Peak Oil Matters

Reality has a well-known liberal bias – Stephen Colbert

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

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

As I observed in that first post:

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

Recently [Part 3 of this Looking Left and Right series], I introduced the concept of “cultural cognition”, from the works of Dan M. Kahan, Yale University and Donald Barman – George Washington University [link to PDF download]. The authors’ introduction:

There is some phenomenon— other than the paucity or inaccessibility of scientific information—that shapes the distribution of factual beliefs about, and the existence of political conflict over, law and public policy. What is it?
The answer, we propose, is a set of processes we call cultural cognition. Essentially, cultural commitments are prior to factual beliefs on highly charged political issues….culture is prior to facts in the cognitive sense that what citizens believe about the empirical consequences of those policies derives from their cultural worldviews. Based on a variety of overlapping psychological mechanisms, individuals accept or reject empirical claims about the consequences of controversial polices based on their vision of a good society. [p. 148]

So here’s one Peak Oil-related problem:

Furthermore, in a democracy, a mandate for radical changes, particularly those that will in the short-term adversely impact the living standards of voters, requires the electorate to be already suffering from the condition that the government’s ‘cure’ is intended to alleviate. With regard to the energy sector, there is a lengthy lag between the adoption of a new policy and its implementation, due to the scale of the infrastructure and work required. If a crisis occurs in the energy sector, then it follows that a country will find it much more expensive to resolve, than if it had taken earlier measures to prevent it from happening in the first place. In other words, prevention is better than the cure….
Like climate change, peak oil and resource depletion in general runs into the human tendency to discount the future. While this worked admirably back when our problems occurred on a daily or at most seasonal basis, it is ill-suited to managing events that happen over the course of decades. [1]

If planning ahead makes sense, then this would appear to be one reasonable approach:

Clearly, you shouldn’t try to persuade your ideological opponents by citing threatening facts. Rather, if your goal is an honest give-and-take, you should demonstrate the existence of common ground and shared values before broaching anything controversial, and you should interact calmly and interpersonally. To throw emotion into the mix is to stoke automatic, moralistic, indignant responses. [2]

Hard to argue with the truth or rational approach of either observation, at least in an objective world. So how should one deal with the perspectives in opposition to Peak Oil or any planning other than “drill, baby, drill”—expressed in articles like this one by Jeffrey Folks?:

Everything from ‘peak oil’ to ‘no quick fix’ is a thinly disguised attempt at government takeover of the energy sector, something the left has plotted since at least the 1930s.

A likely knee-jerk reaction from those who understand the developing urgency of Peak Oil’s impact is admittedly unkind: “It’s not much more than laughably ignorant, paranoid nonsense, and it’s thus impossible to take either the comment or author seriously. After eighty years, you’d think the nefarious Left’s super-duper, double-secret plot would have either succeeded or those damn liberals would have given up.” So that’s settled!

A wild guess: this doesn’t make for much of a discussion of any kind, let alone a good-faith attempt to understand opposing perspectives and then make the effort to arrive at some mutually agreeable and ideally beneficial solutions to the problem at hand. Dale Carnegie’s How To Win Friends & Influence People strategy it is not.

So that option, while validating one’s own beliefs and ideology at the expense of some clueless, reality-challenged, tinfoil-hat-wearing “other”, doesn’t offer much to any of us. With the high stakes at hand, obviously another approach is called for.

But the seemingly logical alternative is quickly dismissed by Kahan and Barman:

If one starts with the intuitive but mistaken premise that public disagreement is an artifact of insufficient or insufficiently accessible scientific information, the obvious strategy for dispelling disagreement, and for promoting enlightened democratic decision-making, is to produce and disseminate sound information as widely as possible. But the phenomenon of cultural cognition implies that this strategy will be futile. [pp. 148-149].

So now what? Peak Oil (and climate change) are—to those of us who do accept the evidence and expert assessments—serious, fact-based realities which will soon enough impose some rather unpleasant, widespread, and irrevocable changes on how we live and work … all of us, even those on the Right who presently find almost nothing about either topic to be worth contemplating at all. That poses a dilemma (more than one, but let’s stick with this for the moment).

Almost no aspect of our personal, cultural, economic, industrial, or commercial lifestyles will not be affected in large or small measure by the impact of Peak Oil and/or climate change. We don’t treat that unpleasant expectation lightly, although I suspect that I’m not the only Peak Oil proponent who would prefer being wrong! Our beliefs and the facts we accept in support make for a beyond-reasonable-doubt convincing case—from where we sit. So whatever solutions/adaptations are needed will require on all-hands-on-deck approach, and soon.

We will need the insights and perspectives and experiences and expertise of all parties, and ideologies aren’t high on the checklist of criteria. We’ll need the expertise of business owners and investment advisors and bankers. (Would they prefer getting left behind as economic conditions change, or might having a say in, and possibilities for, continuing success be more appealing?) That’s not to say there shouldn’t be some recognition of cultural perspectives, but we will have to decide what works best across as many lifestyle categories as is possible.

The changes needed can’t be dictated solely by a Big Liberal Government-No Government Tea Party scorecard for the simple reason that the effects of Peak Oil and climate change will be beyond any challenge we’ve ever confronted. The manner in which we address the effects thus do not fit neatly into ideological boxes providing clear choices.

We must move beyond those limitations. As with most observations on the subject of Peak Oil, saying is so much easier than doing. The challenge is all the greater—if that’s possible—because from our perspective too many people without the means/opportunities to understand what’s at stake are being fed a steady diet of half-truths, misrepresentations, irrelevancies, nonsense, and in some cases outright lies. If you come to the table without understanding or even knowing the facts, it’s a wee bit more difficult to contribute and then leave with meaningful solutions in hand. Not exactly a major revelation….

So now what?

Because I found Mr. Folks’ arguments to be an ideal example of most elements of the “diet” mentioned above, I’ll expand on the topics of this Looking Left and Right subset in several follow-up posts over the next few Thursdays. The conclusions about cultural cognition offered by Mr. Kahan and Mr. Barman as they relate to the points raised in the piece by Mr. Folks will serve as the foundation.

Perhaps (I hope) we all might benefit from a different take. If nothing else, it should spark what I can only hope will be meaningful exchanges as we begin the long overdue process of trying to figure out what to do in the face of Peak Oil’s many challenges.

Until next time….

Sources:

[1] http://www.ifandp.com/article/009633.html; Is time running out? by Dr. Samuel Fenwick/ IFandP Research – 02.14.11
[2] http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/154607/how_the_right-wing_brain_works_and_what_that_means_for_progressives?; How the Right-Wing Brain Works and What That Means for Progressives by Chris Mooney – 03.20.12

[Third in a series]

[NOTE]: Back in November, Naomi Klein offered a fascinating and thought-provoking essay in Nation magazine entitled “Capitalism vs. the Climate” in which she discussed the transformative changes needed if we are to successfully (not a guarantee) and thoroughly address the challenges of our warming planet. Her insights and observations can easily be adapted to the similar considerations and challenges Peak Oil will extend to us as well. Taken together, the confluence of these looming impositions on our once-cozy ways of life mandate responses far more expansive than a policy here or a tweak there. Ms. Klein offers us all a well-reasoned approach for both how and why.

Every Monday (and for four more weeks), I’ll take advantage of her arguably controversial yet well-reasoned assessments to elaborate and extend the thought process as it applies to Peak Oil. [Part one here; part two here]

