Peak Oil Matters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something else is needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have our work cut out for ourselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s a choice … and opportunity.

Sources:

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

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

We are so woefully ill-prepared….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The choice is ours.

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(My bold italics were added for emphasis)

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

Hello?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last month, I came across a interesting article showing the production breakdown of a barrel (approximately 45 gallons) of oil.

I found it a bit surprising that only 4 gallons, or approximately 11 %, from every barrel of oil is typically produced as aviation fuel.

As Dave Jackson noted in another recent article:

“A-1 jet fuel, a high grade, moisture free kerosene, competes directly with the production of diesel. A refiner has a certain amount of leeway when extracting fuels from each barrel of crude oil. By and large, however, a choice must be made between kerosene or diesel.”

Jackson then asked pretty much the same question I have: What happens when there isn’t enough crude oil to satisfy the full demands of freight transportation and the airline industry? Can’t satisfy them both once oil production begins its continual decline, so what happens? As it stands now and if my math is correct, airlines use somewhere in the neighborhood of two billion barrels of oil each year. That cannot continue in the face of Peak Oil.

What decisions are the various transportation industries—freight and aviation in particular—going to be faced with when the worldwide supply of oil cannot ever match demand again? Who decides which of those two will have priority? It’s unlikely that only one industry will have all of its demand met, so that means both industries will suffer reductions in what is available to them. Then what?

As other writers have duly noted, once Peak Oil’s impact is being felt immediately and daily by the transportation industry, the foods and goods and services we’ve grown accustomed to having on hand 24/7/365 … won’t be. We’re going to have to start making do without some of those products and services we like to enjoy or use whenever the mood strikes, and if we’re being deprived, somewhere along the supply and distribution chain there will be employment and production cutbacks. We all now know what happens when people start losing their jobs and industries stop making or supplying goods and services.

A broader question as it affects aviation: what happens to air travel in general? Once Peak Oil is in full swing, we clearly cannot assume that that same eleven percent of each barrel of oil will still be devoted to producing aviation fuel. What then?

One obvious outcome is that the then more restricted air travel will become more expensive. I’m no economics whiz, but when supply decreases and demand remains steady, prices increase. So get ready for more expensive air travel as well as higher crude oil prices. For many, that means no more air travel. Then what? I’m fairly confident that airlines aren’t going to survive if their increasing costs for fuel lead to fewer passengers (who are obliged to pay much higher fares), and on and on the dominoes tumble.

When the price of a barrel of oil shot up to nearly $150.00 two short years ago, Brad Plumer—in a terrific New Republic article well worth reading—noted that nearly 25 airlines bit the dust just in 2008, almost four times the average. Should we expect anything different the next go-‘round?

On a more personal note, what will families do? As the parent of two daughters currently in college, I recognize first-hand the concerns any parent has when their graduating children decide to take jobs far from home. The emotional pull of wanting the best for your child while nonetheless wanting them close by has a powerful influence on our well-being. What happens if my daughter accepts a job in Portland, Oregon and in the not-too-distant future, the several dozen reasonably priced daily flights currently available out of Boston’s Logan Airport are reduced to just a handful, and the acceptable $550 flight through Dallas suddenly become a $1700 flight with multiple connecting stops en route, and an 8 hour trip is suddenly a two day adventure?

I am well aware that my daughter’s employment and location choices won’t depend one iota on what dear-old-Dad would prefer, but if my daughter does make the choice to live in a locale that is now an airplane ride away and a few years down the road I no longer have that as a feasible option to see her, dear-old-Dad is not going to be a happy camper. (I will let my daughter speak for herself on this subject!)

What happens to business meetings, to governmental business, to international negotiations, to sports travel, to family visits, and a host of other lifestyle and industry needs when we have less aviation fuel competing for our business and personal demands? What happens then?

Who decides which of the limited and now much more expensive flights have priority? Are your business meetings in Chicago more important than the Boston Red Sox seven-game road trip, or a fact-finding mission by several U.S. Congressional leaders, or seeing your parents? We cannot possibly hope to sustain the same level of air service when aviation fuel has doubled or tripled in price, and when perhaps only 4% or 5% of each barrel of a smaller supply of oil is now produced as aviation fuel because somewhere along the line, someone will have decreed that that is the most we can expect from each barrel because of countless other priorities.

