Peak Oil Matters

[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

[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.

[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!]

Some food for thought….

The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by radically reordering our economic and political systems in ways antithetical to their ‘free market’ belief system. [1]

We all make choices all the time. The great majority of them tend to be rather inconsequential in the bigger picture, but no choice is consequence-free. If  “radically reordering our economic and political systems” will prove mandatory in order not just to protect us from the serious consequences of climate change (and the effects of declining supplies of energy resources as Peak Oil clearly infers) then what decisions will be made?

Do we preserve the great god of political ideology and free-market capitalism in present form at all costs—consequences be damned—or might we all be better served by adaptation to the inevitable changes these forces of Nature will impose upon us regardless of the passion we hold for our ideologies and beliefs? If slamming headfirst into the wall because one has no intention of changing course seems wise, then we know what your decision will be.

It’s all fine and well to honor the beliefs and convictions each of us holds. But if those ideologies and beliefs are intended to best serve our needs long-term, then wisdom’s role is to alert us to the possibilities of change and an attendant need to adapt so as to carry on.

It’s perfectly “acceptable” if you choose to doubt mankind’s role in—or even the very fact of—global warming. It is a free country, after all. But to go so far in the face of mounting, factual evidence that climate changes are already taking place and fossil fuel supplies are now on a different trajectory that you completely disregard the need to consider at least some adaptations is to practice delusion and denial on a scale beyond all bounds of human behavior!

Who is to “blame” for the climate changes now taking place, or believing it is just the normal way of Earth’s geological history, are in the end irrelevant! These changes, in this day and age, will produce consequences on an order of magnitude we may not be capable of understanding. Your ideology will not save you from the effects of a warming planet, and it will not supply you with unlimited and affordable fossil fuels even close to forever.

I cannot imagine anyone now supporting the validity of Global Warming and Peak Oil who takes any delight whatsoever in the knowledge that they are “right” and that the deniers are wrong—foolishly so. [Sen. James Inhofe’s recent, incredibly idiotic denial is among the more laughable—”leadership”?!]

One reason alone is sufficient for our inability to gloat and take solace in the correctness of our beliefs: what happens to all of us—hemp-wearing, long-haired leftist radicals all the way across the spectrum to tinfoil-hat-wearing right-wingers—will be decidedly unpleasant if we do not begin the process of change and adaptation. (Not that there’s any guarantee of unending joy and prosperity if we do; but the odds are a lot better!)

Personal responsibility as a defining feature of our nation’s character also encompasses the need to demonstrate integrity and honesty and courage. We do so by accepting unpleasant truths, and then dealing with them to the best of our collective abilities regardless of the ideologies we cling to in an abstract environment where outcomes never matter.

If the choice is to preserve and protect the free-market, the only viable way to do so beyond the short-term is to recognize and understand why the concept itself will have to adapt to needed changes.* This will not be the failure of conservative economic ideology nor failure of its practitioners. It will instead be the inevitable (if unintended and unanticipated) outcome of our ingenuity and the inherent characteristics of free-market philosophy.

Our progress and growth has produced the wonder of our greatest technological advances … and the unending depletion of the energy resources which made all of that possible, while simultaneously impacting the environment and atmosphere in unintended but unpleasant ways. This is not an issue of fault or liability. Optimist that I am, I believe that nearly 100% of inventors and industrialists and business owners of all stripes did not intentionally choose an option for growth guaranteed to cause the most environmental or atmospheric harm or waste the most natural resources. Sometimes, outcomes are just outcomes.

So too in a globalized economy far more advanced and interconnected than we could possibly have foreseen decades earlier must we understand and accept that that path leads to certain destinations both unforeseen and unintended—all the good notwithstanding. The ever-increasing and destructive income inequality and distressed economic conditions we find ourselves struggling to escape from have further diminished the opportunities for others to get a foot in the door of success and prosperity. That may not have been the case a decade or two earlier, but the complexity of world economics makes us inextricably bound to one another, and that is not a guarantee that all is well with everyone all the time.