[* Any quotes following are taken from Ms. Klein’s essay in Nation unless noted otherwise.]

~~~

Our difficulties and our dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them   — Winston Churchill

Our civilization is driven by an economic system that expects continued and limitless growth. However, during the summer of 2008 when the price of a barrel of oil reached $147, we reached a tipping point for our global economy. The impact on the transportation system and on micro economies and the collapse of global financial systems created a worldwide wakeup call.
We, as a civilization, are totally dependent on oil and fossil fuels. During the summer of 2008, I personally heard the wakeup call and asked my top leaders to gather in our executive conference room. I had a simple question for them. What would happen to our business when the price of a barrel of oil reaches $250? What do we look like in terms of raw materials costs, supply and profitability? Our analysis and relevant contingency planning showed that the business would collapse and most likely disappear if we adopted a wait-and-see strategy. [1]

What if … what if the already-overwhelming and still-growing body of evidence about our warming planet and the peak in crude oil production actually might be the truth? What if the tinfoil hat crowd’s paranoid fears about this Agenda-21-guided, liberal-conspiracy-to-control-the-world sort of nonsense they rant about is in fact nothing but nonsense after all?

What if the countless tens of thousands of scientists and energy experts across countless industries aren’t actually scheming to lie to the citizens of planet Earth in order to … ah, you know … do nefarious conspiratorial liberal things that are “bad”, but are instead merely telling the truth to inform and assist the countless billions who simply do not have access to the information and thus don’t know what faces them? Imagine that!

What a concept: provide sound information to help people plan! Who knew humans could do such things? Some of them Liberals, no less!

Two choices, it seems.

First: continue to deny and delude yourself into thinking that there simply is no conceivable way any—all 100%—of that great body of evidence/facts and the only rational conclusions to be drawn are entirely wrong (and nefarious, etc., etc.). Business as usual, the magic and wonder of just-in-the-nick-of-time Technology rides to the rescue, and “what, me worry?” attitudes can thus continue their paths to limitless growth and prosperity.

Second: there’s more than a bit of truth contained in that great body of evidence/facts and the only rational conclusions to be drawn. It might not be an iron-clad guarantee (what is?). It might not be an 80% or even 65% certainty. But in a rational, practical world where risks are weighed and addressed based on examinations of not-always-100%-guaranteed-facts at hand, the accumulated body of knowledge, evidence, facts, and truths (take your pick) about climate change and Peak Oil are now well past the point where they can be ignored in totality for any sane person or business owner expecting some future measure of continuing well-being and prosperity.

And by “future”, I mean some period of time extending beyond the next-week/next-month-only “long term” calendar some of our leaders seem to utilize in making decisions. We’re talking not just this decade or the next … we’re talking about all of the future—everything after today! “Good right now” is not how we address potential problems of such magnitude unless you simply do not care about what happens to you, your friends, your family, your colleagues, your company, your community, your nation. Hell of life that must be….

In addition to reversing the thirty-year privatization trend, a serious response to the climate threat involves recovering an art that has been relentlessly vilified during these decades of market fundamentalism: planning. Lots and lots of planning. And not just at the national and international levels. Every community in the world needs a plan for how it is going to transition away from fossil fuels, what the Transition Town movement calls an ‘energy descent action plan.’

It has been a consistent theme of mine, and of many others much more credentialed than me, that we are going to have to implement expansive and in some cases quite drastic plans in how we conduct our day-to-day affairs if we are to give ourselves the best chances of success as we adapt to the changes global warming and Peak Oil will impose. We can just wait until the last minute and then scramble around like hell to see what we can come up on the fly—only then realizing the scope of the problem—or we might consider something in advance. The Hirsch Report (here, and see related links in the Category sidebar) offers sound guidance on that score.

Last May, I offered this:

We need a better vision to guide us. And for those looking for reasons why a smaller role for government is what’s called for, I’ll save you the time and tell you this is not the place to be. As the main theme of this series expands in the months to come, I’ll discuss in greater detail why the libertarian/conservative-inspired vision of small government is completely inappropriate a strategy to pursue in light of the challenges we face. (How a bigger role for a better government with honest leadership takes shape will determine whether this ideology is valuable and a necessary pursuit.) Let’s begin with all that needs to be done, and then decide what role the various players will be required to fulfill….
The policies and guidelines supporting those objectives will require a focus on such policies and principles as smart growth, more transportation options, and more research and implementation of alternative energy strategies—while educating ourselves and others of the great changes that will and must take place across all levels of industry, production, commerce, and lifestyles. To that end, there will be a great deal of discussion on greater citizen involvement, energy and industrial policies, the political/partisan elements which too often hinder and harm much more than they assist, and a more detailed role for local governments.

There’s also this from the not-particularly-liberal NewGeography website:

[P]ublic policy can play a useful role in bolstering the long-term resilience of society in the face of the resource challenge, including taking measures to raise awareness about resource-related risks and opportunities, creating appropriate safety nets to mitigate the impact of these risks on the poorest members of society, educating consumers and businesses to adapt their behavior to the realities of today’s resource-constrained world, and increasing access to modern energy, so improving the economic capacity of the most vulnerable communities. [2]

Ms. Klein observed:

It is true that responding to the climate threat requires strong government action at all levels. But real climate solutions are ones that steer these interventions to systematically disperse and devolve power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users.

And in a terrific essay I’ve cited previously, James Quinn offered these related observations:

We need to prepare our society to become more local….If our society acted in a far sighted manner, we would be creating communities that could sustain themselves with local produce, local merchants, bike paths, walkable destinations, local light rail commuting, and local energy sources.

It’s not rocket science. We can either start taking into consideration essential advice from varied sources such as these and develop new ways of producing and transporting and all kinds of other “ing’s” we now do courtesy of decades upon decades of once-plentiful sources of affordable and highly-efficient energy on a planet once not so burdened with climate change; or we can just wait, hope, cross fingers and toes, and believe in the Magic Right-On-Time Technology Fairy.

Do we (and that includes—especially and significantly—those whom we currently identify as “leaders”) have a say in how this all unfolds? Or is the whole wait, hope … strategy the wiser course? Everyone will be affected; everyone should have a say in how plans develop. A more localized Everything will in due course become the dominant paradigm, and so the more who volunteer their insights, expertise, assistance, or whatever else might help make a difference, the better our chances.

Will we want these same leaders to assume those roles in whatever changed economic and cultural systems are ultimately fashioned? If they are unable or unwilling to assume responsibility now by first acknowledging some harsh realities and then contribute their considerable knowledge and expertise to the demands climate change and Peak Oil impose, why would want them to fill those roles later on?

Step up to the plate or sit on the bench.

More discussion on this topic is on the way….

Sources:

[1] http://www.sbnonline.com/2012/01/stephan-liozu-oil-dependence/?full=1; Oil dependence by Stephan Liozu [“President and CEO of Ardex America Inc. (www.ardex.com), an innovative and high-performance building materials company located in Pittsburgh”] – 01.03.12
[2] http://www.newgeography.com/content/002605-the-us-needs-look-inwards-solve-its-economy; The U.S. Needs to Look Inwards to Solve Its Economy by Adam Mayer – 01.03.12

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

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

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

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

Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger. [1]

It is societies such as ours, badly divided and obsessed with the present, that most need communal ties. But they are the least likely to produce them. Obama’s speeches have gestured at this problem but haven’t solved it. Indeed, in these circumstances, only a steady appeal to common sense and common decency has any hope of sustainably convincing American citizens to act in what Tocqueville called their self-interest, rightly understood. But it’s still an open question whether our leaders have the fortitude to make, and our citizens the disposition to hear, such an appeal. [2]

What’s the alternative if we don’t “hear such an appeal?” At some point, reality will intrude on the comfortable beliefs of those who deny that our planet is warming—dangerously so—and that the fossil fuel supply which powered us to this point in history with remarkable technological prowess will soon enough no longer be available to all of us as it has.

What kind of a nation do we choose to be?

Will we collectively make choices to adapt to the changes geology and Mother Nature are going to be impose on all of us—Left and Right—or are we going to resist change, preserve ideology at all costs, and then be forced to adapt? The end result will be the same. Do we make the choice to have a say, or is last-minute, unprepared panic the preference? Denying that there will be any significant changes at all is at this point delusional, dangerous, and several stages beyond foolish. How much and how “bad” remains to be seen, but none of us can afford to blithely pretend that all will continue to just fine and dandy in the years and decades to come.

There’s no solace in recognizing that the harsher consequences are probably still several years away. The process has already begun….

At the heart of resilience thinking is a very simple notion — things change — and to ignore or resist this change is to increase our vulnerability and forego emerging opportunities. In so doing, we limit our options. [3]

Who’s prepared to explain to our children that we chose to avoid and deny … at their expense, because we were … well, it was too uncomfortable or painful for us, and we just preferred to hope and pray instead. Plates were full; we were sure someone would do something somehow to fix it so we could continue to ignore it all; costs were too high; too much sacrifice … the excuses won’t be worth the paper they’re printed on, and as a result, problems several orders of magnitude beyond what we’ll most likely have to contend with as it is will be what’s left. Nice, huh?

Why would people who are politically conservative be more likely to deny the evidence about climate change? Well, conservatives are generally what Cultural Cognition theory calls Hierarchists. They like clear and fixed hierarchies of class and race and social structure, a rigid predictable ‘that’s the way it’s always been done’ status quo. They don’t like government butting in trying to change things, and leveling the playing field, and taking from the haves who have earned it and giving to the have-nots who haven’t. Well, the solutions to climate change [and Peak Oil - my comment] are going to take all kinds of government ‘butting in’, all sorts of adjustments to the economic status quo, interventions that will mean new winners and losers, changes to who’s where on the economic and power ladder, and to a hierarchist (i.e. conservative), that means somebody else’s sort of society – the society of ‘Egalitarians’ who want things flexible and fair, not rigid and bound by class and hierarchy – is going to prevail. [4]

The challenge for those who choose to deny for whatever reasons* is to recognize—much sooner than they’re currently prepared to—that business as usual is not a viable option for the long-term. All the well-rehearsed ideological principles they’ve relied upon, the cherry-picked facts and assorted misrepresentations the well-oiled denial machine has cranked out**, the refusal to deal with facts … not a single one of those efforts, nor all combined, will prevent the consequences of a warming planet and diminished energy supplies from reaching those who have evaded the truths.

What happens then?

[W]hen faced with an ambiguous situation, conservatives would tend to process the information initially with a strong emotional response. This would make them less likely to lean towards change, and more likely to prefer stability. Stability means more predictability, which means more expected outcomes, and less of a trigger for anxiety. [5]

Perfectly understandable! But will it help?

“Expected outcomes” aren’t in the cards in the years to come, so the ideology/strategy is doomed to eventual failure. A risk worth taking, given what’s at stake?

How do we not accept change in all its variations? Where would we be if this nation made a collective decision in 1846 or 1903 or 1949 that we’re done: “We’ve gone as far as we care to go, we’re not going to do anything drastic; we’re just going to sit tight and make do with what we’ve got and where we are, because, quite frankly, imagining something different might be a bad thing, and we just can’t go there…?”

There’s nothing joyful or gratifying in discussing the consequences and impact of Peak Oil (and climate change). Being wrong would be fabulous! On purely selfish terms, my being wrong about all of this means my pleasant suburban life complete with a summer beach home and assorted gadgets and nice cars, etc., etc. could continue merrily along without interruption. I’m sure I would find something else to devote my efforts to, and I’m also certain I wouldn’t carry the weighty concerns which this endeavor burdens me with on a daily basis. There is little enjoyment in collecting facts on the subject of Peak Oil—recognizing what its impact means to and for all of us. But like my peers on this side of the discussion, denial is not an option. The message is too important.

Accepting the consequences is one thing. Accepting that we made no effort to inform when we knew is quite another. So onward and upward we go….

We often speak of ‘change’–as a potent political slogan, as a permanent feature of life, as a ‘good thing’–but we rarely speak of the often-wrenching process of change. I think the reason is self-evident: change often involves loss.
This is why Kubler-Ross’s five stages of grief –denial, anger, bargaining, resignation and acceptance–have become an increasingly mainstream model of the process of coming to terms with the losses of declining asset valuations, a devolving economy and a lower standard of living…..
That the Status Quo–dependent on ever-rising debt and asset values, on cheap, abundant energy, food and other resources–is unsustainable, is self-evident to all not firmly lodged in the cocoon of self-deception and magical thinking known as denial. It follows that the Status Quo will devolve or implode within the next 10-15 years, and be replaced by some other arrangement….
Just like the ancient Romans, we cling to magical thinking, as if a glorious past will magically repeat itself without any effort or sacrifice on our part; rather than confidence about the future, our primary emotion is fear, and our primary defense is denial….
[W]e fear the process that will make us whole and bring us a grounded well-being because at the start of the process, the end result is unknown. The leap requires self-confidence and faith. The person–and the society–grounded in realistic appraisals and self-knowledge is not afraid of transformation or the stiff challenges of the future….
One of the key stages in the process of change is to accept responsibility for where we are right now, and fashion a realistic response. [6]

We still have choices. The steps we take individually and collectively matter … a lot. Making wise choices unencumbered by ideologies or “safe” tactics is an option worth considering.

* Sen. James Inhofe was kind enough to explain one of the real reasons for the Right’s denial of climate change in an unguarded moment when he wandered onto the dark side of truth, facts, and reality: “I was actually on your side of this issue when I was chairing that committee and I first heard about this. I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost. [my emphasis]”

** [See this—the first link—to a four-part account of how that effort has manufactured doubt.]

Sources:

[1] http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/; How facts backfire: Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains by Joe Keohane – 07.11.10
[2] http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/101057/obama-economic-doctrine-community-nationalism; Has Obama Convinced Americans About the Importance of Community? by William Galston – 02.25.12
[3] http://news.thomasnet.com/green_clean/2012/01/02/will-the-resilience-movement-help-the-world-cope-with-the-resource-crunch/; Will the Resilience Movement Help the World Cope With the Resource Crunch? by Al Bredenberg – 01.02.12
[4] http://bigthink.com/ideas/39500?page=all;  “Cool Dudes”, Hot Temps; The Climate Change Battle Will Get Us Nowhere by David Ropeik – 07.29.11
[5] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/09/07/your-brain-on-politics-the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-liberals-and-conservatives/; Your Brain on Politics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Liberals and Conservatives by Chris Mooney (guest post by Andrea Kuszewski) – 09.07.11
[6] http://www.oftwominds.com/blogaug11/process-of-change-8-11.html; Change and the Process of Transformation by Charles Hugh Smith – 08.15.11

[Second in a series]

[NOTE]: Back in November, Naomi Klein offered a fascinating and thought-provoking essay in Nation magazine entitled “Capitalism vs. the Climate” in which she discussed the transformative changes needed if we are to successfully (not a guarantee) and thoroughly address the challenges of our warming planet. Her insights and observations can easily be adapted to the similar considerations and challenges Peak Oil will extend to us as well. Taken together, the confluence of these looming impositions on our once-cozy ways of life mandate responses far more expansive than a policy here or a tweak there. Ms. Klein offers us all a well-reasoned approach for both how and why.

Every Monday (beginning last week here, and for five more weeks), I’ll take advantage of her arguably controversial yet well-reasoned assessments to elaborate and extend the thought process as it applies to Peak Oil.

[* Any quotes following are taken from Ms. Klein’s essay in Nation unless noted otherwise.]

Capitalism in its present form has been a great ride. The technological marvels alone are extraordinary to consider, to say nothing of the advances and opportunities created for most Americans for decades. Despite the snarky commentary from some with nothing better to offer, dispensing “gloom and doom” is not an objective for those of us concerned even just a little about climate change and Peak Oil.

There’s very little joy confronting the facts about these twin challenges. The truth is that nothing would please us more than to continue Business-As-Usual, expand the “pie”, and then carry on with no concerns about the world outside our door, awaiting only the next great technological trends.

But we socialist-marxist-nazi-commie-jovian-hippie-redistributist-taxaholic-liberals are willing to recognize the need for change in ways the Right is not: if more of us are to have the opportunity to restore some semblance of success and prosperity and comfort and economic well-being in the years to come rather than continuing to be at the mercy of systems and policies catering only to the well-off, then significant changes in those very systems are called for, painful and disruptive though they may be for the few.

One simple reason is sufficient: Peak Oil and climate change are going to cause painful and disruptive changes to all of us and for extended periods of time. The strategy of denial and dismissal of facts and evidence will run its course no matter how powerful a hold ideology may have on individuals from every political stripe. Why should we continue to advocate for policies which will protect only the few and widen the gaps even more?

Is this what all of our progress over decades has had as its ultimate aim: reward the few and allow them to survive while ever-larger groups among us suffer that much more?

What to do is itself a monumental challenge, given the rampant, take-no-prisoners partisanship dominating political discourse and policy-making. If you do not agree with me, you are automatically, 100% incorrect (and probably insane, too). Great sound bite; ignorant tactic.

Ms. Klein sets out the challenge:

There is simply no way to square a belief system that vilifies collective action and venerates total market freedom with a problem that demands collective action on an unprecedented scale and a dramatic reining in of the market forces that created and are deepening the crisis.

