Peak Oil Matters

In his presentation to Montana Energy 2012, Michael Economides told Montanans, ‘You are already a superpower in oil production. You have already defied the trends and once again showed the can-do attitude of this industry, smashing the myth of the ‘peak oil’.
‘You have redefined and defied the trends suggesting strongly the future of energy is oil and gas and not solar and wind.’ [1]

Yeah! We’re Number One!

Kinda gives you the chills, doesn’t it?

In an article noteworthy mostly because of its introduction of the word (?) “bizerk” (sic) and the phrase (?) “cut the mustered” (also sic), this cute tug at red, white, and blue American hearts was otherwise free of factual reasoning for “making the whole myth of peak oil a shambles,” according to Mr. Economides.

Why one might ask? Well, according to this article, “The reason places like Montana and Canada stand at the leading edge of the industry is because of conditions that exist in other countries, which are mostly hostile to the US.” That certainly clears things up! And of course “supplies have always increased and continue to meet a demand that only grows” because finite resources uh … uh … are secretly infinite, I guess.

As if that rationale alone wasn’t enough: “Many of these countries are ‘a shambles,’ ‘corrupt,’ and unstable. ‘It is hard to produce oil when people are shooting at you,’ said Economides.” That settles that! (Although I’ll agree completely that doing most anything is likely harder when one is being shot at it … pretty sure it’s not limited to just oil production.)

Just one tiny little problem to pass along before we order our Montana is a Superpower T-shirts. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration earlier this year:

Montana Crude Oil Production is at a current level of 1.823M, down from 1.963M last month and down from 1.867M one year ago. This is a change of -2.64% from last month and -8.79% from one year ago.

So how does a nearly 9% decline make Montana a “superpower in oil production”? According to this chart, in 2011 Montana was producing about 66,000 barrels of crude oil per day. The United States is using somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 – 19 million barrels of oil per day. So Reality Math tells us that supplying .00356% doesn’t exactly make one a “superpower,” or even a power, or even a pow….Pretty safe bet that whatever unconventionals Montana managed to scrape up didn’t make much of a dent in that percentage contribution. Just more damned facts getting in the way of perfectly good sound bites! (Of course, in Fact-Free Math-Isn’t-Useful World, those numbers tell us instead that Montana supplied exactly 63.826% of our oil needs.)

Raising a point argued by many others disinclined to consider what’s really happening with crude oil production and what’s not happening with unconventional oil production such as shale oil and tar sands, the article adds: “Economides expressed disappointment with the US Geological Survey and the degree to which they fail to take increasing prices into account in making their projections regarding supply. Increased prices increase the amount that producers can afford to invest, which puts into production resources that they previously considered uneconomical to recover.”

I find it a source of never-ending amusement that these “increased prices” are never viewed from the perspective of the end users: you and me. Higher prices allowing for investments in the exploration of previously untapped (and inferior, more expensive, more costly, etc., etc.) unconventional reserves is one end of a stick. Higher prices paid by you and me is the other end, and we don’t actually think that’s such a good thing….Imagine that!

“Economides predicted that $100 a barrel oil is the new norm.” Well isn’t that such good news!

And there’s more!

Economides pointed out that going back decades in the US, oil, gas and coal – the fossil fuels – have consistently contributed 87 percent of the fuel used in the country. He said that the day will come when his great, great grandchild ‘will stand here and tell you that 87 percent of the US fuels come from hydrocarbons,’ said Economides, ‘There are no alternatives to oil and gas.
And, that comes even with the increased demand for fossil fuels. In 1973, ‘the world energy demand was 60 percent of what it is today,’ and in 2030 it will be 50 percent more than what it is today,’ but still 87 percent will come from oil, gas and coal. ‘Production from other energies may grow, but they will not be where the 87 percent is going to come from.’

That is some kind of math … nothing to substantiate it and clearly unlike anything I ever learned, but definitely some kind of math!

So how does that work? We have depleting conventional oil fields; production of unconventional and inferior (and more costly, etc., etc.) substitutes not even matching depletion rates (see this, for example); increasing demand; decades more demand and use, and yet we’re to believe that supply will still magically meet demand for another … hundred and fifty years or so? Seriously?