To its great credit, Britain recently turned down construction of a 3rd runway at Heathrow Airport in favor of committing that same amount of funding to high speed rail, as noted here. Perhaps more insightful than most, the decision-makers likely recognized the pointlessness of committing billions to a service that will likely exist in a greatly-diminished capacity a few short years from now.

As Brad Plumer also noted in his 2008 essay:

“Small towns will be especially vulnerable to losing scheduled air service. That’s already happened to nearly 30 U.S. cities in the past year, from Wilmington, Delaware (population 72,000) to Boulder City, Nevada (14,000). Hagerstown, Maryland, lost all commercial air service recently, rendering its new $61.8 million, 7,000-foot runway useless.”

It won’t end there. What are the ripple effects to communities and regions when airports shut down, or flights are offered on a greatly restricted or reduced basis? What of the people accustomed to relying on those services? What happens then?

Technology is not close to finding adequate alternatives sufficient to meet current and projected demand increases, so what happens? And biofuels, for all their promise, are not close to being deemed an appropriate substitute.

So we can either start making plans, considering alternative forms of transportation, making a greater commitment to seeking alternative sources of energy, or try to come up with last-minute solutions to deal with the problems Peak Oil is going to force upon us.

Hint: That strategy is not likely to work

“How horrendous, how destructive, and how ultimately-suicidal does the evidence have to be before we all agree that the age of cheap oil is over?” – Charles Cresson Wood [1]

“When are we going to stop behaving so stupidly?” – Bob Herbert [2]

“It’s time we moved on to something else, or this is going to kill us.” – Craig Severance [3]

“The Deepwater Horizon disaster reminds us that, of all non-renewable resources, oil best deserves to be thought of as the Achilles heel of modern society. Without cheap oil, our industrial food system—from tractor to supermarket—shifts from feast to famine mode; our entire transportation system sputters to a halt. We even depend on oil to fuel the trains, ships, and trucks that haul the coal that supplies half our electricity. We make our computers from oil-derived plastics. Without oil, our whole societal ball of yarn begins to unravel.

“But the era of cheap, easy petroleum is over; we are paying steadily more and more for what we put in our gas tanks—more not just in dollars, but in lives and health, in a failed foreign policy that spawns foreign wars and military occupations, and in the lost integrity of the biological systems that sustain life on this planet.

“The only solution is to do proactively, and sooner, what we will end up doing anyway as a result of resource depletion and economic, environmental, and military ruin: end our dependence on the stuff. Everybody knows we must do this.” – Richard Heinberg [4]

The hope is that more of us are starting to understand the implications, given the attention lavished on the Deepwater Horizon spill. The question remains: what are we going to do? Nodding our heads in agreement that we’re about to face enormous challenges to preserving our ways of life and industry won’t cut it. The truth is harsher: life as we’ve known it is going to change. How—and how much—are yet to be determined.

We’re already well past the point where we should have acknowledged the problems of declining oil production. Denial, or ignorance, or just waiting until some kind of magical solution comes along are beyond counter-productive at this point. Now we have to start the lengthy, complex, sacrifice-is-necessary process of restructuring the way we live, work, and produce. Plans have not yet been formulated, so we’re already behind.

And all of this, dear readers, is not going to happen any time soon. But we need to start. The longer we wait, the more problems to be overcome we’ll create. That is not our best strategy. We’re already going to be confronted with far more challenges than the vast majority of us realize or understand. None of us are likely prepared for all the changes and challenges we’ll have to confront.

The tin-foil-hat-is-on-too-tight crowd needs to step aside and acknowledge the reality that the Gulf of Mexico catastrophe (yes, Governor Barbour, that’s what it is) is one more signpost on the long road of oil production problems. Denial has served whatever ignorant and ridiculous purpose it might have been intended for. Now, it’s time for the adults among us to start dealing with the facts and the truths about oil production and fossil fuel availability.

Despite their efforts to disparage those of us convinced of the imminence of Peak Oil by uttering ridiculous claims attributed to us, we’re not going to “run out” of oil. But as I and many others have taken great pains to explain, we are going to start seeing problems with production keeping up with demand, and that diminishes our access and availability to the oil and gas we’ve become all too comfortable expecting. Lulls in the prices or availability of gasoline and oil should not be mistaken for anything other than lulls.

We need to keep in mind that the United States does not live in a vacuum, nor, despite the fervent yet misguided expectations of some, are we “entitled” to our fair share of oil and gas before anyone else. (By some estimates the Chinese will increase their ownership of autos by nearly a half billion in the next decade or so! Where is all that needed extra fossil fuel supposed to come from? And that’s just one growing economy!) Facts are annoying as hell, but there’s no getting around them….