~~~

As we move into an election year, in which U.S. residents will have prolonged debate over our collective priorities and values, we must pursue answers to a broader question. Since at least 1981, when the Reagan revolution overtook public policy, we have built an economy on two related fictions. The first is that boundless growth is sustainable. The second is that unrestrained capitalism, particularly in the financial sector, will create wealth for everyone. These are discredited ideas, and the question of 2012 must be how we begin building a society based on something different. [1]

Many Americans, including politicians, are under the impression that certain ‘isms’ are magic bullets for prosperity while other ‘isms’ hold prosperity back. For instance, conservatives like to use the talking point that ‘socialism’ will destroy America. Similarly, many of those on the left protest against as what they see as ‘capitalism’ leading to widening inequality. Being for or against a particular ‘ism’ does nothing to improve the economic situation but only serves to inflame rhetoric and kill policies that could potentially help the U.S. economy. [2]

… [I]n truth, the problem extends past the economy. Look around and you’ll find one broken institution after another, each of them buckling under the weight of the late 20th century consensus that greed is good, that a winner-takes-all individualism will somehow improve our collective endeavors….
Our chosen political leaders have tolerated all of this in order to maintain the fiction that our economic system still works, that the organizing principles of our society remain valid. So the central question of 2012’s likely all-consuming political debate must be simple: How do we acknowledge that our current economy is built on lies and then start erecting a new one based on equity and sustainability? [3]

How much longer should we wait before we begin having different discussions about the problems we face and the possibilities for addressing them? And what exactly are we waiting for?