A few months back, Mason Inman had an interesting observation (duly noted by others, including Robert Hirsch/The Hirsch Report – see Category sidebar) about the same kind of math (apparently from the same Fact-Free Talking Points handbook), with a concluding sentence that puts a nice bow on the discussion:

OPEC members in the Middle East have reserve numbers that are—to put it politely—magical. These countries’ figures for ‘proved reserves’ only go up or stay flat—and never go down. Kuwait’s ‘proved reserves’ stayed at 96.5 billion barrels from 1991 to 2002, and then have crept upward from there. From 1989 to today, Saudi Arabia’s ‘proved reserves’ have barely budged, creeping up slightly from 260.1 to 264.6 billion barrels. Meanwhile, these countries have produced tens of billions of barrels of oil. It’s as if a huge corporation told auditors that their bank account always held exactly $572 million dollars, for decades. It’s not believable [my emphasis]. [2]

But if you still aren’t convinced, we have this: “‘How can you have too much of a good thing?’ he asked, pointing out the importance of Canada, as a friendly country, and a dependable source of oil for the US.” Doesn’t it just warm your heart when the deniers mention Canada the Friendly Country as our primary supplier? It’s exactly how I felt as a child when I heard about Casper the Friendly Ghost … just all warm and fuzzy! Who needs reality and facts when you can just smile about friendly things….

Lest you’re thinking I believe the entire article was pure nonsense, I did agree with this, although with a caveat as to the first point:

Economides questioned every alternative energy option as being an ineffective alternative to fossil fuels.
He called ethanol a scam, because it takes 1.6 gallons of gasoline to produce one gallon of ethanol – not to mention the negative impact on food prices.

Every alternative energy option IS an ineffective alternative, and will continue to be as long as we make certain that we conduct no research and make no investments in discovering what the potential might be (and no guarantees, to be sure). Nope, let’s just make sure the profitable oil companies remain profitable, while we explain no truths about a finite resource, downplaying the fact that if every day you have less of Product X than the day before and more demand every day for the same Product X, the rules of math (and geology) will nonetheless be set aside and all will be well forever.

A fine story indeed, warm-hearted and all good things … except that it’s all bullshit. Other than that, no objections.

So what’s it going to take for more people to “get it” and fewer people to keep passing out nonsense as fossil fuel gospel. A couple of clues to assist: Who benefits? Who loses?

Not that difficult to figure it out … and a damn good reason to start thinking and planning.

More to come….

Sources:

[1] http://www.bigskybusiness.com/index.php/business/economy/2488-making-shambles-of-oil-peak-myth’; Making ‘Shambles’ of ‘Oil Peak Myth’ by Evelyn Pyburn – 04.18.12
[2] http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-09-26/%E2%80%9C-quest%E2%80%9D-questioned-series; “The Quest” questioned – the series by Mason Inman – 09.26.11 [Original article: http://failinggracefully.com/?p=2850 ]

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

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

As I observed in that first post 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 the first five installments of this mini-series [links * at the end of this post], I’ve examined what my semi-snarky, decidedly liberal perspective viewed to be a perfect summation of stereotypical right-wing nonsense regarding fossil fuel production and gas pricing, relying on the concept of cultural cognition as described by Dan M. Kahan, Yale University and Donald Barman – George Washington University [link to PDF download in Sources [1] below]. I’m doing so in the hope that this might afford Peak Oil proponents—and those who doubt—a window into how the discussion has been approached to date, and more importantly, how to get past the stumbling block of ideology (my own and the “others”). We’ll need all the intelligence, expertise, and assistance we can get to find some practical adaptations and solutions. [Quotes below are from the above-linked article by Jeffrey Folks unless noted otherwise.]

So where are we? I’ve done what we’re inclined to do when people don’t accept a position/viewpoint offered: I’ve supplied lots of reasons why the “other side” is wrong about Peak Oil. As I stated at the conclusion of the last post, this is not a philosophical discussion, as some political issues are more apt to be addressed.

That he has not yet been able to do so must pain the president greatly. He must also be irked that high gas prices — the same high prices he has worked so hard to create over the past three and a half years — now pose an obstacle to his re-election.

What’s the point in saying things like this when we’re trying to deal with real-world problems? How do we get beyond the “you are crazier than I am” model of public discourse if facts cannot be rationally debated in the first instance? (Does this gentleman and his many peers who have suggested much the same seriously think that any President of the United States would deliberately pursue a policy so completely at odds with the interests of practically every citizen in the country so that he or she can … uh … uh … why would someone do this?) How does this help any of us?

Idiotic viewpoints are not the substance of sound decision-making, so what is the point?