The problems are inexorably going to get worse … not next week or next month, but well before we’ve had time to establish a new infrastructure and new methods of commerce and mass transit. We’ve got years of work ahead of us, and not nearly enough years to put it all in place before the serious problems appear.

We’re all in this together, even the paranoid, card-carrying knuckleheads who insist we have “infinite” supplies of oil (as soon as the words “Zionist cabal” or discussions about long-ago-discredited Russian claims about the origins of fossil fuel appear in a pseudo-argument, you know you’re dealing with someone whose sky is a different color than ours); we all have a stake in the solutions we fashion; and we all bear responsibility for the outcomes. What will we choose?

This is getting serious….

Sources:

[1] http://www.energybulletin.net/52986: The Questions You Ask Create The Future You Manifest; 06/02/2010 by Charles Cresson Wood
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/opinion/01herbert.html: Our Epic Foolishness by BOB HERBERT
[3] http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/67007: What Will it Take to End Our Oil Addiction? May 29, 2010 by Craig Severance
[4] http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52971: The End is nigh – Deepwater Horizon and the technology, economics, and environmental Impacts of Resource Depletion; 06/01/2010 by Post Carbon Institute

Before I leave to visit my daughter next week (there will be no further scheduled posts until the week of April 4 at the earliest), I thought it was worth mentioning that a recently-issued report (here) strongly suggests we’ll reach Peak Oil in 2014, at least 5 or 6 years earlier than most other predictions. This report (written by a petroleum engineer and his colleagues from Kuwait University) has garnered a fair amount of attention in recent weeks. For those who enjoy more technical explanations, this may do the trick!

While some countries (including the United States) have recently experienced an uptick in oil production in recent months, the general trend by most indications continues to point to Peak Oil’s arrival much sooner than most experts thought as recently as 2 or 3 years ago. The surge in production thus appears temporary at best. A nice article (here) explains why that may be so.

Oil supplies close to half of the world’s energy, and almost all worldwide transportation is fueled by oil. When demand outstrips supply, whether that’s in 2014, 2020, or some date nearby, we’re going to face major upheavals in how we all conduct our lives. The naysayers who suggest we have zillions of barrels of oil still left in the ground do all of us a tremendous disservice by failing to explain that most of those reserves (if indeed they are correct in their estimates) are more difficult to locate, extract, refine, and produce. That means they cost a lot more, and if the price is prohibitively expensive, then it really won’t matter much how much is left in the ground. It will stay there, and while I’m no expert, I am confident that oil (or its cousins like the tar sands or oil shale) won’t do any of us much good buried underground.

My next series of posts will be devoted to a more detailed explanation of oil’s many roles in modern society. We would all be better served if we start thinking how much we rely on oil, how much of our lives will be impacted when the supply is not quite so readily-available or relatively inexpensive at it now is, and just how much will have to change—and how long such changes might take.

The sooner we start considering this, the sooner we can start taking action and seizing opportunities to prepare ourselves for changes that geology is going to impose on us—whether we like it or not.

Another brief “interruption” to the flow of planned posts:

Touching on a theme I raised previously (with similar observations from Ferdinand E. Banks as cited in that post), I recently came across two other articles (one by the always-informative Kurt Cobb) discussing concerns about increased domestic demand from oil-exporting nations. (See the references to those articles at the end of this post.)

Texas petroleum geologist Jeffrey Brown, noted for his Export Land Model theory, is featured in both articles, and he raises salient points that bear directly on the supply of readily available and relatively inexpensive oil we’ll likely have in the years to come. That supply is eventually going to be curtailed, as I’ve been discussing since this blog began. What that means to all of us is the primary purpose of Peak Oil Matters.

The two referenced items remind us that: (a) the consequences of Peak Oil aren’t solely the result of decreased production, (b) technology isn’t the magic answer.

As oil-exporting nations use the profits generated from their production and sale to grow their own economies and strengthen their industries and infrastructure—while raising the standards of living of their own citizens—they must necessarily increase the amount of oil they retain for themselves. It is, after all, their oil. (And they function with fossil fuel-based infrastructures just as the rest of us do.) Seems fairly straightforward….