You don’t have to be a rocket-scientist to appreciate the magnitude of changes which a decline in the availability of quality, affordable fossil fuel resources will force upon us across every facet of industry and society (while we patiently wait for Magic Technology or Fully Tested & Proven Alternatives to make their belated appearances).

… [T]he gravity of the climate crisis [and Peak Oil - my comment] cries out for a radically new conception of realism, as well as a very different understanding of limits. Government budget deficits are not nearly as dangerous as the deficits we have created in vital and complex natural systems. Changing our culture to respect those limits will require all of our collective muscle—to get ourselves off fossil fuels and to shore up communal infrastructure for the coming storms.

Just how quickly are we thinking these changes will fall neatly into place so that we can continue on with Business As Usual? What’s the plan, expectation, or hope for those who still insist on disputing every single bit of evidence that we are facing some constraints in the supply of the very resource which makes growth, progress, and economic prosperity possible? Just how well will life be for the deniers when Peak Oil (and irreversible climate change) are full upon us?

“We’ll be dead by then….” Is that it? Is that good enough? Yikes! Sure hope not….

“It’s not a problem for me now so it obviously won’t be a problem for me later” is likewise an interesting approach and absolutely the correct one to pursue … if one can also stop time simultaneously; otherwise, changes will continue apace, and soon enough that tactic will go the way of delusion and denial….A bet worth making?

Perhaps better notions about planning might be worth considering? I’ll turn to that topic in the next post in this series.

Sources:

[1] http://www.alternet.org/economy/153614/our_economy_has_failed_–_until_we_admit_that,_we%27re_screwed/; Our Economy Has Failed — Until We Admit That, We’re Screwed by Kai Wright – 12.30.11
[2] http://www.newgeography.com/content/002605-the-us-needs-look-inwards-solve-its-economy; The U.S. Needs to Look Inwards to Solve Its Economy by Adam Mayer – 01.03.12
[3] Our Economy Has Failed…. by Kai Wright

There is a Greek proverb I wish every elected federal and state official would recite before starting any talks about our energy policies and challenges: ‘A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.’