Our prescription, counterintuitively, is a more unabashedly cultural style of democratic policymaking. Those interested in helping citizens to converge in support of empirically sound policies—on guns, on the environment, on crime control, on national security—should focus less on facts and more on social meaning. It’s only when they perceive that a policy bears a social meaning congenial to their cultural values that citizens become receptive to sound empirical evidence about what consequences that policy will have. It’s therefore essential to devise policies that can bear acceptable social     meanings to citizens of diverse cultural persuasions simultaneously. Because culture is cognitive prior to facts in the policy disputes, culture must be politically prior to facts too. [1]

But when legitimate problems confront all of us, how do we abide by the decorums suggested if nonsense is the starting point for one side of the debate? I hope there is a limit to the usefulness of this kind of strategy … sure wish we were there already.

What’s the vision and expectation for the future? The effects of Peak Oil (and climate change) don’t lend themselves to being bent into shapes conducive to conservative or liberal ideology. There is no one obvious solution which smacks almost entirely of liberalism (and vice versa) which one “side” can legitimately promote. Too many aspects of our everyday lifestyles—both personal and industrial—will require a broad range of adaptations and transitions well beyond ideological constraints.

There is undoubtedly some comfort in thinking that one’s ideology will ride to the rescue, thus  avoiding all the unpleasant psychological contortions relinquishing such beliefs would necessitate if change is necessary. We get that, too.

I’ll say again: I’m willing to wager that almost all Peak Oil proponents would be delighted to be proven wrong so that we don’t have to endure the inevitable magnitude of changes our beliefs suggest. But what worries us is the fact that the problems will be of such scope and and impact and complexity that we feel strongly that planning must take place now—by all of us, both Left and Right—and we’re not seeing enough honest, intelligent, rational analysis from those whose contributions will be every bit as important and meaningful. The ideology sponsoring practical and effective adaptations and solutions won’t matter to us if they work. We just don’t think it’s all that unreasonable to expect that the contributions are grounded in the realities of what we face.

Whether it is ‘peak oil,’ ‘carbon emissions,’ ‘can’t drill our way out,’ or ‘no quick fix,’ every argument has the same goal: to force Americans off fossil fuels and onto expensive, government-regulated green alternatives.

That certainly sounds ominous, and it coincides nicely with the Right’s “liberal control over our lives” meme, but at what point can we expect a legitimate examination of the facts about what we face and realize that there is no one solution that fits all? Like it or not, green alternatives are going to be necessary. Given how far behind they are to already-established, depleting-by-the-day energy sources, some government involvement and oversight is simply going to be part of the mix. If you truly believe that 300 million-plus people and or tens of millions of business each trying to figure out on their own how to deal with diminished fuel supply is the way to go, then best wishes!

Paranoid nonsense about “government control” and “boots on the neck” and assorted other conspiracy-laden premises simply have no place in the dialogue. Thinking that the absence of government is part of the solution is unrealistic—plain and simple. We appreciate the “values” such perspectives support, but it is way, way past time for us to all move beyond the psychological fixes. Reality beckons, and absent meaningful involvement, planning, and contributions from anyone and everyone with valuable expertise, we’re all going to be neck-deep in avoidable troubles. We’ll have enough that aren’t avoidable as is. Let’s not make things worse.

Wouldn’t all of us prefer having a say ahead of time, comforted by the realization that we all took part in making meaningful contributions?

Who wants to sacrifice anything about current lifestyles as Option Number One? Bad, last-minute, overwhelming surprises are not my preference, and I’m having a difficult time thinking that they are anyone else’s, either. Blind Faith is still a better rock band than strategy, and it’s certainly not the one I want guiding me and my wife and our children and my family and my fiends into a future where the inevitable outcomes of using finite resources finally come to roost. I don’t think I’m at all unusual in stating that I want a good future for myself and family in good communities with happy, successful, and prosperous citizens living freely. That’s not going to happen as long as too many of us prefer occupying their time with fear-induced paranoid concerns that do nothing but promote more of the same by their adherents and more ridicule from those who cannot accept that perspective. It just does not help!

So do we stand our ideological grounds until there’s no question at all what reality has in store, or do we start doing what good businesspeople and well-intentioned families and communities do: plan ahead? We want good solutions and plans for how best to transition away from a fossil fuel-dependent way of life because that is what facts tell us is necessary. Control doesn’t factor in to what we seek, as convenient a fiction as that might be to the Right and as easy as it is to find “facts” to support the fears. “On your own” may appeal to some, but it will prove to be of very limited utility … dump it now.

