed by knee-jerk reaction to condemn the possibilities of government for the good (and to be fair, not always without reason), any hopes of digging ourselves out of this economic mess and dealing with the looming challenges of Peak Oil on our own are a waste of time. Solutions are going to have to come from all quarters, and many can only find voice and implementation at the hands of our government and national policies and strategies.

In the end, I think the only question that’s going to matter is: what other choice do we have? Plans and changes on the scale and scope necessary can only be effectively produced at the national level. Five thousand individual plans won’t work, and anything less than a comprehensive plan to overhaul our fossil fuel-based energy and industrial infrastructures is destined to come up short. The transition required can only take years, if not decades. We simply cannot wait until every last denier is convinced by the facts before we start. We have to develop and implement new strategies for energy production and economic growth while there is still sufficient fossil fuel capacity to assist us. To try and effect the changes leading to a different infrastructure and different economy no longer supported by fossil fuel will itself require massive amounts of declining oil supplies. Waiting is only going to make the efforts that much more difficult, if that’s even possible to imagine.

So do we decide once and for all that in this environment—with so many hundreds of millions soon to be competing for a shrinking supply of essential fossil fuels, with millions now suffering from this great economic upheaval we’re mired in, and with looming energy challenges left and right—we had better start thinking a lot more long term than the November elections and boneheaded short term “solutions” or ideas that play to fears and ignorance more than to long term benefit?

This is not a fun topic to cover. Every time a Peak Oil advocate writes or speaks about the challenges we face, a delicate balance must be struck between providing useful, positive information, and an inclination to run screaming into the night. Fear is rarely an effective motivator, but if we do not come to understand the breadth and depth of Peak Oil’s impact on all our activities, we’ll be left with a lot of fear and panic we could have avoided by summoning our best collective efforts to start addressing the problems now … before they overwhelm us.

That’s a choice … and opportunity.

Sources:

[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/37529/clean-green-safe-and-smart; Clean, Green, Safe and Smart – Michael T. Klare | July 15, 2010

[2] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39894.html; Expand investment in infrastructure By: Gov. Ed Rendell and Sen. Jim Inhofe, July 19, 2010

We are so woefully ill-prepared….

“[S]ix in ten surveyed by Pew believe that the economic situation will be better soon and that the recession is only temporary. This alone vividly illustrates how poorly the true state of the global economic situation is understood and the size of the shock that most of us are in for.
“Nearly everyone will admit that continuing oil shortages and that high (above $100 a barrel) oil prices would be devastating to the prospects for economic recovery and that persisting very high (say above $200 a barrel) oil prices would send the U.S. and many other economies into a deep, long-lasting depression. The problem is that few are willing to consider seriously the accumulating evidence that increasing oil prices and eventually oil shortages within the next few years are as inevitable as the sunrise. Most of us have no thoughts about the issue other than the current price of a gallon of gas. Among those who appreciate that the world’s petroleum resources are finite, few understand the proximity of the crisis.” [1]

Michael Lind, whose recent article on transportation I criticized in a prior post, has written a new piece arguing for public investment in our nation’s infrastructure (highways, water and sewer systems, power/electric grid, etc.). His is only one of many recent articles (including several of my own, beginning with this one) on the importance of infrastructure spending and revitalization. (See this also.) As I usually do with Mr. Lind’s opinions—recent post aside—I agree with his premise, but with caveats:

“If neither foreign private demand nor foreign public demand can compensate for the loss of American private domestic demand, then the only possible source of increased demand for American goods and services that remains is public domestic demand. American government at all levels may need to provide much of the missing demand for American businesses and labor, for the decade or longer that is needed for private sector deleveraging in the aftermath of America’s asset bubble.
“To avoid competing with private enterprise, the government should produce public goods that increase overall productivity and that the private sector has no incentive to provide, in good times or bad, such as infrastructure and social services like policing, health care, education and care for the young and old. In addition to mobilizing idle resources and labor directly, both infrastructure and public service spending could help business in general by boosting the purchasing power of Americans who are now unemployed.”

There are enough studies showing the many benefits of infrastructure spending, so regardless of what type of infrastructure expenditures are eventually made, they will serve to create jobs, enhance demand, and provide a boost to our economy.

The mindless objections to government spending in this day and age, while serving short term political interests (and even that is dubious) can only harm us long term. We cannot continue to do what we’ve always done … we’ll just get more of what we’ve gotten so far. That won’t cut it anymore. What has gotten us here won’t work in the years to come in the face of declining fossil fuel availability, and there is almost nothing on the books to suggest that we have any plans in place to deal with the disruptions declining oil supplies will create. That’s a big problem all by itself.

Another problem that has been expressed is that in the aftermath of this Great Recession, and with the onset of Peak Oil, we may very well never enjoy again the type of growth we’ve come to expect. As Kurt Cobb noted nearly five years ago:

“The hardest sell to any audience is that there is a chance for us to chart a course to sustainability, but that it will take a lot of work at every level: individual, household, municipal, state, federal and even international. And, by the way, when we get there all of us will have considerably less material wealth than we do today.” [2]

Our sense of entitlement is about to be shaken in ways we cannot even begin to imagine. Subtle and not-so-subtle shifts in how we live our daily lives and how our economy functions will become apparent, mostly (at least initially) to our dismay. Things are going to change, and not usually for the better—at least not right away (and I’m trying hard to be as optimistic as I can). Ducking responsibility, hoping otherwise, or just avoiding the issue entirely are not our best options.

A related issue that deserves serious consideration as well is that with the decline in oil production and decreasing availability looming, we’re going to need different strategies and a different vision for what “growth” will mean. That is going to require a different infrastructure. Relying on the fossil fuel-derived one won’t serve us when we have to depend on and use something other than fossil fuels to power and support our economy and industry.

Any infrastructure spending going forward must be targeted more carefully and clearly to help us move to industry and growth beyond and without fossil fuels. Repairing or even just maintaining what we have may turn out to be a monumentally foolish way of time, effort, and money. I quite frankly do not know if we are capable of creating and implementing plans on a large enough scale to do all that needs to be done because the infrastructure we now have in place, however poorly it may be functioning right now (see my February 24 post linked above), is not going to be the one that serves our needs in the largely fossil fuel-free world we’re going to find ourselves in a few short years down the road.

The sheer scope of what we will have to undertake in the face of declining oil supplies is—if we really try to wrap our minds around it—as close to incomprehensible as we can get. As I noted in a prior post on infrastructure (here):  “We have designed our lifestyles, our economic and industrial development, and our communities around cheap, easily-produced oil. Our everyday world is premised on that continuing supply (together with natural gas) to produce and transport food, to fuel our transportation, build and heat or cool our buildings, purify our water, treat our waste, and build, well, just about everything we use.”