In other words, the strength of our nation is dependent upon leaders who are able to see beyond the country’s immediate needs. [1]

~~~

This is a continuation of my discussion about the emotional and psychological consequences of a changed lifestyle necessitated when the full effects of Peak Oil are realized, discussed in a study published late last year and well worth reading (academic elements aside). As I noted in the first part of this series, the authors are to be commended for shedding light on an important aspect of Peak Oil’s impact which to date has been given virtually no consideration.

[* Any quotes following are taken from this above-referenced study unless noted otherwise.]

When we are all dealing with the day-to-day impact of Peak Oil in its many manifestations—personal, civic, and commercial—the inconveniences in their many manifestations (and in some instances those consequences will be much more severe than mere inconveniences) will prompt far more than irritation or frustration. Those reactions are best left to the one-time changes to our daily routines and expectations.

When every day from here on in is different because the decline in availability of ready supplies of affordable, high-quality fossil fuels cuts a swath through every element of living which relies in any way upon that availability, we’ll stop being irritated fairly quickly. Anxieties, doubts, worries (take your pick) will all come to the fore—much more so if we have failed to plan. Multiply those predictable emotional and psychological responses by every adult member of your community likewise being impacted, and soon enough we’ll be dealing with community-wide, region-wide, state-wide, and national anxieties and fears that life as we’ve known it has changed.

We won’t wake up one Monday morning and come to this realization, but if we have not entertained plans long, long before the changes come into play, the slide down that slope won’t be much fun, either. Almost every single commercial establishment or professional service you rely upon in any manner depends on the same availability of ready supplies of affordable, high-quality fossil fuels as you do. No one will be left untouched.

What happens to life-as-we-know-it and Business-As-Usual when only 95% of fossil fuels are available? 87%? 75%? 61%? Who gets what? When? How much? How expensive? How often?

Coupled with the impact on our economy, politics, and cultural/society, the no-turning-back changes we’ll all be obliged to deal with will surely impose stresses and strains on even the strongest-willed among us. Citing various professional studies and authorities, the authors point out that group reactions and needs will be vital elements in how we all deal with those consequences and impacts on just about every facet of our day-to-day lives.

The [essential] connections and relationships … are the distribution of power within the group, the establishment and maintenance of communication networks, the emotional bonds among members, and the communal goals of the group … act as the “glue” that bonds group members to one another….[A] group’s success at maintaining this ‘glue’ is mediated by the variables of duration and intensity of stress….[G]roups exposed to unabated stress will eventually experience fatigue, the breakdown of essential linkages and finally collapse. [p. 2141]

The risks to our continued well-being are fairly open-ended. More information, communication, and planning are vitally important; but even the best of intentions and strategies offer no guarantee when so much of what we’ve been accustomed to or expect has been jolted by the reality that we’ve depended on an energy source which is simply not as readily available to us any longer.

The studies and their professional assessments and expertise suggest some rather profound responses and behaviors, and many are not conducive to upbeat outcomes.

Under conditions of extremely structured and consolidated power, low status persons are more reluctant to express their thoughts and opinions for fear of being found in opposition to high status individuals. Inability to communicate true opinions frequently leads to miscalculations in policy decisions and often makes the difference between continued societal unity and societal disintegration [citation/footnote]. [p. 2146]

The impact on communication is clear: truncated communication not only separates leaders from their populace, it limits information flow. The result is poor decision-making at a time when quick, adequate analyses of new information and circumstances coupled with clear, concise, uniform communication among all group members is essential. [p. 2150]

A group’s collective unconscious desire for direction and individual lethargy when faced with the gravity of a crisis situation, colludes to produce a perfect scenario for a political ‘power grab’ and leadership structuring. Under these conditions, democratic processes tend to fail, liberties are eroded, and power is centralized under a central power figure or group. History has a way of repeating itself. Unless constructive changes to current energy policy are formalized and implemented, the United States may experience continued restructuring of leadership and progressive centralization of political power. [p. 2146]

A group’s capacity to survive is dependent upon its skills in organizing its efforts. As a result, disorganized groups show signs of disintegration more readily than organized groups. The ability of a group to coalesce and maintain clarity of purpose is dependent upon its capacity to perform quick, adequate analyses of novel situations, provide clear and concise uniform communication among all group members and maintain the group goal of survival [citation/footnote]. Random trial-and-error behavior, resulting from a lack of clarity of purpose and insufficient information, is detrimental to the attainment of group goals. [p. 2147]

Among the more troubling conclusions drawn is the one which suggests that where no solution appears likely to a “crisis situation”, group effort to achieve a common end diminishes.

As each progressive solution fails, frustration mounts, and individual attempts at survival occur. Groups disintegrate when faced with a threatening situation and the solution involves individual competition. This pattern of evoked responses appears to be based in a simple rational model: if the likely solution to a crisis requires cooperative action, group integration increases. Group disintegration results when the crisis     situation appears to either have no solution or the optimum solution requires individual action….Society will remain intact only while there is a unified purpose that benefits the society as a whole. If the U.S. continues to dissipate its remaining energy on futile efforts to maintain a ‘business as usual’ mentality, then the American public will squander its remaining opportunities to work together with unified purpose; to prepare for the energy crisis at hand. [p. 2148]

What then?

Given the potential consequences across the entire landscape of our culture and industry, are we really willing to just leave this all to chance and/or hope? What possible assurances can we reasonably, rationally, realistically rely upon that unconventional resources, expected technologies, or alternative energies will allow any of us to seamlessly continue on with life as we know it? No one wants to give that any thought of course, but is ignoring the inevitable really our best approach?

Our continuing greatness as a nation has been tested before and it will surely be tested by the realities of Peak Oil. Our individual and collective contributions to confront and overcome the challenges imposed upon us will be invaluable assets, but the process must begin.

A society with a unified vision for resolving its “real” energy issues has the capacity to alter its projected energy path [citation/footnote]. Concentrated focus on a crisis situation retards social growth and can exacerbate existing calamities [citation/footnote]. A clear vision of a desired outcome leads to clarity of purpose among group members, a unified collective objective, and more coordinated pooled resources to achieve the desired outcome. Only through the application of unified purpose will the U.S., as a collective, be able to mediate its voracious use of energy and effectively utilize its remaining resources to wean itself from dependency on oil. [p. 2148]

The steps we need to take are fairly straightforward, summed up nicely by the authors:

The current challenge for the U.S. and other energy intensive, oil driven Western cultures is to develop a shared vision for an energy independent future that:
(1)  Acknowledges the biophysical constraints of reality,
(2)  Effectively envisions the true collective objective,
(3)  Clearly states goals, and
(4)  Establishes flexible and evolving methods of implementation [citation/footnote]….

In practical terms, a unified purpose would provide the U.S. with a social process to determine how to best use existing natural resources, employ sustainable practices, and plan for an ‘energy independent’ future. The actions we take today have the potential to exponentially affect the world of tomorrow. If steps are taken to avert the coming energy crisis and develop a low energy intensive society, we may still be able to avert many, and possibly all, of the above outcomes. [p. 2148-2149]

Optimist that I am, and firm believer in our collective abilities to rise to any challenge—even one of the magnitude of Peak Oil—I agree wholeheartedly with the authors’ concluding comments. But the objectives they set forth won’t happen by wishful thinking, denial, or delusions about the abundance of “massive” reserves just waiting to be drawn out from below our feet.

The capacity for the United States to alter its current and projected economic and energy course is dependent upon its leaders’ abilities to formulate and effectively communicate a clear vision and unified purpose in the energy field, establish clear renewable energy goals, commit to a rigorous energy-use reduction plan, prioritize energy research, and implement an energy policy that creates a viable energy future. The American populace will need to acknowledge the reality of biophysical constraints, and embrace a renewable, energy efficient ‘American way of life’. [p. 2150]

Choices….

Sources:

[Citation to referenced study:]
http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/11/2129/; Lambert, Jessica G.; Lambert, Gail P. 2011. “Predicting the Psychological Response of the American People to Oil Depletion and Declining Energy Return on Investment (EROI).” Sustainability 3, no. 11: 2129-2156.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/17/granderson.oil.dependency/index.html?eref=rss_politics&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_allpolitics+%28RSS%3A+Politics%29; America, get real about the high cost of cheap gas by LZ Granderson – 05.17.11

During the last century, society squandered 500 million years of captured sunlight on drag races, traffic jams, private jets and overheated office buildings – warns campaign group

Oil company cheerleaders proclaiming huge supplies of oil are dead wrong. Peak oil is as real as rain, and it is here now. Not 2050. Not 2020. Now. Oil production has been flat since 2005. This is not by choice. The producers cannot increase production because new fields cannot keep pace with declining production from old fields. The plateau is the top of the global depletion curve. Furthermore, this end of energy growth only accounts for volume. Energy quality and net-energy are falling like stones as environmental devastation increases. Every producing oil field on earth is in decline, unless it is brand new, and peak discoveries are well behind us. Meanwhile, the aggregate decline rate appears to be about 5 per cent per year. To maintain world production, we would need to bring a new Saudi Arabia – equivalent to three billion barrels annually – into full production every three years. There exists on earth not one single promising field that remotely approaches those requirements.

(The oil plateau: The calm before the decline. Reference: The Oil Drum.)

When you read or hear about “10 billion barrels” of oil discovered somewhere, here is how to think about that – a third of that is probably not recoverable or entirely illusory. The recoverable portion will require a billion barrels of oil equivalent energy to produce; in the tar sands it would take three billion barrels. What is left, about five or six billion barrels, equates to about a two-month supply for humanity. Two months. We will not “run out of oil” because, simply, we will never get it all. What petroleum geologists point out is that all oil fields have a production curve, a peak and a decline. Therefore, the earth’s total supply has a peak and decline.

But that is not all, the volume decline includes a decline in quality and net energy. As oil fields reach old age, energy returned on energy invested plummets and production costs soar for a lower quality product. Over the last century, oil producers have high-graded earth’s energy storehouse, and the best net-energy reserves disappeared 70 years ago. Oil in its heyday – the 1930 and 1940s – produced 100:1 net-energy, a hundred barrels out for one barrel of energy invested. Today, oil fields range from 20:1 to 10:1. The United States average is 11:1. We are now digging into the 3:1 net-energy tar sands. Energy expert Howard Odum warned of the net energy curve in the 1970s and geologist Marion King Hubbert graphed the oil decline in the 1950s.