What we tend to overlook, and what these two articles make clear, is that as oil production begins its inexorable decline (as it already has in many instances), and as this domestic use increases, the amount of oil available to the rest of us decreases even more drastically than it does based on a straight oil production decline. If the Export Land Model theory is correct, then we may be facing the challenges of Peak Oil even sooner than we anticipate. Existing technology isn’t going to overcome this accelerated decline.

And if that is true, then we’d better get moving on planning and implementing some new strategies quickly.

Referenced articles:

http://www.energybulletin.net/51715 ; Do Texas and the North Sea foretell the future of oil production? 
02/25/2010 by Scitizen (Kurt Cobb)

http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/another-take-on-peak-oil-exports-not-production-indicate-crisis224/; Another Take On Peak Oil: Exports, Not Production, Indicate Crisis by Zoe Macintosh on February 25, 2010

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

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

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

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

Disasters … or Opportunities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: Part III

“Imagine … an America with rebuilt, healthy, dynamic metropolitan areas, and gleaming new port facilities, and networks of  high-speed rail, an America with electric vehicles and a smart grid and energy generated by the power of the sun and wind and  water and the ocean’s waves. Imagine if the children of today’s toddlers had access to world-class public schools all across the  nation and a higher education system that is both first-rate and affordable.

 “Imagine if we set out seriously to do all this.

 “Imagine.” [1]

An excellent vision for the future, both short and long term. So how will we get there?

Just enduring each day in the midst of this great recession has been a struggle for most of us in these last couple of years. Given what I and others have attempted to share about the challenges of Peak Oil (to say nothing of the potential harm climate change will cause us all), summoning a noble vision for the future is a great first step. But how we manage to realize this in the face of our economic struggles and the added burden of decreasing access to affordable oil is an entirely different matter.

If we are to prosper in the days ahead, there’s a foundation we require in re-building and re-creating success, growth, and prosperity—a subject I’ve already begun discussing (here and here). For starters, a sound highway system (bridges included), clean water, adequate sewage treatment, a ready supply of affordable electricity and utility services—among other essential elements of a sound infrastructure we can depend on—are every bit as necessary in the days to come as they have been in the past.

But with the onset of Peak Oil, the challenge not just to sustain the levels of growth we’ve become accustomed to, but to enhance our standards of living upon recovery, is going to require enormous sums of money to repair and in many cases rebuild and reinvent the infrastructure that has supported us to date and which must support us going forward.

If those lifestyles are to continue, (recognizing as we must that standards of living and our economic ways of life on the other side of this recession will likely be very different than what was when we entered it), then we’re going to have to make our infrastructure sustainable—with no guarantees that we will power up enough, or any, alternative energy sources in time. But it’s foolish in the extreme for us to ignore the many warning signs that oil production is struggling now just to keep up with decreased demand during this recession, (let alone what will be once we regain our economic footing), and just blithely expect magic technology to rescue us so that we can continue on unaffected by the realities of diminishing oil production and supply. We have choices; it’s just that none of them are especially easy.

It’s unpleasant to think about having to add one more major financial challenge to our already-filled plates, as I’ve discussed previously. Peak Oil’s onset alone may prove to be an overwhelming burden. I don’t think I’m alone in feeling as though I’m not up to the task of adding nebulous infrastructure concerns to what we have to deal with. Aren’t those things usually left to government … or someone else?

It’s easy, especially in these difficult economic and political circumstances, to ignore infrastructure concerns—even the most basic maintenance and repair issues. (Who has the stomach to request more money for that?) But as much as we think we cannot afford the vast sums needed to address existing maintenance issues and the transition away from fossil fuels, infrastructure spending is an absolutely essential investment. It is the foundation upon which we’ve built our industrial and economic existence, and it will be as we transition away from reliance on fossil fuel.

Facing a future of decreasing energy supplies, we will have less and less available to maintain the systems that support our ways of life. More critical decisions about financial resource allocations will confront us soon enough. But we cannot afford a piecemeal approach, or deal with infrastructure considerations solely when emergencies arise. Ignoring the need to address current infrastructure shortcomings puts us all at risk personally and economically.

(Two simple examples: Bridge collapses are not consequence-free; and our ability to compete in the world marketplace suffers when our transport or utility systems are not up to the demands of production and supply.)

Failure to plan for an efficient transition away from oil dependency is just as damaging. Competitors in other nations are already leaving us in the dust when it comes to devoting resources to infrastructure upgrades. As far as I know, they have no plans to wait for us to catch up.