Without a new infrastructure in place, one designed to operate and serve as the foundation of … well, pretty much everything, and one designed also to operate on some alternative energies we are not even close to implementing on anything even remotely approaching the scale needed, efforts to transition away from fossil fuels are only prolonging the inevitable, and likely making things much, much worse. The loud “thud” we’ll all be hearing is going to be our comfy and cozy ways of life. Most of us have no clue….

We’ve spent decades and countless sums creating an infrastructure to support and enable our growth and successes primarily because we’ve had access to inexpensive and plentiful oil, and that’s not going to be an option for us before too long. Needed change will only be measured in years of planning and effort.

We won’t be waking up one Monday morning and realize that we’ve run out of oil. That is not the issue. The issue is that we’re not going to have enough to do all that we are accustomed to and all that we need to do in our daily lives. Something is going to have to give, and so far, we have no idea what that might be or how to even think about dealing with the challenges.

There are no quick fixes, and certainly no easy fixes. We’re going to have less oil available to help us effect the needed changes, so we’re hamstrung to begin with (unless we make most of it available for infrastructure and very little for everything else, which is not likely to go over well with … everyone). We only have a relatively narrow window of time to adapt to begin with.

As I previously noted: “There are countless opportunities awaiting us, and countless problems looming if we don’t start thinking about how to deal with less oil.”

Peak Oil is not measured in weeks or even months, but infrastructure re-creation is likewise not so measured. We are talking years, and we are going to have to try and do all of this with much less fossil fuel available. Despite our expected inclination to want to try and do all of this all at once, we are also going to have to consider the impact on climate and the environment as we transition to whatever new forms of infrastructure will be needed.

And echoing one of the key themes I’ve been emphasizing throughout, Sharon Astyk, in a terrific post, observed:

“The simple fact is that we are taking precisely the wrong course as we de-emphasize self sacrifice – and everything we do to reinforce the idea that people will have essentially the same lifestyle that they have reinforces their inevitable sense of betrayal when that proves not to be the case. We are, in fact, seeing that sense of betrayal in working class and lower income families joining tea parties to express their sense that they have lost a basic access to a decent way of life.
“What could work – with great difficulty – is for us to enlist our fellows in a great project of courage and self-sacrifice – engage those people who feel least a part of this society. People climb mountains, run marathons, march off to be killed at war, and engage in all sorts of grand, painful and difficult challenges because doing so expresses their sense of honor, their courage, their patriotism, their love for others. As long as we fear to call upon one another to sacrifice, as long as we sell the narrative that an essentially similar life is possible, as long as we deny the costs, we will give up the greatest tool we have – the passionate energy of those who are doing what must be done for a better future. There is no certainty that such a course would be successful, of course, but it could hardly be less successful than our current strategies.” [3]

In that same post, Ms. Astyk also raised one other point that I expect many will not appreciate hearing, but is one we’re all going to have to accept:

“All solutions must work on a world scale. China and India will not accept a lower standard of living than we have, and will not reduce their coal burning and car usage if we demand that we all keep our cars and run our a/c any time we get warm. Neither will Russia. No narrative that includes the underlying idea that we’re going to keep using more energy than most other people can possible address climate change – period.”

We are at the dawn of an era of incredible opportunity if we choose and act wisely, and as a community, but we must first accept the realization that we are facing some serious challenges in the near future. We’re responsible for what we’ve created, just as we are responsible for resolving the problems our successes (and excesses) have brought us. We may indeed never again enjoy the levels of growth, prosperity, and successes that have defined our past. But this is not to say that we can’t craft new measures of success and prosperity going forward.

“The great transition of the 21st century will entail enormous adjustments on the part of every individual, family, and community, and if we are to make those adjustments successfully, we will need to plan rationally. Implications and strategies will have to be explored in nearly every area of human interest—agriculture, transportation, global ware and peace, public health, resource management, and on and on.” [4]

The choice is ours.

Sources:

[1] http://www.energybulletin.net/node/53441: The peak oil crisis: A mid-year review; Published Jul 14 2010 by Falls Church News-Press, Jul 14 2010 by Tom Whipple

[2] http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2006/11/attitude-adjustment-facing-our.html: Attitude adjustment: Facing our ecological predicament; November 12, 2006

[3] http://scienceblogs.com/casaubonsbook/2010/07/our_tails_get_in_the_way_the_p.php: Our tails get in the way: The problems and principles of energy descent – 07/13/2010 – Casaubon’s Book

[4] Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines by Richard Heinberg (pp. 22-23) – New Society Publishers

In a recent post (here), I discussed the unfortunate practice by Peak Oil dissenters of cherry-picking facts to suit their skewed perspectives on the reality of oil production, conveniently neglecting to provide readers with the relevant background information needed to properly understand the issue at hand. An equally discouraging exercise is their use of vague, impressive-sounding but ultimately meaningless words and phrases to try and bolster their side of the argument. Perhaps they count on apathy or ignorance on the part of their readers, but regardless of the rationale, it does little to help. (Why do they insist on doing this? The Boston Globe published an interesting piece on Sunday that may provide answers.)

A recent and particularly egregious example can be found here. Feel free to read this glowing exhortation about the bazillion years of oil we have at our beck and call via oil shale. The author of that snarky piece excels at long division, but note the complete failure to mention even a single fact as to what is actually required to produce the oil shale this writer so ardently touted. Why let the truth get in the way of nonsense? (Hard to be kind to this narrow-minded wing-nuttery, so this is the best I can do.)

Just for the heck of it, take a peek at these prior posts (here and here) offering information about what is involved in mining oil shale and how utterly ineffectual efforts have been for most of the past few decades.

Facts are indeed an annoying intrusion into the puzzling reality of some.

This past weekend I came across yet another article where the full range of information was conveniently omitted. When you write a piece like this offering up at best fuzzy details and are hoping/praying/counting on your readership being uninformed and thus reliant on whatever details you do or do not provide, I can only assume there is some benefit to be derived. Engaging in open and honest debate, however, would not appear to be on that list. If all the facts aren’t on the table, then what does that suggest about the argument being made?

“Resources in the ground are clearly abundant. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Vice President Greg Stringham, pointing to the 175 billion barrels recoverable from the Canadian oil sands, says, ‘It won’t be a lack of resources that causes a shift away from oil. There’s lots of oil.’ The United States Geological Survey recently updated their estimates for recoverable oil from Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt to 513 billion bbl. Compare this to BP’s estimate of some 1200 billion bbl of global conventional oil reserves. Some shale formations, such as the US’s Bakken and Eagle Ford, contain substantial amounts of oil and natural gas liquids too, a form of unconventional oil which has emerged from nowhere in the past few years.

“Traditional onshore light crude, though often inaccessible to the international oil companies, remains plentiful too.”

(My bold italics were added for emphasis)

I’ve already acknowledged, as have many other Peak Oil advocates, that there are indeed hundreds of billions of barrels of oil in the ground. We’re not running out of oil. Those are not facts in dispute, unless you are arguing whose estimates are correct. But as is frustratingly obvious yet again, this Oil Council article fails to make mention of a single fact about the difficulties, costs, environmental degradation, time factors, or energy expenditures incurred in producing these resources. Uninformed readers are left with the impression that a shovel and sturdy straw are pretty much all that’s needed to extract this “plentiful”, “clearly abundant” oil from underground. (How many barrels are in a “plentiful”?)