(Peak discoveries occurred 50 years ago. Reference: Exxon Mobile, from The Oil Drum.)

United States oil production peaked in 1970, exactly as Hubbert predicted. In this era, the US spent millions to topple governments in oil nations and install US-friendly dictators such as Shah Pahlavi in Iran. Lately, America has spent billions to fight its own creations – Saddam Hussein, the Taliban – to gain access to the oil fields. They now contemplate opening a front in Syria to go after Iranian oil, for which they lost control when the Iranians toppled their puppet Shah.

In 2010, the US Military Joint Forces Command predicted the end of “surplus oil production capacity” – their way of saying “peak oil” – and warned “the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10-million barrels per day”. They also predicted that this oil decline “would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds” and “such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and have serious economic impact on China and India”. This is the US military talking. When politicians tell you the next war is “not about the oil” – rest assured it is about the oil.

In 1912, as the British navy switched from coal to oil Winston Churchill said flatly: “You have got to find the oil – purchased regularly and cheaply in peace, and with absolute certainty in war.” In the end, the Second World War was about oil and won by oil. During the war, the US produced 880 million tons of oil, Russia 100 million tons, Japan five million tons, and Germany 30 million tons; and most of this by expensive coal-to-liquid technology. Germany entered North Africa to secure oil and entered Russia to reach the Caspian Baku oil fields. German minister for war production Albert Speer conceded in his post war interrogation: “The need for oil certainly was a prime motive.” They failed, and the German war machine literally ran out of gas – as Rommel abandoned his empty, fuel-gobbling tanks in the Libyan Desert. Prior to the 1990 Gulf War, US Defence Secretary Dick Cheney revealed: “We’re there because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil would have a stranglehold on the world economy.” So there you have it. All this bloodshed is over dwindling oil reserves and the pipelines to deliver the black goop to refineries and markets.

Charles Hall, at the State University of New York, has calculated that it is not possible to run our complex civilisation on a net-energy below about 6:1 – because society needs that reserve energy to run its transportation, agriculture, health systems and so forth. The tar sands 3:1 net energy is simply pathetic. A salmon does better chasing herring. An Amish farmer gets 10:1 net energy with hand tools. I suspect most of the industry cheerleaders talking about “giant discoveries” and “energy gluts” know this. Still, they spin every new oil discovery as an arrival in the Promised Land, pump stock plays and promote their industry. In our world, that is legal. But it is not really honest. In April 2011, chief economist of the International Energy Agency Fatih Birol revealed what the industry knows: “We think that the crude oil production has already peaked, in 2006.”

And since the population is growing, peak oil per capita occurred in 1979. We have now reached the absolute peak. Without increasing energy sources, we cannot increase economic activity. We can print money and harvest the earth’s assets and make it look like growth – for a while – but the piper will be paid. Nature shall not be mocked. In 2008, when the economy appeared to be roaring and traders pitched mortgage-backed securities on unsuspecting clients, energy production had ceased growing. As a result, the oil price almost tripled from $50 per barrel to $147. This equated to a $3 trillion increase to the world’s annual energy bill, which sucked discretionary income from every other market and helped crash the global economy.

When the economy collapsed, oil prices fell. But as economies recover even slightly, the price will rise again since supply is restrained. Blaming the US President Barack Obama for rising energy prices is another con job. Blame nature. She just cannot make more of the stuff fast enough. During the last century, society burned the best half of recoverable hydrocarbons that represented 500 million years of captured sunlight; a one-time storehouse of high quality, concentrated energy. We squandered it on drag races, traffic jams, private jets and overheated office buildings. We burned this valuable asset and called it “income.” If you did that in your home, you would go bankrupt. Peak oil is real. The consequences – at best – will be a slowly scaled-down industrial civilisation. If we continue to ignore these facts, the consequences will be far worse. Nature just is not sentimental.

Rex Weyler is an executive member of the Vancouver Peak Oil campaign group

[First in a series]

Back in November, Naomi Klein offered a fascinating and thought-provoking essay in Nation magazine entitled “Capitalism vs. the Climate” in which she discussed the transformative changes needed if we are to successfully (not a guarantee) and thoroughly address the challenges of our warming planet. Her insights and observations can easily be adapted to the similar considerations and challenges Peak Oil will extend to us as well. Taken together, the confluence of these looming impositions on our once-cozy ways of life mandate responses far more expansive than a policy here or a tweak there. Ms. Klein offers us all a well-reasoned approach for both how and why.

Every Monday for the next seven weeks, I’ll take advantage of her arguably controversial yet well-reasoned assessments to elaborate and extend the thought process as it applies to Peak Oil. [A related recent post can be found here.]

[* Any quotes following are taken from Ms. Klein’s essay in Nation unless noted otherwise.]

The fact that the earth’s atmosphere cannot safely absorb the amount of carbon we are pumping into it is a symptom of a much larger crisis, one born of the central fiction on which our economic model is based: that nature is limitless, that we will always be able to find more of what we need, and that if something runs out it can be seamlessly replaced by another resource that we can endlessly extract. But it is not just the atmosphere that we have exploited beyond its capacity to recover—we are doing the same to the oceans, to freshwater, to topsoil and to biodiversity. The expansionist, extractive mindset, which has so long governed our relationship to nature, is what the climate crisis calls into question so fundamentally. The abundance of scientific research showing we have pushed nature beyond its limits does not just demand green products and market-based solutions; it demands a new civilizational paradigm, one grounded not in dominance over nature but in respect for natural cycles of renewal—and acutely sensitive to natural limits, including the limits of human intelligence.

Aside from delusion and denial, what would lead an otherwise intelligent person to just blithely assume that natural resources are limitless or that there won’t be drastic changes as the supplies start to slide down the other side of the slope? These changes, by the way, might be offering at least the hint of a suggestion that some planning would be a good idea … and well in advance to boot.

How can that same intelligence leave one thinking that the technological and industrial growth we both marvel at and use in stunning, creative ways, carries no impact on the surrounding environment? What kind of magical thinking leads one to believe that the cumulative effects of billions upon billions of automobile and commercial vehicle and airline trips over decades—each and every one adding a small or not-so-small measure of exhaust into the surrounding air, combined with the industrial and factory emissions spewing out in their own steady streams over those many decades from all four corners and in countlessly creative yet damaging ways—have done nothing at all to the atmosphere or environment?

We didn’t worry too much about these things back in 765 A.D., or 1393, or 1876, or the Roaring Twenties. But now, in a complex, technologically-advanced industrial and commercial world none of those generations could have envisioned at their most imaginative, we still shrug our shoulders and tell ourselves “all is well”? I remain wedded to the belief that we’re so much better than that. We just need to give ourselves permission to demonstrate it more assertively.

Facts—the kinds we have all used all of our lives to base all kinds of personal and financial and professional decisions from the insignificant to the magnificent—suddenly have limited application and utility when it comes to perhaps the two greatest challenges to mankind’s continuing prosperity we’ve ever confronted! Seriously? (If you are a betting man or woman, which odds do you prefer: the ones offering a much better than 50/50 chance of a particular outcome, or do 3% odds of a different outcome work better for you? 5%?)

Those facts tell us with some considerable degree of certainty that we have reached the limits of easy, accessible, high-quality energy resources which make … everything possible, just as a similar set of facts (which some 97% of those with far greater knowledge than most of us confirm with considerable certainty) tell us we have a warming planet with a broad array of drastic consequences. Not guaranteed, I agree.

But since when is Perfect, 100% Guarantee Every Time All The Time the standard we must now apply to climate change and fossil fuel depletion? Do business owners plan act using that standard? NFL head coaches? Surgeons? Electricians? Farmers? Politicians? Everyone for every decision? That’s about the best, most effective method of ensuring nothing is done at all. Hmmmm. I wonder who might benefit most from that strategy?

We have radio blowhards and nitwit politicians and perfect-hair media personalities insisting that this is indeed the measure we must utilize before accepting climate and energy facts, while assuring the masses this is all just nonsense anyhow … just a gigantic liberal conspiracy!

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t put too much stock in any of these loons offering a sound assessment about my medical condition, or financial strategies, the plumbing in my home, or which toothpaste to buy. Would you? Yet far too many of us place our future well-being in the hands of these same morons when they have no greater experience or expertise in these two vital matters than Homer Simpson! At the very least, this merits a serious “What The F*ck!?”

Ten thousand or fifty thousand years ago, whether the planet warmed or not as part of some natural geological cycle is irrelevant to what is happening now for one simple reason: we weren’t there, then! Our industrial society wasn’t there, nor were there 7 billion other fellow travelers.

Should we march to a tune which suggests that those thousands-of-years-ago consequences on a barely-inhabited planet supporting an ultra-simplistic lifestyle from top to bottom are every bit as relevant and applicable to what will happen in the 21st Century? Wow!

And so too is it just as irrelevant what did or did not happen as was or was not predicted about oil supplies fifty or eighty years ago. This industrial, highly-advanced, technologically sophisticated, interconnected world with 7 plus billion people wasn’t impacting fossil fuel production back then as we all do now. There’s no rational comparison to be made!

And given that many billions of people are just now coming into their own industrially and technologically, just as their successful “models” have been for decades here in the United States, the demands to leapfrog their societies into something resembling our own calls for needed energy resources on a scale unimaginable even just a few decades ago. We’ve consumed a fair amount of them in those intervening years while warming our planet, and what’s left for us just isn’t as “good.” And now we have to meet not just our own demands, so too must the dwindling pool of resources be shared by billions more. The math just doesn’t work….Facts!

Ms. Klein offered answers to the one question too few of us ask of those who work so diligently to convince others to deny: Why are they doing that?

… [T]he real solutions to the climate crisis are also our best hope of building a much more enlightened economic system—one that closes deep inequalities, strengthens and transforms the public sphere, generates plentiful, dignified work and radically reins in corporate power.

…[I]f you ask [certain groups of climate change deniers], climate change makes some kind of left-wing revolution virtually inevitable, which is precisely why they are so determined to deny its reality.

For example, among the segment of the US population that displays the strongest ‘hierarchical’ views, only 11 percent rate climate change as a ‘high risk,’ compared with 69 percent of the segment displaying the strongest ‘egalitarian’ views. Yale law professor Dan Kahan, the lead author on this study **, attributes this tight correlation between ‘worldview’ and acceptance of climate science to ‘cultural cognition.’ This refers to the process by which all of us—regardless of political leanings—filter new information in ways designed to protect our ‘preferred vision of the good society.’ As Kahan explained in Nature, ‘People find it disconcerting to believe that behaviour that they find noble is nevertheless detrimental to society, and behaviour that they find base is beneficial to it. Because accepting such a claim could drive a wedge between them and their peers, they have a strong emotional predisposition to reject it.’ In other words, it is always easier to deny reality than to watch your worldview get shattered.