Individualists, at their core, are protectors of choice. Free-market competition is the preferred economic ecosystem because it preserves unencumbered freedom. Their idol, best-selling author Ayn Rand, was famous for a philosophy that condemned moral obligation, fearing that the logical outcome was a dictatorial nanny-state; as such, individualists have a deep-seated fear of government, which almost by definition, coerces citizens into collective action for the greater good. [2]

Asking the 1% to make contributions to the culture which provided them the means to attain their great wealth and success should not automatically be viewed from the tint of ideological frames as punishment, nor is it a blind handout to the lazy. We just need to recognize that conditions (including our own assessments and hopes for the future) have changed dramatically and in many cases have been diminished far beyond our worst fears. If we are to truly maximize all the resources of this nation—which, by the way, we do in fact happen to love just as deeply as do the red-blooded patriots on the Right—changes have to be made in the basic structure of our economic and political systems.*

By all means we should allow the “deserving” to continue on. But unless you are one of the 99% who just happens to believe that all is well as long as the 1% is cared for—regardless of the impact policies and practices have on you and your family—then asking the 1% to shoulder a bit more of the burden in an increasingly complex global economy should not be viewed as the destruction of all that makes us exceptional. In this intricate global economy, maximizing all of our best resources and those of every citizen capable and willing to offer a contribution is what will continue to define us as the pre-eminent nation in a world far different than the one of generations past.

Insisting that we continue to do what we’ve always done across the landscape of political, personal, and economic opportunities is a sure sign that we lack the vision and capacity to adapt and evolve. Letting the world pass us by because of a stubborn insistence that we must not change our ways is an option, I guess, but no one is going to slow down or reverse course to appease the thoughts and wishes of days gone by—thoughts and wishes having almost no place in the 2012 world we live in.

Should that lack of vision be our legacy in this new century?

How much better do we choose to be?

(* An upcoming seven-part series will be discussing this issue in greater detail.)

Sources:

[1] http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate; Capitalism vs. the Climate by Naomi Klein – 11.09.11
[2] http://www.fastcompany.com/1750214/how-to-make-skeptics-believe-obamas-birth-certificate-is-authentic; How To Make Skeptics Believe Obama’s Birth Certificate Is Authentic by Gregory Ferenstein – 04.27.11

Whether or not Peak Oil is true cannot possibly be in doubt. Within anything other than a geological frame of time, oil is a finite substance. When it is burned, it is gone. Without stretching our brains very far, it is easy to conclude that anything that is finite and consumed will someday be gone.
Peak Oil, then, is really an observation, not a theory. [1]

If only! What most four-year olds would agree is not much more than minimal common sense continues to confound some, who just cannot bring themselves to accepts facts and a reality contrary to a carefully-crafted storyline where facts are inconvenient at best.

The latest foray into the fact- and stats- and context-free world of denying the obvious comes here, courtesy of a Canadian economist (whose basic premise about the invalidity of Peak Oil seems tempered by the many troublesome production facts contained in her essay). What follows are assessments and observations she offered in leading to her conclusion:

[O]il production in the U.S. is surging….This new energy boom is the result of technological developments that have made the release of oil from shale rock not only feasible, but very profitable at oil prices around $100 or more a barrel….
Shale gas has been big energy news for several years as hydraulic fracturing has unlocked huge reserves of natural gas….
[N]ew fracking technologies and horizontal drilling has led to the biggest oil boom in many years….
The beneficiaries of this shale oil and gas boom are many and diversified both by region and by sector. With an estimated 3,000 new wells slated to be drilled in the next year, it is positive for job creation. Already, the depressed housing industry is stepping up production to house the growing number of oil workers and their families….
Combined with the increasing availability and low price of natural gas, rising domestic oil production is providing a boon to U.S. construction and industrial production. The price of land in these regions has skyrocketed and many small landowners have pocketed huge leasing windfalls….Demand for sand, used in the fracking process, has also surged …  sand mines are multiplying rapidly. Boom towns are sprouting up….Retailers, as well, benefit, as do bankers….
Manufacturing plants are returning to the U.S. to take advantage of cheap natural gas and relatively low unit labour costs, spurring major investments in petrochemical and steel production….Households are also benefiting from lower bills for heating and electricity….There is a growing demand for gas-powered electricity….The U.S. trade balance is also supported by these developments.

And not one single statistic, fact, (or context) to substantiate any of this! I suppose it’s possible to be even more vague, but this is a pretty good effort as is. “[O]il production in the U.S. is surging;” “hydraulic fracturing has unlocked huge reserves;” “The beneficiaries of this shale oil and gas boom are many and diversified;” “the depressed housing industry is stepping up production to house the growing number of oil workers,” etc., etc., etc.

Seriously?!