Hello?!

The simple truth is that there is a big difference between what’s in the ground and what’s feasible or even possible to get out of the ground (or in deep water). So just tossing out large numbers or unquantifiable phrases like “substantial amounts” without a corresponding explanation that these tidbits don’t necessarily mean that we can actually extract or produce them is misleading. I always find it very difficult to understand the purpose or intent of such efforts, and remain dismayed that the fear of engaging in honest debate trumps the importance and necessity of having that honest discussion, regardless of outcome. Aren’t we all better served when we can deal with full truths rather half-ones, painful though it may be? What is gained otherwise?

If facts are wrong—mine included—then they’re wrong, and we are all better off knowing that and moving forward with better information. I wish it could be that simple….

“Kuwait and Abu Dhabi recently updated ambitious plans for production gains.”

And…? They can “update” their “ambitious plans” until pigs fly, but what does any of that prove? That’s a solution?

Likewise, cornucopian arguments proffered by this article about the “technical potential” of Iraq’s oil fields are pointless! What’s involved in realizing this “technical potential”? How many years? How much money? What are the complex political factors to be addressed? What other resources will be needed? How much energy will have to be invested in order to extract all this potential? When all is said and done, how much production can realistically be expected?

(An aside: Andrew McKillop, writing on Sunday about the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, noted (here) that BP’s Macondo field, thought to contain somewhere in the vicinity of 300 million barrels of oil—three or four days’ worth, by the way—could realistically have been expected to extract no more than 50 million barrels, and over 15 years or more. These are the types of facts we need to be dealing with and explaining to others instead of pretending that all will be well because we still have “lots” of oil left.)

And touting the 21 billion barrels of oil Iran has produced in the past dozen years sounds terrific up until the moment you realize that’s about 7 months’ worth of supply. Probably want to hold off rushing out the door to buy that soon-to-be-extinct Hummer you’ve always dreamed of….

“Kazakhstan’s long-delayed Kashagan field will finally come onstream around 2013 and yield more than 1 million bbl per day.”

Pulling out my trusty calculator, I conclude that 1 million barrels per day times 365 days in a year means that the Kashagan field will yield about 365 million barrels per year, or … Gasp! almost five day’s worth of oil! Hallelujah! Our prayers have at last been answered! Wow, that was close! I thought we all might actually have to start giving up things and changing lifestyles, but oh, no! Just a handful of these producing oil fields could get us enough oil to last until … uh, uh, a few weeks.

These resources and finds are surely better than a stick in the eye, but really? This is what’s being touted as the answer to Peak Oil’s discouraging message and worrisome impact? Oil production is on the decline, and these feverish efforts to paint a rosy picture help no one prepare for and plan the changes societies will need to implement. Whatever transitions away from fossil fuels we can collectively fashion will carry their own hardships. Let’s not make it worse by avoidance.

I understand that no one really wants to have to deal with the problems and challenges of declining oil production. Sure as hell I don’t! There is nothing even remotely enjoyable to contemplate about the onset of Peak Oil and its impact on my own pleasant, suburban multi-car, two-home lifestyle. Millions and millions of others who understand the implications and consequences will be/are just as dismayed for their own reasons—selfish or otherwise.

Making do with less is not anyone’s idea of progress or pursuit of the great American Dream. I understand the instinct to avoid, deny, or just pretend otherwise. The problem is that those strategies are not only not going to work, they will ultimately make things worse for all of us. They may serve some weirdly narcissistic, narrow-minded short term interests, but we are all in this together—deniers, too. Their magical thinking won’t prevent Peak Oil from impacting their lifestyles and businesses. Unless you have managed to carve out a lifestyle entirely independent of fossil fuels, either by avoiding personal use of it or avoiding goods and services that require it, Peak Oil is going to affect you, and perhaps quite dramatically.

Let’s not wait until we’re all in full-fledged panic mode over what is happening when supply can no longer match demand. It’s not that far away … and much too soon for us to avoid all the nasty consequences Peak Oil is going to impose on us. Disingenuous “information” is thus not at all helpful unless perpetuating a lack of understanding and awareness are the objectives.

If this deliberate obfuscation of facts and the true import of Peak Oil’s impact is the best that the deniers can offer, doesn’t it contain at least a seed of suggestion that perhaps we all ought to be thinking a bit more seriously about what needs to be done? We’re years behind as it is. As painful as it will be to confront the possibilities of having to make do with less for many years to come, having some say in how we collectively prepare for and deal with the impact of declining oil production seems a better long-term option.

Relying on these half-baked missives of optimism is an exercise in foolishness none of us can afford

A recent New York Times article described an upcoming BP effort (the same BP of Gulf of Mexico fame) to proceed with plans to drill for oil in a previously-identified oil field three miles off the coast of Alaska, in the Beaufort Sea. While the article nicely details some of the now-expected shenanigans which provided the necessary “authorizations” for BP to drill (not the least of which is the fact that back in 2007, BP apparently drafted its own environmental review, which the Bush Administration was all-too-content to accept), what struck me as most noteworthy was the following:

“BP is moving ahead with a controversial and potentially record-setting project to drill two miles under the sea and then six to eight miles horizontally to reach what is believed to be a 100-million-barrel reservoir of oil under federal waters.”

Let’s think about this for a moment.

BP is planning to drill two miles beneath the sea—in the barely hospitable Arctic region, mind you—and then another 6 to 8 miles horizontally (still in the Arctic), so they can gain access to a 100-million-barrel reservoir of oil. Let those details sink in.

As I noted in a prior post, as did Kurt Cobb (here), one of the exasperating features of peak oil reporting is the oversight/failure/neglect to explain some of the most salient facts about reservoirs being sought or tapped for oil production. This otherwise very informative NYT article is guilty of the same.

If BP is 100% successful at this Liberty Field, and they produced all 100 million barrels by breakfast next Monday, we will have found enough oil to get the planet through an early lunch on Tuesday – a grand total of about 28 HOURS. Not 28 days, not 28 weeks, not 28 months, not 28 years … 28 hours, give or take.

If we wanted to be really selfish and share none of it on the open market, then it would get the United States through most of next week’s work week. Period. We wouldn’t have enough left to get us into the weekend.

Hello?!

One hundred million suddenly seems like a pretty measly amount. Worse when you consider the what and the where and the how of this specific drilling venture. Let’s not forget that production from this field won’t be a cozy 2 or 3 week endeavor. If history is any guide, it will be years before any sizeable yields are on the books. As it stands, by 2013 the expectation is 40,000 barrels per day. Wheeee! (I’m guessing this is going to be a wee bit costly, given that the land rig alone cost BP a tidy $200 million. Pretty sure those are the kinds of costs oil companies like to pass on at the pump.)