We may give very little thought to these ramifications, but in the real world they carry stiff penalties that affect all of us. When our national economy is not competing effectively, where else do the adverse consequences trickle down but to all of us … farmers, big business, small business, entrepreneurs, student, families? We’re all in this together.

Unfortunately, we may pushing the envelope in terms of how much longer we can put off dealing with infrastructure concerns.  In 2009, the American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave our national infrastructure an overall grade of “D.” (The scores: Aviation D; Bridges C; Dams D; Drinking Water D-; Energy D+; Hazardous Waste D; Inland Waterways D-; Levees D-; Public Parks and Recreation C-; Rail C-; Roads D-; Schools D; Solid Waste C+; Transit D; and Wastewater D-.)

Not particularly impressive. We’re in for a long wait if we think those problems are just going to go away—that MO cannot be a strategy.

According to the ASCE, we have a maintenance deficit of $2.2 trillion dollars over just the next five years. That begs two questions: Where does that money come from? And what happens if we don’t start dealing with the problems reflected by those scores? “Can’t afford it” likewise cannot be a strategy.

We need to start thinking long-term. As mentioned above, competitor nations are leaving us behind when it comes to infrastructure investment and planning. China is reportedly building a network of more than 40 high-speed rail lines. Our next one will be our first. There are many more examples of what other nations are doing and planning, even in the midst of this global economic downturn, to prepare themselves for recovery.

One problem is clear:

“…. right now there are not enough people at the higher echelons of government trying to figure out the best ways to raise the  enormous amounts of money that will be required, and the most responsible ways of spending that money. And there are not  enough leaders explaining to the public how heavy this lift will be, and why it is so necessary, and what sacrifices will be  required to get the job properly done.” [2]

What the hell are we waiting for? How much more evidence do we really need?

Next: Part II

Sources:

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/opinion/17herbert.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&ref=opinion&adxnnlx=1258455637-lZ9f+84UVVV0xzhkak7qzg; What the Future May Hold By BOB HERBERT
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/20/opinion/20herbert.html?ref=opinion; Falling Further Behind By BOB HERBERT

It remains my hope that with the right level of effort, commitment, vision, understanding, and action (BIG “ifs” of course), we can effect a reasonably non-disruptive transition away from our excessive fossil fuel dependency. It won’t be perfect or struggle-free, but we can take steps to make it easier. At this point, “easier” may be the best we can hope for.

I recognize that there are criticisms and ridicule leveled against the “doomers”—Peak Oil proponents who assert that we are heading for catastrophe. It’s difficult to gain an appreciation for how much of our lives are predicated on the availability of easily obtained and relatively inexpensive oil and gas, and then consider with nothing but sunny optimism how much of our lives will thus of course be impacted when easy and inexpensive are no longer options. I admitted in my last post on this topic that it is a challenge. The fear that we as a society will choose to do nothing but hope for the best leaves us with little leeway to predict anything but ominous outcomes when Peak Oil’s full weight falls upon us.

I vehemently disagree with the snarky, uninformed deniers who smugly claim that this “doom scenario” is in some bizarre manner a source of enjoyment for us. Those kinds of comments do more to tell a tale about an author’s integrity and character than they do about people like me who are trying to inform. It’s almost unimaginable to consider that there are people who absolutely deny we’re going to face challenges of oil supply and production in the face of clearly articulated facts.

Output from the world’s oilfields is declining faster than had been anticipated; the oil industry itself is relying on fields past their prime, with less skilled help than is needed; more projects are being scuttled for economic reasons and lack of investment funding, and the industry’s own infrastructure is in need of great repair.

Finding oil and gas to replace the world’s fast dwindling reserves is increasingly risky as rigs probe areas once seen as too difficult or too dangerous, and costs are rocketing, which could imperil future supply.
The cost of discovering each new barrel of oil and gas has risen three-fold over the last decade as technology has pushed the frontiers of exploration into ever more remote areas.
As old fields run dry, oil companies are drilling wells in some of the most inhospitable regions, where political, physical, geological, geographical, technical and contractual risks are high…. [1]

(Although the article claims that such efforts are a “remarkable success”, the fact remains we are finding less than we are using every year, as has been the case for many years now.)

When Peak Oil will occur, or what specific factors bring it about, really won’t matter in the end. What does matter is the outcome: less availability, more expensive, more difficult to provide, with demand increasing significantly in developing parts of the world. Bad math….