Lots and lots of Happy Talk—unquantifiable, context-free buzzwords from the official Denier’s Playbook—but what does any of that actually mean? How do we plan effectively, as we must, to add others to the ranks of “many and diversified beneficiaries”? [And just as a for-instance, how “many and diversified” are we talking about? Nine? Sixty-four? Three hundred and two? But hey, “demand for sand” is surging, and all of this “is positive for job creation”!]

And all of that fact-free Happy Talk apparently leads quite obviously to this conclusion: “This unexpected boom in oil supply puts to rest the so-called ‘Peak Oil’ debate, where adherents to this theory argued that the supply of oil is fixed and dwindling, as traditional oil wells dry up.” Yikes!

[As for the one-pseudo-factual comment above, the: “estimated 3,000 new wells slated to be drilled in the next year”, Chris Martenson offers this sobering fact: “Typical wells in the Bakken come in at an average 200 barrels of oil per day and decline about 70-75 per cent in the first year before flattening out at 30-40 barrels per day.”]

An inconvenient reminder or two: the U.S. currently uses somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 million barrels of oil each and every day; our own production is currently in the neighborhood of 50%-60% of the peak we last touched more than forty years ago; and depending on the source one relies upon, we still import 8 – 10 million barrels per day despite these magnificent efforts in the Bakken and elsewhere; (and by the way, conventional oil fields are being depleted day after day, so getting back to “even” must happen first before we can start counting on unconventional, inferior quality, more-expensive-to-produce oil from the tar sands and shale). Facts suck!

Empty pronouncements aren’t especially helpful to the tens of millions who don’t have access to the facts and the realities of energy supply and production. How is this tactic helpful to them? When the reality of Peak Oil intrudes on their happy lives, and it turns out that the “might possibly could potentially if only” promises turn out to be just as empty in practice as they are now in theory, what happens then?

In fact, we will become more vulnerable over the long run, because the renewed embrace of fossil fuels will induce us to postpone the inevitable transition to a postcarbon economy. Sooner or later, the economic, environmental and climate consequences of intensive fossil fuel use will force everyone on the planet to abandon reliance on these fuels in favor of climate-friendly renewables. This is not a matter of if but of when. The longer we wait, the more costly and traumatic the transition will be, and the greater the likelihood that our economy will fall behind those of other countries that undertake the transition sooner. By extending our dependence on fossil fuels, therefore, the current oil and gas revival is not an advantage but, as Obama said in 2008, a threat to national security. [2]

The Canadian economist then goes on to describe the reality that “infrastructure has not kept up with supply;”  “Getting the oil to the refineries is a problem and currently, refineries in the U.S. do not have the capacity to handle all of this oil;” and because “of the infrastructure problems, an increasing volume of crude oil is now transported by railway and tanker trucks, boosting employment and activity in these industries, but the costs are far higher than pipeline transport;” and then, of course “With this boom, there are a growing number of concerns. The environmental impacts, though uncertain, are troubling. Potential pollutants entering the air and water supply are of great concern. Drilling is disrupting communities, damaging roads, and increasing costs to local governments. Some are worried about the effect of drilling on earthquakes….In some regions, like parts of Texas, there are already water shortages exacerbated by the huge volumes of water needed for hydraulic fracking.”

Nope! Not seeing any problems there!

But, hey, as Bob Lutz was so helpful in pointing out, we have a “scenario of abundance” coming from the Bakken shale oil fields and Canadian tar sands. Not much in the way of explaining anything about production rates, depletion of existing fields, costs, quality, and assorted other nit-picking facts some of us rely on, but when you have a scenario of abundance, and “so much greasy, oily and gassy stuff under the surface, it seems” well … who needs facts, Right? Mr. Lutz, proud as well of his climate change-denying credentials, even relied on a “senior oil economist” in his assessment that “‘Peak Oil’ [is now] exposed as yet another Chicken-Little fallacy.”

Good to know! (And all of us fact-reliant Peak Oil proponents have been concerned all this time….Geez!)

Just when I was ready to join the reality-free world, Chris Martenson had to go and offer just a small dose of concern to those for whom reality [and the future] matters:

The only problem here is, what if that view of the future is wrong? Then what?
Everything.

Worth the risk?

Sources:

[1] http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/dangerous-ideas/71666; Dangerous Ideas by Chris Martenson – 02.22.12

[2] http://www.thenation.com/article/166521/americas-fossil-fuel-fever;