These are the options big oil corporations are left with. Yet there remains a loud chorus of ardent knuckleheads who talk all kinds of nonsense about how much oil is left for us to use for the next umpteen decades so doncha worry and how Peak Oil proponents are some fringe group of crazed pessimists the rest of us would do well to just ignore; or they prefer the magic of economics and price points and inflation and consumers’ price tolerances and all that other information (or worse, the magic of as-yet undiscovered technologies riding to the rescue) that doesn’t have any impact whatsoever on how much oil actually remains reasonably accessible for our use in the normal course of our days.

By all means keep on denying the many signs (facts) of Peak Oil if that floats your boat. Won’t get you much, but why accept responsibility for doing something about a challenge if we can either pass that on to someone else or just remain blissfully ignorant and just keep a-hopin’ and a-prayin’. You betcha!

Those of us who recognize the sheer folly of placing our future economic well-being on a wing and a prayer owe it to themselves and others to begin working and planning together so that we offer ourselves the best possible chances of avoiding the very consequences that pinning our hopes on magic technology and pure denial will lead to.

We have better choices, and we are free to make better decisions, painful though some of them may surely be. Better to have a say than not.

NOTE: Starting a long weekend with family obligations thrown in as of Wednesday, so I may post once more this week and will then likely be off until the middle of next week. Enjoy the holiday!

Michael Lind is the Policy Director of New America’s Economic Growth Program and a frequent contributor to Salon.com—a publication (and writer) whose perspectives I usually agree with. The new America website is quite good.

However, Mr. Lind recently published an article at Salon regarding the future of transportation—fixed/high-speed rail, specifically—that I take issue with. I do so not so much because his information might be incorrect (and I don’t dispute his knowledge and information on the subject), but I disagree because he offers up an attitude regarding our approach to transportation and automobiles that can only cause us more problems as we confront Peak Oil. It’s an all-too-familiar refrain Peak Oil proponents encounter, and is one we find especially distressing in light of the challenges Peak Oil is going to impose upon all of us.

Lind begins his article advocating more government spending on infrastructure—a position with which I wholeheartedly agree. (Readers familiar with Bob Herbert’s op-eds in the New York Times—which I’ve referenced in several posts—will recall that Mr. Herbert is likewise a passionate advocate of our need to repair, maintain, and enhance infrastructure spending for a host of sound, well-considered reasons.) Enough studies are out there demonstrating the many positive benefits and effects those spending priorities have on our economy and employment numbers.

Despite his advocacy for this essential governmental strategy, Lind criticizes support for high speed rail. In doing so, he raises common objections to funding and planning for alternative forms of transportation. While factually there may be merit to his arguments, the problem is that despite the rhetoric, the reality of Peak Oil is going to make the stated objections entirely irrelevant.

There is little chance that we’re going to devise a perfect public transportation solution, but to dismiss the approach outright because we’re too spoiled to recognize the need for change is at best foolish. We’re in need of some serious attitude adjustments, and transportation woes are another consequence of Peak Oil that we can either prepare for voluntarily, or have imposed upon us. Something is going to have be done. We can either throw our hands up and keep hoping, or start taking steps to figure out the solutions that just might work. It seems quite obvious that public transportation is going to have to be part of that mix.

Lind observes that “As nations grow more affluent, their people prefer the convenience of personal automobile transportation to the inflexibility of mass transit.” Of course they do! I much prefer jumping in one of our cars to run errands or to go to our beach house or do any number of other things when I feel like doing so rather than walking up and down my lengthy and very steep hill and then figuring out how many different modes of public transit I might need to get where I want to go. Millions and millions of other car owners harbor their own legitimate reasons why they favor the comfort and convenience of their own autos.

If fossil-fuel supplies were unlimited, inexpensive, and always-at-the-ready, we would not be having these discussions. But facts are annoying—especially the true ones!

All of the factors this blog and other writers have set forth regarding the imminence of Peak Oil tell us that unlimited, inexpensive, and always-at-the-ready oil is not going to be an option for much longer—some reports suggest in as few as a couple of years. Many writers have already noted one of Peak Oil’s many obvious warning signs: we’re drilling thousands of feet deep in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere because “cheap” and easy-to-find oil no longer exists. It’s just one sign among many. “Affluence” isn’t going to buy anyone bonus points when it comes to oil supply and demand … the transportation needs of the rich won’t stave off Peak Oil.

So when the ever-diminishing supply of unlimited, inexpensive, and always-at-the-ready oil is a factor with which we are all contending every day, preferring “the convenience of personal automobile transportation to the inflexibility of mass transit” won’t be worth the paper that comment is printed on. Peak Oil doesn’t much care about our “preferences,” or whether long-distance air or passenger car travel is “more practical,” as Lind also argued.

That’s simply not going to matter … not a little, not a lot, not at all. It’s nice to discuss preferences and wishes and hopes and all the rest, but geology and reality are what they are, and soon enough we are not going to have anywhere near the amounts of inexpensive oil readily available to each of us so that we can drive wherever and whenever we want. That’s a fact. Wishing it away is a nice sentiment but utterly meaningless. Peak Oil doesn’t much care for wishes and prayers, either.

So objections notwithstanding, we need to be thinking about, planning for, and finding ways to fund, create, and construct the types of public transportation we’re all going to need in the decades to come. It’s painful, but it’s that simple.

It’s no doubt true that implementing passenger rail and other forms of alternative transportation (and sources of energy, which Lind also criticizes) on a scale even remotely approaching the levels we’ll need in the decades to come is a jaw-dropping, almost unfathomably expensive proposition … until you realize we will have no rational alternatives other than to truly shrink our growth and become a nation of many local economies.

There is going to be a lengthy list of items and services and needs that are going to have to continue to be fulfilled by an ever-declining amount of crude oil, and I daresay that your and my carefree choices to run a couple of errands on a near-daily basis or visit with friends on the weekend aren’t going to have much priority on that list of who gets what, when, and how much.

Those who are waiting for a low-cost, ideal alternative to our current forms of personal transportation are in for a very rude awakening somewhere down the road.

Likewise, Lind’s urging that we devote more financial resources to enhance freight transportation on our roadways is just as misguided. Truckers won’t be exempt from Peak Oil’s impact … no one will. He is unfairly and inaccurately dismissive in suggesting that all of our urgings to provide more funding for high-speed rail and the like is so that we can “cut five minutes off the daily commutes of office workers in New York and New Jersey.” Enough high speed rail proposals have been put forth, and the Obama Administration has at least opened the door to enough other high-speed rail projects, to dismiss Lind’s snarky contentions outright. That’s something I’d expect to hear from someone on the Right, for whom facts are all-too-often useless and/or irrelevant when choosing to perpetuate narrow-minded ideology instead.