I’m hard-pressed to understand what Peak Oil and global warming deniers hope to honorably achieve by sowing confusion and doubt where none clearly exists. What fear motivates them to do so, and how callous are they about consequences to all of us? Denial is a powerful tool, but to what end?

For all my optimism, I think we’re too late in the game to effect a completely trouble-free move away from dependency on oil. Changing our habits, our infrastructure, and our economic and industrial way of life is an immense undertaking—one that realistically requires at least a decade or two to have everything in place. We do not have that much time, but we have some.

The sooner we collectively agree on new courses of action (now there’s a gigantic “if” and hope!), the sooner we provide ourselves with the best chance of creating some measure of prosperity and success in a world no longer shaped and fed by unlimited amounts of oil. We have our work cut out for us as it is.

The biggest “if” is how soon we are all willing to engage. If the answer is anything other than “now”, then we will encounter tremendous difficulties as we move away from a fossil fuel resource that simply will not be available to us in the quantities, at the prices, and with the ease we have come to expect.

The vital components of this successful transition depend first and foremost on essential individual traits—characteristics that likewise define our culture and provide guideposts for our future. And in this regard, I am not as optimistic as I’d like to be, but I remain hopeful and still convinced of mankind’s ability to do the right things for the right reasons. We’ve adapted before, and in spectacular fashion. No reason to doubt our capabilities now, but we need to get moving.

The attitudes we bring to this process, the beliefs we’ll continue to hold (and perhaps of more critical importance, the ones we’ll change), will likely make the difference between a “successful” transition to fossil-free ways of life and one of great, unnecessary hardship. What we choose to do now will of course make a difference, as will choosing to do nothing—an admittedly easier path.

We are a nation that does not accept limits on what we can do and be and achieve. In many respects that may be our most beneficial characteristic. But so too can it serve to hamper us when change away from business and life as usual is mandated due to circumstances well beyond our control. Peak Oil is one of those circumstances. We can prepare for it, but we cannot control it.

Ultimately peak oil will not be a geological crisis, not an economic crisis, not a political crisis. Inevitably peak oil will be a global philosophical and psychological crisis. [2]

Our economy and society were first constructed and have been sustained on certain key assumptions and expectations. There is a sense of entitlement many of us carry, one that says that the gratifications we seek and successes we demand are to be fulfilled ceaselessly—preferably with little effort on our part. The “drill, baby, drill” knuckleheaded clamor is only one of many indications that our general approach to gratification is at times one of: “Do, get, have, and then think (maybe). Consequences be damned.” Not particularly admirable or beneficial….

If one were to choose a single word to characterize [what it means to be a 21st-century American], it would have to be more. For the majority of contemporary Americans, the essence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness centers on a relentless personal quest to acquire, to consume, to indulge, and to shed whatever constraints might interfere with those endeavors. [3]

It’s a remarkably short-term focus that carries distressingly long-term implications.

The hard work of prior generations is not viewed with the same levels of respect it clearly deserves. It’s almost as though our attitude is that that’s what they should have done for us, so that we can now live lives of comfort, pleasure, and fulfillment for whatever needs we feel compelled to gratify in the moment. Prosperity is a reward for effort and commitment and skill and patience. It is not the right so many seem to think it is, and it is most definitely not a continuing guarantee. We are in some ways a lazy society getting lazier by the minute. We want everything fast, quick, cheap, and easy, and we have little appreciation for the hard work that was once our defining trait. That can change! I’m convinced of that; just as I am certain that it must change.

The risk is clear:

Generations that have been trained to want or expect easy, quick, automated abundance will find themselves having to adapt instead to a regime in which everything takes longer and requires more effort; in which there will often not be enough fuel or food to go around. [4]

What happens then? 

I’ll leave you with that thought for now.

To be continued….
Sources:

[1]: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61A28X20100211 – Oil exploration costs rocket as risks rise; Thu, Feb 11 2010 By Christopher Johnson
[2]: http://oilbeseeingyou.blogspot.com/2010/01/what-will-peak-oil-really-mean.html
[3]: Andrew Bacevich from his book: The Limits of Power: The End Of American Exceptionalism, (Metropolitan Books, 2008) as quoted by columnist Rod Dreher: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-dreher_17edi.ART.State.Edition1.adb331.html – Peak oil is coming, and we’re unready, August 17, 2008
[4]: Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines by Richard Heinberg, p. 127; New Society Publishers, 2007