Where is the advantage in being “wrong” about what we must deal with so as to continue receipt of peer approval, if being wrong ultimately harms you and yours far more than will a display of courage and integrity to accept the truth and make needed changes?

Do we just meekly submit to a misguided notion that the well-off “deserve” whatever they’ve acquired regardless of the impact upon or consequences to society at large, and so until the rest of us poor slobs reach those same heights we just have to accept a skewed system which favors the 1% at everyone else’s continuing expense?

To me, the bigger question remains unchanged: What is the Goal? What is it that we are trying to achieve not just for 99%, but for 100% of us … beyond next week or next month? Should we continue to care about the process, or is the outcome genuinely more important not just today, but long term?

Under current conditions here and world-wide, do we really think that there is much opportunity for most of us? The odds are stacked against it: climate change, the damaging, long-lasting effects of this prolonged Great Recession, and Peak Oil make business-as-usual growth potentials all but inconceivable for the foreseeable future … at best!

So why not try to change the “systems” so that more of us benefit in more ways under the changed conditions and circumstances our great achievements have also produced—however unintended and “blameless” they may be?

Just getting started….

** Yale University’s Cultural Cognition Project, which found that political and cultural world views explain “individuals’ beliefs about global warming more powerfully than any other individual characteristic.” Ms. Klein then elaborates on those findings:

Those with strong ‘egalitarian’ and ‘communitarian’ worldviews (marked by an inclination toward collective action and social justice, concern about inequality and suspicion of corporate power) overwhelmingly accept the scientific consensus on climate change. On the other hand, those with strong ‘hierarchical’ and ‘individualistic’ worldviews (marked by opposition to government assistance for the poor and minorities, strong support for industry and a belief that we all get what we deserve) overwhelmingly reject the scientific consensus.

[NOTE: This part of a developing series (which began here) related to Peak Oil, but addressing the considerations and potential solutions from a different perspective than purely fact-based and/or he-said—she-said perspectives. With the caveat that I have NO professional expertise/training in psychology or its related fields, I’ll look at emotional and psychological “tricks” and traits we all use—Left, Right, and in-between—to bolster our beliefs and opinions as we do battle with our “opponents” in the increasingly polarized political forums which too-often dominate our culture.

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

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

In his excellent book, Collapse, scientist Jared Diamond looked at a number of societies that had seen their physical climates change. He tried to determine what made some cultures die out while others persevered. According to Diamond, it wasn’t the severity of the change, or its speed that was the determining factor. One important variable was the foresight of those societies’ leaders — their ability to properly diagnose the problem and adapt, to come up with proactive solutions to the problems they faced.
[Quoting Diamond]: ‘[O]ne always has to ask about people’s cultural response. Why is it that people failed to perceive the problems developing around them, or if they perceived them, why did they fail to solve the problems that would eventually do them in? Why did some peoples perceive and recognize their problems and others not?’ [1]

Good questions … ones we need to find answers for before too long. Now would be an excellent time to start.

More and more we respond by shutting out the assault of cognitive dissonance and retreating from any unwelcome input. We surround ourselves with news outlets, friends and even neighbors who carefully reinforce what we want to believe. We are building our own reality to support our chosen narrative. It doesn’t seem to be working out well on a personal level and it’s rotting our politics. [2]

Liberals! Right-Wingers! Environmentalists! Big Oil! Doomers! Deniers! On and on are the labels applied, each utterance displaying more contempt, disrespect, and enmity than the last. I’ve certainly done my part to contribute.

Is this the best we have to offer? The ideal problem-solving model to pass on to future generations (assuming we’ll still have many left)?

Economic woes have not yet run their course. Millions too-many of our fellow citizens have no job, no savings, and little hope for “better” anytime soon. Our planet is warming; oil supply has been on a precarious plateau for more than a handful of years now … facts bear that out; opinions and ideologies and hopes/expectations suggest otherwise.

Elected officials pandering to the worst while the wealthy inject themselves and their money far too deeply into our politics now define too much of our democracy. Congress couldn’t issue a unanimous proclamation honoring each of their membership’s own mothers, yet we expect them to lead out of this long-developing mess without so much as mussing anyone’s hair. If Plan A doesn’t solve the problem, then let’s just be sure someone else has to pay or do or sacrifice under Plan B.

Is this the best we have to offer? Is our best/only hope more of the same?

ALL of our positions on issues arise in part out of a subconscious desire for social cohesion and safety. In other words, they are not purely a matter of free conscious will.
But we are not absolute slaves to these instincts. We do have will. We can reason. We are all responsible to some degree for our choices and behavior, responsible not only to ourselves, but to each other….[3]

But there are “obstacles” which prevent us from speaking with one another rather than at or past each other. Understanding these obstacles, respecting what they intend to provide, but then moving beyond them if they cannot serve greater purposes as we commit ourselves to finding meaningful, lasting solutions and plans to the challenges we face—climate change, economic growth, and energy supplies chief among them—is the task at hand, and for all of us….

Relying solely on others as our primary strategy has run its course. Too much is at stake to leave it all to those others who too often demonstrate that what motivates them is far different than the desires and needs we expect them to address.

So, let’s look at a few of the predominant obstacles for starters, and then delve more deeply into them—and how they influence us—as this series develops. [Bold/Underline mine]:

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.
The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.…
Once something is added to your collection of beliefs, you protect it from harm. You do it instinctively and unconsciously when confronted with attitude-inconsistent information. Just as confirmation bias shields you when you actively seek information, the backfire effect defends you when the information seeks you, when it blindsides you. Coming or going, you stick to your beliefs instead of questioning them. When someone tries to correct you, tries to dilute your misconceptions, it backfires and strengthens them instead. Over time, the backfire effect helps make you less skeptical of those things which allow you to continue seeing your beliefs and attitudes as true and proper.
Psychologists call stories like these narrative scripts, stories that tell you what you want to hear, stories which confirm your beliefs and give you permission to continue feeling as you already do. [4]

What’s going on? How can we have things so wrong, and be so sure that we’re right? Part of the answer lies in the way our brains are wired. Generally, people tend to seek consistency. There is a substantial body of psychological research showing that people tend to interpret information with an eye toward reinforcing their preexisting views. If we believe something about the world, we are more likely to passively accept as truth any information that confirms our beliefs, and actively dismiss information that doesn’t. This is known as ‘motivated reasoning.’ Whether or not the consistent information is accurate, we might accept it as fact, as confirmation of our beliefs. This makes us more confident in said beliefs, and even less likely to entertain facts that contradict them. [5]

There is some phenomenon—other than the paucity or inaccessibility of scientific information—that shapes the distribution of factual beliefs about, and the existence of political conflict over, law and public policy. What is it?
The answer, we propose, is a set of processes we call cultural cognition. Essentially, cultural commitments are prior to factual beliefs on highly charged political issues….culture is prior to facts in the cognitive sense that what citizens believe about the empirical consequences of those policies derives from their cultural worldviews. Based on a variety of overlapping psychological mechanisms, individuals accept or reject empirical claims about the consequences of controversial polices based on their vision of a good society….
The same psychological and social processes that induce individuals to form factual beliefs consistent with their cultural orientation will also prevent them from perceiving contrary empirical data to be credible. Cognitive-dissonance avoidance will steel individuals to resist empirical data that either threatens practices they revere or bolsters ones they despise, particularly when accepting such data would force them to disagree with individuals they respect….
One constraint on the disposition of individuals to accept empirical evidence that contradicts their culturally conditioned beliefs is the phenomenon of biased assimilation. This phenomenon refers to the tendency of individuals to condition their acceptance of new information as reliable based on its conformity to their prior beliefs….
Two additional mechanisms reinforce the tendency to see new information as unreliable when it challenges a culturally congenial belief. The first is naïve realism. This phenomenon refers to the disposition of individuals to view the factual beliefs that predominate in their own cultural group as the product of ‘objective’ assessment, and to attribute the contrary factual beliefs of their cultural and ideological adversaries to the biasing influence of their worldviews….the truth will be held up at the border precisely because it originates from an alien cultural destination. The second mechanism that     constrains societal transmission of truth—reactive devaluation—is the tendency of individuals who belong to a group to dismiss the persuasiveness of evidence proffered by their adversaries in settings of intergroup conflict. [6 - with citations]

So we all employ these “tactics” at times—unconsciously, so it seems. How’s it working for us so far?

Just getting started … much more to come.

Sources:

[1] http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/153554/how_right-wing_conspiracy_theories_may_pose_a_genuine_threat_to_humanity; How Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories May Pose a Genuine Threat to Humanity by Joshua Holland – 12.25.11
[2] http://www.frumforum.com/where-the-crazy-may-be-coming-from; Where the Crazy May Be Coming From, by Chris Ladd – 09.16.11
[3] http://bigthink.com/ideas/42502; The Heartland Institute and “Climate DenialGate” by David Ropeik – 02.16.12
[4] http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/; The Backfire Effect by David McRaney – 06.10.11
[5] http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/; How facts backfire: Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains by Joe Keohane – 07.11.10
[6] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=746508; [link to PDF download]. Cultural Cognition and Public Policy by Dan M. Kahan, Yale University – Law School; Harvard Law School and Donald Barman – George Washington University – Law School; Cultural Cognition Project – Yale Law & Policy Review, Vol. 24, pp 147 – 169, Public Law Working Paper No. 87 – 2006

Yet another in the seemingly endless string of cherry-picked story lines attempting to put to rest the “theory” of Peak Oil has found its way onto the internet, completely unremarkable in the talking points offered, which I’ll get to. What was most striking was not so much the uniform lack of understanding on the part of all but a handful of commenters.

The blatant, racist stupidity of several caught me completely by surprise. I didn’t think that offensive nonsense had found its way into the Peak Oil conversation, but Racist Ignorance is alive and well in this arena, unfortunately. But any forum will do, I guess….And the relevance of that conversation to Peak Oil is … what?) In this day and age, that moronic tripe still flourishes … amazing! (And of course, the continuing nonsense about the fascist-socialist-Kenyan-Muslim President out to destroy America hasn’t abated any, judging by some of the other comments.) Ironic that those who lament and fear what this nation is coming to fail to appreciate the fact that the paranoid garbage they parrot is a primary cause and symptom. Each and all of us need to be better than this. We’ll need no less in the years to come.