“Focusing on freight infrastructure improvements means that, among other things, we need to build more highway lanes and in some cases new highways for the trucks that will continue to carry most freight.” I’m hard-pressed to understand how that could possibly be a legitimate solution. Not only will not be able to afford that; higher gas prices and declining supply will leave less cars and trucks on the road. What a waste of limited resources!

And despite Lind’s claims about asphalt as some kind of magic solution, the truth is that asphalt is one of the countless products derived from crude oil, or from the energy-intensive and more expensive extraction process of the tar sands. (See this Oil Drum post for a discussion of asphalt.) Less crude oil equals less asphalt—as some cities have already witnessed first-hand.

Thinking that the enormous population increases expected in the coming decades is going to be properly addressed by building more roads and creating more suburban sprawl where owners are going to be left entirely dependent on automobiles they won’t be able to regularly or readily fuel seems ass-backwards at the very least. Asphalt is not nearly the savior Lind asserts it to be.

Two items of note on this subject from an extremely informative 2009 article by Phillip Longman (a Lind colleague) in The Washington Monthly [1]:

“The Environmental Protection Agency calculates that for distances of more than 1,000 miles, a system in which trucks haul containers only as far as the nearest railhead and then transfer them to a train produces a 65 percent reduction in both fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. As the volume of freight is expected to increase by 57 percent between 2000 and 2020, the potential economic and environmental benefits of such an intermodal system will go higher and higher. Railroads are also potentially very labor efficient. Even in the days of the object-lesson train, when brakes had to be set manually and firemen were needed to stoke steam engines, a five-man crew could easily handle a fifty-car freight train, doing the work of ten times as many modern long-haul truckers.”

and

“Failing to rebuild rail infrastructure will simply further move the burden of ever-increasing shipping demands onto the highways, the expansion and maintenance of which does not come free. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (hardly a shill for the rail industry) estimates that without public investment in rail capacity 450 million tons of freight will shift to highways, costing shippers $162 billion and highway users $238 billion (in travel time, operating, and accident costs), and adding $10 billion to highway costs over the next twenty years. ‘Inclusion of costs for bridges, interchanges, etc., could double this estimate,’ their report adds.”

And Lind wants to increase freight transportation on our roads?

As for his urging that we build more airports … seriously? In a few short decades—as things stand now and for the foreseeable future—we’ll be lucky to have one-third the number of airports now existing. It’s also quite likely that only a very small percentage of the population anywhere will be able to afford air travel in any event—assuming jet fuel remains available in any semblance of reasonable supply. How is that a solution?! Ignoring the effects of Peak Oil isn’t going to get us much except more difficulties.

Lind urges us to consider a “harsh reality” that makes no sense in light of Peak Oil: “The greatest economic crisis since the Depression shows no signs of ending soon. A major, long-term program of public investment is needed more than ever. But the public investments must pass the reality test. And the harsh reality is this: There isn’t going to be a significant high-speed rail system in the U.S. in the near- or medium-term future. There isn’t going to be a continental electric grid permitting solar panels on condo buildings in Berkeley, Calif., to power heirloom-poultry farms in Maine. Most Americans are not going to sell their cars and move back from the suburbs to the cities in order to live in tiny apartments or condos and ride the rails to work. These are romantic daydreams that Democrats could afford to indulge only as long as they were out of office and were not responsible for results.”

So how does he reconcile those statements with the fact that majority of the world’s population already lives in cities, with estimates suggesting that as much as 75% of the world’s population will reside in cities by 2050? [2] Hate to say it, but “romantic daydreams” or some reasonable approximations may very well be our only options in the not-too-distant future. That is the very harsh reality we will have to contend with in the face of Peak Oil. The fossil fuel choices he seems to think we’re going to endlessly possess are simply not going to be available to us. Ignoring that truth is an option … just not a very good one.

Lind is absolutely correct that we need a massive commitment to our woefully ill-maintained infrastructure. (See this and the referenced links therein.) But his assertions that we need to rely on more roadways and more fossil-fuel-consuming trucks is not a solution. We will cater to consumer demands or for more suburban sprawl at our collective peril. We won’t have those options once Peak Oil is upon us, either.

Again I’ll emphasize how critical it is that we begin considering alternatives to transportation, the nature of our infrastructure, and our sources of energy. The dislocations will be challenging enough; let’s not make them worse by waiting for some “better” day to get started. (And let’s not forget that putting into place the infrastructure and technologies needed to make the transitions a reality are themselves going to require a lot of fossil fuel. We’re simply not going to have enough to do all of that and still maintain our lifestyles and industries as we do now. Something is going to have to give.)

While Lind is correct that “There is no public support in the U.S. or any other industrial democracy for the combination of self-imposed austerity and massive subsidies that would be necessary to create an economy based on renewable energy,” that is likewise not going to matter. Who among us wants to sacrifice the lifestyles we’ve come to insist upon?! The real issue is that when Peak Oil is here, lack of public support (predicated on selfishness and an unwillingness/inability to make sacrifices voluntarily) won’t matter either. We either suffer from the harsh impact of Peak Oil by choosing to do nothing, or start working on the next best options, whatever they may be (while understanding those undefined options are no guarantee of harsh-free changes).

I fully recognize that the energy, affordability, and efficiencies derived from fossil fuels/crude oil are as yet unmatched by any forms of alternative or renewable sources of energy. That’s a major part of the challenge of Peak Oil: there will be no seamless transitions to something else to keep life going as it does now because we don’t have that option. Changes—perhaps even drastic ones—are looming.

So do we wait until we’re really battered and beleaguered by Peak Oil, or do we make a national commitment (and act upon it) to finding some reasonable means of supplanting fossil fuel usage—especially for transportation, given that it’s going to take us many years (decades is more likely) to effectively and permanently transition away from oil? We’re already too far behind, and we have no guarantees of finding a successful solution in any event. Is waiting and doing nothing the better option? Is that our legacy?

There are no easy fixes. There are no inexpensive fixes. There are no quick fixes, either. But we clearly can no longer rely on what got us here.

The sooner we all understand that and begin acting on that knowing, the sooner we can begin digging our way out of a mess our own successes and innovations have created.

Sources:

[1] http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0901.longman.html – Back on Tracks: A nineteenth-century technology could be the solution to our twenty-first-century problems by Phillip Longman

[2] http://www.slate.com/id/2256666/- Nimble Cities: Help Slate make transportation in and between cities more efficient, safe, and pleasant by Tom Vanderbilt

A while back I did an introductory series (here, here, and here) on the importance of infrastructure and its relationship to Peak Oil.

I’ve also mentioned from time to time that China is making great strides to not only develop its economy in leaps and bounds—as others have likewise noted; but it is doing so with a recognition of the importance of a sound infrastructure to future growth. China is also moving rapidly to incorporate high-speed rail as an essential component of its plans, recognizing how vital this mode of transportation will be in the years to come. (See this post, for example.)

Yesterday, Dave Johnson from The Campaign for America’s Future offered up an absolutely terrific piece (here) comparing China’s approach (and success with) its stimulus program as compared to the one from President Obama. For the narrow-minded among us, notably those whose knee-jerk opposition to any initiatives offered by our President resulted in his ambitious plans being trimmed in order to achieve passage—those who decry “big government” and think “tax cuts” are the magic elixir for all that ails us economically (yes, I’m speaking to you on the Right)—this piece should be mandatory reading.

Our infrastructure is absolutely critical to future growth; transportation is every bit as essential; and tax cuts and less government are precisely the wrong approach (saying “no” to everything has its drawbacks, after all) as we are about to embark on an economic journey no longer fueled by cheap and easy-to-access fossil fuels. It’s time for certain quarters to expand their horizons a wee bit and take stock of the challenges that face us.

Tax cuts and less government just aren’t in the cards now.

“No” is not a solution. Denial isn’t, either. All of us need to finally recognize this.

The recent disclosures by Department of Energy officials as to their expectations about future oil supply (here), though lacking the necessary media exposure they deserve, are a significant development in the struggle to inform the public of what Peak Oil will mean to all of us. Our military is the single largest consumer of petroleum-based products, and if, as has been reported elsewhere (here, for example), the Department of Defense is undertaking a concerted effort to seek alternative forms of energy to power its equipment and personnel, we all ought to be not just paying attention, but doing the same.

(The Pentagon was recognizing back in 2007 that it would have to “fundamentally transform” its approach to and use of, fossil fuel in light of rising fuel prices and a dwindling supply—conditions even more critical three years later. See a good overview here.)

An obvious dilemma materializes almost immediately: as demand slowly but surely outstrips supply in the years to come, who gets first dibs on the oil supply in the United States? If the Pentagon does nothing about seeking alternative supplies, and as our military commitments worldwide remain at the very least consistent with today’s demands, which segments of the population are going to see their ready supply of inexpensive gasoline and heating oil curtailed so that the military can maintain its heightened state of readiness? Do your daily trips to the grocery store or to pick up your kids at school a half-mile away take priority over combat readiness?

It’s reasonably safe to assume that governments and terrorist organizations not on our “favorite people” lists won’t scale back their efforts because of any concerns that we might have to cut back on the military’s oil consumption. Keeping things “fair” is not likely to factor in to any of their plans. So what happens?

It’s probably not too much of a chore for the government and military to simply decide to and do whatever is necessary to ensure an appropriate supply of fossil fuels for military and defense purposes. Everyone else will then just have to fall in line behind the Pentagon. Is anyone willing to challenge the necessity of those decisions?

I’ll ask again: So what happens then?

Deniers can talk all they want about the gazillion barrels of oil and unconventional resources (tar sands, oil shale, etc.) still underground, or discuss “undulating plateaus” of production—all of which are nothing more than disingenuous ways of stating that we no longer have a ready supply of relatively inexpensive oil. The literary embroidery does nothing to change that fact. Oil is more difficult to locate, obtain, and produce, and that means it’s more expensive—increasingly so, in case no one is noticing. It also takes much longer to bring produced oil to market. That’s all bad math when it comes to assessing the same levels of oil and gas availability for our daily consumption.

Something has to give.

It’s all fine and well to discuss the concept or theory of Peak Oil in a once-removed, generalized manner. It’s also fine and well to discuss the military and its fossil-fuel concerns. That’s all “out there” where we’ve left it to “others” to handle all of that while we’re busy driving Mikey and Janey to school before we drive to the salon and then to 3 malls and stop at the grocery store because our spouse is stuck in traffic once again on his or her 45-minute daily commute to work, and on and on it goes.

What happens when you and me and your neighbor and my brother and your co-workers and my golf buddies and your parents can no longer just hop in the car and run whatever errands move them in the moment? What happens when determinations have been made at all levels of government and industry about oil consumption and allocation?

Ration is a dirty word, and is rarely if ever spoken of. But what happens when all of a sudden we have 8% or 11% or 14% less oil and gas available to all of us from now on? What happens then?

We need to start thinking about that—about the day-to-day impact on our individual lives—of a declining and/or more expensive supply of oil and gas to fuel all that we do.

In the next week or two, I’m going to begin a lengthy series of posts devoted to exploring just how Peak Oil is going to affect us in our daily lives. I’m not going to bore or burden any of you with charts and technological explanations. There are others eminently better qualified and more knowledgeable to cover that ground. But we need to start understanding just what it means for each of us, every day, when we no longer have an easy supply of gasoline to power our cars and SUVs and motorcycles and power boats and ATV’s … when we no longer have the luxury of just jumping into our car whenever the mood moves us to run whatever errand seems necessary in the moment, and when all of the fossil-fuel-based materials and service/transportation elements that enable our society and industry to function as they do must change.

As I have taken pains to mention all along, this is not something that’s going to befall us next week or next month, but “soon” (Two years? Five?) oil and gasoline are going to be much, much more expensive, and much more difficult to come by. We’re not going to be able to successfully transition away from fossil fuel dependency in anywhere near enough time, especially if we don’t start planning and doing now. Kicking that can down the street, as we are all-too-often inclined to do with imposing challenges, is simply going to make life that much more difficult for all of us.

The time to be responsible and to act on what we know is now.

“We’re not investing adequately or strategically in our nation’s future, and we’ll pay a huge price if we don’t change course….

“Because we’re under-investing in the areas that will determine our future dynamism and standard of living, we’ll continue to  lose ground relative to our competitors and may eventually lose ground in absolute terms as well….

 “[I]t’s hard not to conclude that the past ten years were a lost decade. We can’t afford to lose the next one.…

 “Our margin for error is a lot smaller than it was a generation ago. We can no longer afford to waste resources, public or  private, on expenditures that do not create economic or social value.” [1]

In this most recent series of posts (here and here) I’ve attempted to provide a framework of understanding as to why we need to consider the vital role our infrastructure (highways, water and sewer systems, power/electric grid, etc.) has played in our nation’s economic development, and how vital it will remain provided we understand that the infrastructure of the future will require a substantial overhaul in the age of Peak Oil. It will no longer be enough to maintain or repair what we have. A move away from fossil fuel dependency necessitates that we design and build/renovate a foundation that reflects a new energy era … assuming we wish to maintain our role as one of the dominant economic powers, that is.

The problem is that we have no coherent infrastructure policy per se. Like most national issues nowadays, we have an infrastructure that is usually at the mercy of whatever whims move a particular congressperson to seek pork for his or her district (or, to be fair, occasional legitimate expenditures to maintain, repair, or replace an infrastructure system). As we see time and again, “long term strategies” usually run from today until next election day.

This political and economic ignorance, evidence of which we are now witnessing on an almost daily basis, is going to lead us right off the edge of a very high cliff unless we smarten up. Too few of our leaders appreciate this, and 300 million of us are going to suffer because we continue to tolerate misinformation, obfuscation, obstruction, and a level of mean-spirited and astonishingly narrow-minded partisanship unlike anything most of us have ever seen.