I probably should not be as stunned (and dismayed) as I was, given the nonsense that passes for mush of the political discourse today, but it is striking to see how many people seem utterly incapable of stepping back and considering a bit of reality, even if it is at the expense of a carefully-tended, fear-based ideology. The commentary tarnished my optimism, but only temporarily. Best not to give that ignorance any more attention….

A sampling of what that article had to offer, beginning with the almost-obligatory snarky comment passing for relevance to the discussion [my bold/italic]:

‘With only 2% of the world’s oil reserves, we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices,‘ [President Obama] said. ‘Not when we consume 20% of the world’s oil.’
The claim makes it appear as though the U.S. is an oil-barren nation, perpetually dependent on foreign oil and high prices unless we can cut our own use and develop alternative energy sources like algae.

Nice touch … bona fides duly established. But just in case there’s doubt, we start with the magic words [my bold/italic] from Page One of the Deniers’ Playbook [see this]:

[F]ar from being oil-poor, the country is awash in vast quantities — enough to meet all the country’s oil needs for hundreds of years.

And then more selective facts, without context or even a bit of accompanying, vital information to educate and inform. Only a handful of knowledgeable commenters bothered to discuss the claims and provide missing context, given that most of them were much too focused on slamming the aforementioned socialist-Muslim yadda, yadda, yadda. How does perpetuating ignorance and/or lack of understanding help in any way?

A sampling [my bold/italic]:

At least 86 billion barrels of oil in the Outer Continental Shelf yet to be discovered, according to the government’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

About 24 billion barrels in shale deposits in the lower 48 states, according to EIA.

Up to 2 billion barrels of oil in shale deposits in Alaska’s North Slope, says the U.S. Geological Survey.

Up to 12 billion barrels in ANWR, according to the USGS.

As much as 19 billion barrels in the Utah tar sands, according to the Bureau of Land Management.

Then, there’s the massive Green River Formation in Wyoming, which according to the USGS contains a stunning 1.4 trillion barrels of oil shale — a type of oil released from sedimentary rock after it’s heated.

When you include oil shale, the U.S. has 1.4 trillion barrels of technically recoverable oil, according to the Institute for Energy Research, enough to meet all U.S. oil needs for about the next 200 years, without any imports.

For starters, Chris Nelder recently offered a healthy dose of reality about shale.

Even those with no knowledge about oil production whatsoever might find some reasonable answers to these questions: How difficult might it be to find, extract, and then produce oil from near the North Pole? Think there might be an issue or two? Perhaps some weather concerns? Maybe just a bit more expensive? More difficult? Riskier? Might take a while, too.

As for “a type of oil released from sedimentary rock after it’s heated”: kerogen is not exactly the same thing as the oil we’ve all seen gushing from wells. Despite several decades of effort, it’s still not a commercially feasible enterprise. And the “after it’s heated” part is just a bit more complicated that the author bothers to explain. [See this, for example.] But inconvenient facts just get in the way….

Perhaps as remarkable as anything, however, was this statement by the author, which almost all of his commenters failed to mention or apparently even notice:

To be sure, energy companies couldn’t profitably recover all this oil — even at today’s prices — and what they could wouldn’t make it to market for years.

See … that’s kinda the whole problem with being “awash” in “vast” quantities….A bazillion barrels of anything buried underground, or in the Arctic, or otherwise not extracted by conventional means will stay right there if there’s no profit to be made. High prices might of course make some companies willing to go for it, but what wasn’t mentioned is the fact that high costs on their end means higher prices for us consumers (even the ignorant, racist ones). That’s not a good thing, and thus not especially helpful.

Telling someone that within walking distance of their home are millions and millions of dollars in local banks is all fine and well. But if that someone can’t get any of it, the amounts stop being impressive fairly quickly. Vast quantities of inferior, unconventional oil tucked away for many more decades is not any different. Impressive totals, but mostly useless to us. Those kinds of added facts would be ever-so-helpful to the many who clearly do not yet appreciate the challenges of Peak Oil.

And not making it “to market for years” … that’s kinda problematic, too. See, shocking as it is, conventional fields—the ones we’ve been tapping into for decades now—are depleting. Every day. They’re not limitless. Worldwide demand is increasing. More of those conventional crude supplies are also being kept by the producers to satisfy demands in their own countries. More for them, less for us. Easy math!

As I and others in the know point out day after day: the United States uses in the neighborhood of 18 million barrels of oil per day, about half of which we still import. Getting all of these inferior, unconventional supplies (and shale, tar sands, etc. are most definitely not the same as conventional crude) to a point where they will meet just our demands, let alone contribute to world supply, is decades away at best, if ever. And all the while, worldwide demand is still increasing and existing fields are still depleting.

These magical supplies Mr. Merline speaks of are harder to get to (thus more expensive); they require more refining (thus more expensive); their rate of production is much less than the ever-dwindling supplies of conventional crude; the energy efficiency quality is not the same; and in general, much more time, effort, expense, and risk is required to produce what’s left. This is good news?

[I am neither a psychologist nor owner of a degree in that field. I do not play one on television, and so my layman’s interpretations which follow should be read with that understanding….]

The human mind is a fascinating piece of machinery….

One issue about which I have come across almost no discussion is neatly summed up by a fascinating study I found late in 2011. The authors are to be commended for shedding light on a very real, very important aspect of Peak Oil’s impact which to date has been given virtually no consideration. [That paper was part of a special series on EROI—Energy Return on Investment—by MPDI, a publisher of peer-reviewed, open access journals. Link to the twenty-one EROI articles is here.]

[* Any quotes following are taken from this above-referenced study unless noted otherwise.]

The authors begin with several important observations:

No one knows for sure what the psychological or sociological ramifications of declining oil availability will be, but it is important to begin evaluating and preparing for the social aspects of what might be a very different future. [p. 2131]

It appears clear that the impending energy crisis will create technological issues and political problems. What is far less clear is the impact on societal processes and more generally on the psychological well being of citizens. [p. 2130]

My only comment to those statements is to suggest we’d be foolish to ignore the possibility of and potential for emotional and/or psychological consequences when the impact of Peak Oil is being felt by all of us—personally, culturally, and commercially. As I and many others in the Peak Oil community have urged, almost no aspect of our individual or community lives (local, regional, and national) will escape the effects of declining oil production and what that means for all of us who rely on a ready supply of fossil fuels every single day. That world will be a very different place….

A consistent theme of this blog has been to try and impress upon readers the absolutely mandatory requirement that planning at all levels of government and in all aspects of daily living at home and in commerce must begin. The breadth of fossil fuel’s importance to all we do and have may unfortunately only be fully appreciated when restrictions of one sort or another come into play. If that’s when most of us first start paying attention, we’re in a world of trouble … literally!

Americans will need to acknowledge the reality of biophysical constraints if they are to adapt to the coming energy crisis. [p. 2129]

No one can accurately predict how depletion of the crude oil fields we’ve all relied upon for decades and/or declining exports—each poorly substituted for by inferior energy quality unconventional sources (tar sands, shale oil) or far more expensive and not-so-readily available supplies from deep waters or other inhospitable locales—will play out as industries attempt to cope with less supply trying to keep up with increasing worldwide demand. How will our own lives will be impacted when filling up our vehicles with gas from our friendly neighborhood gas station is no longer the unthinking, automatic option we’ve all come to expect?

And when that is happening—perhaps in only some locations at first, or perhaps instead to all of us on some as yet unknown schedule—the trips to work (assuming declining supplies haven’t shuttered those doors), or to visit friends across town, or family in the next state, or your children’s pediatrician two towns over, or grocery shopping at the supermarket a bit more than two miles away, etc., etc., etc.—how calmly and rationally might we expect our fellow citizens to just accept all of this and adapt overnight?

If you rely on fossil fuels in any manner (and unless you are one of the castaways on Gilligan’s Island, that would be … everyone!), the ever-dwindling supplies of quality, affordable, always-available fossil fuels over the course of a decade or two in the not-so-distant future are going to whack you and me and everyone else upside the head. No one will be immune from the consequences. Whatever satisfactions denial has afforded some to that point will prove to be a monumental regret if nothing has been done between now and then.

… [T]he most likely scenario is that Americans (and others) will not be happy about any reduction in their lifestyle as measured by traditional economic criteria. Many researchers believe that Western societies will probably experience significant social-psychological disruption and even societal disintegration. [p. 2130]

Ever the optimist that I am, I’m inclined to believe/hope that not being happy is a more likely outcome than societal disintegration (although “not being happy” will be by far the best outcome, and that’s a very polite spin on an experience likely to provoke far more than a wee bit of disappointment). But no planning at all invites some fairly horrendous consequences when several billion people, stunned leaders, and impotent businesses find out that our late 20th and early 21st century civilization has been turned upside down and inside out, with no viable last-minute solutions to return us all back to”normal.” Normal will have left the building long before.

If energy is as important for civilization and our economy as we believe, and if and as traditional liquid fossil fuel energy supplies decrease in quality and quantity while the human population continues to grow, we are forced to ask: ‘How will individuals and small groups within a population accustomed to an increasing and seemingly unending supply of cheap and abundant oil react when faced with a future of declining oil availability?’ [p. 2131]

Denial is deemed pathological if there is an unwavering rejection of a highly undesirable fact about a present situation in the face of evidence that is clearly perceived and generally regarded by others as “unquestionable” [citation]. The resulting impaired judgment appears to be the handiwork of conscious suppression coupled with unconscious repression colluding to create and maintain a ‘pseudo-optimistic’ attitude….We ask, ‘What will happen when reality sets in, when the world’s oil production peak is finally conclusively verified and we start the slide back down the energy curve? Will we futilely attempt to hold fast to our comforting delusions’? [p. 2133]

Good question! I’m not optimistic—at this moment—that there are any answers worth mentioning. That’s not a good start.

… [F]or groups to survive, they must have, at a minimum, a unified sense of direction or path that, if followed, will assure survival and stable patterns of interdependencies and ‘linkages’. [p. 2141]

How does that work if our political leaders aren’t being honest with us and industry is doing its damnedest to paper over the truth with its odd assortment of half-truths, disingenuous, cherry-picked misrepresentations, and outright denial and nonsense?

More to come….

Citation to referenced study:
http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/3/11/2129/; Lambert, Jessica G.; Lambert, Gail P. 2011. “Predicting the Psychological Response of the American People to Oil Depletion and Declining Energy Return on Investment (EROI).” Sustainability 3, no. 11: 2129-2156.