And yes, while that criticism falls on both sides of the aisle, there is no doubt in my mind that the Right’s fear that President Obama’s success will end their reign for decades to come will be the predominant cause of our ruin. They offer almost nothing constructive (beyond hypocrisy and a generous supply of deceit and misinformation) to the dialogues we need to have. When a shameless right-wing Senator places a hold on 70 federal government appointees (!) and in the next breath claims “I don’t have any idea” if they are qualified or not, we have a problem of integrity and character well beyond all bounds of decency. [2]

Just saying “No”, arguing against spending money at a time when no other entity has the ability to do so to re-energize our economy (and yes, deficits matter … just not now), and then cutting taxes, is a collective strategy all right, but not one that’s designed with a genuine long-term vision in mind—at least not a vision with any hope of helping anyone. The Right’s borderline insane attacks on the President and their outright refusal to step away from their single-minded aim of regaining political power and instead consider joining the other side in fashioning a better future for the citizens of this country are means to a genuinely troubling end. The United States will not be alone in suffering the consequences of this political arrogance and ignorance.

If we don’t collectively agree on where we want to be not just next month or after the next election cycle, but 5, 10, 20, 50 years out, recognizing at last that we live in a different world with different and more complex challenges that require different solutions, then we might as well pack it in now. We’ll be a third-rate country in a couple of very short decades.

The issues and problems and challenges that confront us now cannot be resolved the same way we resolved problems before. It’s 2010, not 1910. The rules are different; the game itself is different. And yes, to the Right’s great dismay, government has to be involved. It’s the only institution big enough to provide the framework for what needs to be done. So the choice is to join and invigorate the debate and play a role beyond obstructing progress, or to contribute to our collapse.

“… most of the needed investment should come not from government, but from the private sector. However,  government’s role will be decisive in setting the course through leadership, coordination, regulation, and investment.” [3]

“Firms will not provide the trillions of dollars needed to develop energy infrastructure in the coming decades without credible  signals that governments are serious about instituting policies that will allow the private sector to cash in on such investments.”  [4]

It’s time to stop being stupid. It’s time for the leading voices of the Right to stop treating their followers as if they are stupid. Educate them! Frightening or misleading them instead is insane.

Start telling the truth—all of it, not just the parts that make those voices seem as if they are the only god-fearing patriots in America. They’re not. Get over it. Grow up. We have serious issues to deal with here in the real world. Join in. The door is open. (What will earn them greater respect: their insistence on a narrow-minded philosophy that clearly does not have the long-term interests of this nation at heart, or the courage to admit we have some serious issues to resolve and that we need to handle them differently and cooperatively?) Those “leaders” own that choice.

“A competitive America is also an America that finally has a smart energy policy.  We know there is no silver bullet here – that  to reduce our dependence on oil and the damage caused by climate change, we need more production, more efficiency, and  more incentives for clean energy. 

“What we can’t do is stand still.  The only certainty of the status quo is that the price and supply of oil will become  increasingly volatile; that the use of fossil fuels will wreak havoc on weather patterns and air quality….This country has to  move towards a clean energy economy.  That’s where the world is going.  And that’s how America will remain competitive  and strong in the 21st century.” President Obama [5]

The man understands….The question is, how many other leaders from both sides of the political fence, how many business leaders, how many local government officials, how many influential voices in the media, and how many of us, appreciate those same truths? (How does any rational person consider the increasing world-wide industrialization, the growth of China and India among others, and the millions of new cars on the road and honestly believe that has no significant effect now or later on our climate or energy supplies?)

Our infrastructure as presently constituted took decades to create. It will likely take decades to re-fashion one not dependent on coal, oil, and gas—although we really don’t have that much time. So where do we start?

We need to understand the importance of a vision for the future that extends beyond November’s elections. What we need is not a left wing, progressive, center-left, center, center-right, or right wing plan. We need an American plan, an American strategy that will place us at the forefront of economic recovery and prosperity in the decades ahead—decades in which oil has been supplanted by new energy sources and innovations commensurate with the demands of the future. Oil provided us with a great ride for 150 years, but it’s getting close to the end of that ride. Do we plan for the rest of our journey now, or wait until we crash into the wall before we figure out how to continue on? Planning means effort; it means vision; it means the courage to take unpalatable steps now and then, and it means spending money now.

Our success and prosperity going forward will depend on how many of us understand and accept the fact that we’ve been utilizing finite resources that by definition will eventually run out. And long before they do, the efforts to extract whatever is left will become increasingly pointless.

Making the perfect the enemy of the good is no longer acceptable. Yes, there are some concerns about the causes and effects of global warming as well as Peak Oil’s imminence. The verdicts are not unanimous. But we cannot afford to cast aside the solid and credible, irrefutable evidence that now exists just because it’s not all perfect. How many things in life ever are?! The at best disingenuous (and occasionally nutty) denials guarantee a lot of standing around. What exactly is that gaining any of us except to make the problems that much more intractable later on? We can only continue to kick these cans so far down the road.

The world is moving ahead, and changing. Do we lead, or race like hell to try and catch up because too many of us were too delusional, too ignorant, or too fearful to admit that there are enough facts, truths, and evidence (the kinds that have no political affiliations) that mandate we act on them now? More choices….

Could we all use a bit more convincing? Sure. But are we really helping ourselves by standing firm in denial and delusion while we wait? There is a LOT of evidence suggesting that the days of easily accessible, available, and inexpensive oil are coming to an end; and there is a LOT of evidence suggesting that what we humans are doing is creating a potential global warming catastrophe. It should be enough to convince rational and intelligent people to start acting.

So do we do nothing instead, waiting for perfect proofs at every turn, or do we begin the research and planning and production now, allowing market forces and more creativity to spark even more innovation? Clearly NOTHING happens if we do nothing, or wait for the perfect moment and perfect set of economic conditions….No one wants to hear it, but the truth is that this is going to be a major, expensive undertaking, and all of us have roles to play. And yes, undoubtedly there will be sacrifices along the way.

 “The contours of a resilient, low-carbon recovery are becoming clear. Underlying all these measures is a common principle:  the need to lay down now the infrastructure and the hardware to support a low-carbon recovery and the green economy of the  future.” British Prime Minister Gordon Brown

We need to start now. We need to have serious discussions involving serious people with serious understanding and a serious desire to vault us into a new era of growth and well-being. Opportunities….

Next: A Look At Transportation

Sources:

[1] http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/future-shock-0; Future Shock: Americans just aren’t equipped for the 21st century. William Galston February 24, 2010
[2] http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/26/shelby-unapologetic/; Shelby Dismisses The Adverse Effect Of His Holds On The Pentagon, Says He Has No Clue If Nominees Are Qualified by Amanda Terkel, February 26, 2010
[3 http://globalpublicmedia.com/memo_to_the_president_elect – Museletter 200: Memo to the President-elect on Energy Realism and the Green New Deal; 04 Dec 2008; MuseLetter 200 by Richard Heinberg
[4 http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65897/david-g-victor-and-linda-yueh/the-new-energy-order; The New Energy Order: Managing Insecurities in the Twenty-first Century; January/February 2010; David G. Victor and Linda Yueh
[5 President Obama in a February 24, 2010 address to the Business Roundtable, as reported here: http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/83457-obama-smart-energy-policy-key-to-competitive-america

I’ve been very clear in stating that while I do believe Peak Oil is imminent (which doesn’t necessarily mean next week!), there’s no doubt that we still have billions of barrels available to us in the years to come. Our energy base is not falling off a cliff tomorrow.

Having said that, we must nonetheless start planning now for what happens when fossil fuel availability is significantly diminished and prohibitively expensive. While we still have a ready and adequate supply of oil and gas, we need to utilize those still-abundant levels of energy to begin the transition away from fossil fuel dependency. The reality is beyond dispute: our entire infrastructure developed, was built, and has since been maintained with coal, oil, and gas in mind. Until very recently, there had never been any considerations or concerns that we might actually have to completely re-vamp the transportation, power grid, communications, utility, food production, and/or other systems that comprise our basic infrastructure. We’re going to need lots of energy to make that happen.

When you stop for a moment and consider all the highways, the aqueducts, the power and electric grid systems (poles, wires, etc.), the schools, the hospitals, the bridges, the sewers, the farms, the waste treatment facilities and all the other components of our infrastructure, the amount of fossil fuels needed to design, build, repair, maintain, and renovate all of those elements are beyond staggering! Dealing with the impending reality that the fossil fuels which served at the heart of our infrastructure will no longer be available—thus requiring that the repairs, maintenance, renovations, re-design, delivery, and functioning of these complex components will necessitate something other than fossil fuels—means that the transition over to alternative energy sources or brand new design features will take years (read: decades.) We can’t wait until we’re up to our eyeballs in Peak Oil’s impact to start figuring out what to do. We’re too close as it is.

Our great dilemma then rears its head: We do not yet have the alternatives energies in place to effect an orderly and efficient transition. It’s going to take many, many years, much trial and error, and incredible amounts of research, design, production, and delivery implementation in order to achieve seamless transitions away from fossil fuels—assuming those efforts to identify efficient alternative energies prove successful! What are we supposed to do once the existing fossil fuel resources are not so plentiful ever again?

Disasters … or Opportunities?

In my last post, I cited the American Society for Civil Engineers’ 2009 report on the disastrous condition of 15 different infrastructure systems, and the assessment that we need several trillion dollars to bring them into some semblance of acceptable condition. Those systems do not exist in their only little cost-free vacuums, either. For example, when roadways or bridges become impassable for lack of timely funding to repair them, then the products and supplies needed for other elements of the infrastructure are undeliverable as planned, and those delays lead to other problems which create other issues that then lead to….

According to the International Energy Agency, if we continue to rely on fossil fuels, then some $26 trillion dollars in new investments are needed from now through 2030 to continue exploration for new resource fields and to utilize whatever new extraction technologies might be required to meet production and demand expectations. Does anyone doubt that a comparable amount will be needed to re-design, re-build, and/or re-configure our infrastructure so that its development, construction, repair, and maintenance are properly achieved without fossil fuels at the ready?

If we haven’t figured it out yet, then we need to recognize and appreciate the direct connection between a properly functioning infrastructure and the overall health of our industry and economy—and by extension the well-being of the citizens of this nation. A few tweaks and some tinkering here and there isn’t going to get it done. That’s a waste of time and resources, and we don’t have a lot to spare as it is.

The wonderful New York Times columnist Bob Herbert has stated that “We’ve become stupid about this.” Stupid can’t be a strategy any more than denial or delusion, and we’ve already got way too many people adopting those approaches.

I don’t pretend than any of this is pleasant to consider, but we are indeed presented with incredible opportunities to design an almost entirely new way of living, producing, and prospering. There are no elements of our cultural or industrial society that cannot (and will not) be impacted, and so the challenge is rife with the potential for great harm, or great opportunities. But success won’t happen if only some of us are on board.

So what choices do we make? What choices do our business and political leaders make on our behalf? Do we attempt to preserve a way of life that is inevitably subject to the reality of natural resource depletion; or we do we begin the lengthy, uncertain, and challenging path of finally moving away from fossil fuel dependence? There are no guarantees that we escape harm regardless of the choice made. We’re going to be affected and impacted regardless. And neither choice is free. But one is surely and at best only a short-term solution (and yes, decades are short-term in this regard).

Despite the amazing depths of foolishness (the kindest word I could manage) exhibited by those who have decided that ALL scientific assessments are completely wrong (a hoaxy-socalisty-changey thing, I guess), climate change is also going to impact us. Peak Oil is not going to help. We’re going to have to make fundamental, extensive changes in what we do to try and ward off the harm and destruction global warming will dump at our feet (even if that might be decades away as well). We need to start implementing those changes now, while fossil fuels remain plentiful.

These are not separate crises. We’ll need an extraordinary amount of wisdom and insight to make certain that fixing one problem doesn’t make the other worse … and we’ll need a fair amount of luck to try and make that work. We’re not going to come up with perfect solutions in the next couple of weeks, but we’re guaranteed to come up with none if we don’t recognize what we’re facing.

Despite the somber portrayal, I remain convinced that this is all about opportunity. The challenge of Peak Oil affords us a chance to determine and define growth and progress in new ways—and for many decades more than what continued reliance on fossil fuels will get us. Change is always difficult, more so now in the midst of great economic and financial uncertainty. Expectations about growth and prosperity along a comfortable and familiar path are understandably preferred. But they are now growing increasingly unrealistic, and the sooner we all understand this, the better off we’ll all be and the sooner we can begin to move in a necessarily different direction.

We have before us a great challenge, to be sure. Just contemplating the magnitude of what we have to undertake is overwhelming.  Designing and then undertaking all that is then required to actually implement this new vision is a feat well beyond our capacity to fully envision at this moment. But that does not make it impossible.

There’s no getting around it: we need to build a twenty-first century infrastructure. The one we have will not endure if it remains reliant on fossil fuels. We’re well past the stage where crossing fingers and toes is the answer. Our communication systems; food production; industrial development, production, and delivery; power grids; all that we consider transportation; water and sewer services, and all the other components that make up the infrastructure foundation that has brought us to this moment will have to be re-fashioned. All the pretending otherwise, denying, or ignoring isn’t going to change that. Those who’ve chosen some combination of these strategies must find the courage to look again.

A world of 6, 7, 8, 10 billion people simply cannot survive or hope to maintain (let alone enhance) economic growth and prosperity unless it embraces the changes contemplated here.

We have a choice, of course. But really, we have no choice. It’s up to us to recognize this and act, or fail. The opportunities are there.

Next: Part III