We all need to be better than that. “Business as usual, every man for himself” have served in many cases great purposes, but changes are looming. The definition and routes available for continued prosperity are going to change. We’re drawing down just about all of the remaining easy-to-get-at stuff which produced such breathtaking successes and advances. Now we’re in a global world of infinitely greater complexity with billions more people wanting what we have, and there just won’t be enough of that remaining easy stuff to go around for everyone to either maintain or attain the standards of the good life we’ve grown accustomed to.

That’s not ideology. It’s math.

When Obama tells us there’s no quick fix, he is not suggesting that we should get started on a fossil fuel fix.  He’s saying that since there is no quick fix with fossil fuels, we’re better off dumping them and moving on to renewables.

That’s actually not what the President is saying at all. Having used finite resources for nearly two centuries in an ever-increasing complex, technologically-sophisticated world, how does one not think about Plan B given the facts about current crude oil supply and production, and the facts about what producing the gazillion barrels of unconventional reserves buried underground or beneath ocean floors entails? No business owner, coach, of leader in any endeavor or profession ignores facts and relies instead on hopes and suppositions. Not the winning formula….

But if the fossil fuel fix is not all that quick, the green energy fix is glacial.  In fact, it is no fix at all, because no matter how many windmills and solar farms we subsidize with taxpayer money, it will not be enough to fuel even one tenth of our energy needs….
When Obama proclaims there is no quick fix, he implies [says you!] that we must give up on increased domestic production of fossil fuels and turn to alternatives.  But those misnamed ‘alternatives’ are not really alternatives at all.  Wind and solar now account for less than 2% of America’s energy needs.

Absolutely true! But using up more of what’s not as available anymore as the sole option will only work for a while longer, and if we have done absolutely nothing to plan an alternate route to get is to the destination all of us hope for, what happens then?

I see that as perhaps the single greatest failing of right-wing philosophy in the face of Peak Oil:  Yes, we’ll need all of the marvels of “human ingenuity” and great technological inventions. But without recognizing and accepting the simple truth that we’re drawing down a finite and depleting resource which necessitates almost unimaginable adaptations and transitions to Plan B, the limits of human ingenuity and technological prowess will inevitably be reached if we keep tweaking the finite resource. Just how does the market on its own develop guidelines about what needs to be done, how, when, in what priority, where, and assorted other considerations?

There is no intellectually honest way to believe that the world can continue its near-total reliance on fossil fuels for much more than another decade — a paltry window of opportunity. We also know that we cannot wait until they go into decline before reaching for renewables and efficiency, simply because the scale of the challenge is so vast, and the alternatives are starting from such a low level that they will need decades of investment before they are ready to assume the load. The data is clear, and the mathematics are really quite straightforward. [2]

So now what?

* links to the prior installments:

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/12/peak-oil-denial-the-liberal%E2%80%99s-dilemma-pt-1/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/19/peak-oil-denial-the-liberal%E2%80%99s-dilemma-pt-2/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/26/peak-oil-denial-the-liberal%E2%80%99s-dilemma-pt-3/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/05/03/peak-oil-denial-the-liberal%E2%80%99s-dilemma-pt-4/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/05/10/peak-oil-denial-the-liberal%E2%80%99s-dilemma-pt-5/

Sources:

[1] 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 [quote from p. 169]
[2] http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/our-energy-future-golden-age-or-stone-age/143; Our energy future: Golden Age or Stone Age? by Chris Nelder – 10.26.11

People who like conspiracy theory are well served by the Oil Establishment’s ceaseless quest to present world oil supply as sufficient if not ‘abundant’, denying the evidence of Peak Oil, and accessorily keeping a lid on oil prices. [1]

A Peak Oil Denial Sampler

We who feel an urgent imperative to explain the reality and expected consequences of Peak Oil by doling out facts, evidence, and reality, continue to deal with heaping doses of nonsense volleyed back from the other side of the net. Language from a recent Exhibit A is indicative of the “arguments” from those unwilling to accept the unfortunate facts about oil production (starting with the “good news” first … apparently a new way to measure fossil fuel resources):

We have more than enough of the black stuff to incinerate ourselves several times over….
[S]upply side bounty … offering a second pass at resource riches….
[A] dazzling display of unconventional technologies rapidly increasing kangaroo LNG production.
The North Sea can squeeze out a few more drops; Europe can finally get it’s ‘energy sovereignty’ back….
[T]he Arctic offers Russia untold oil riches….
[T]he new African oil rush….
Higher risk markets … hold undoubted hydrocarbon promise….
Initial trickles of oil will start to flow next year, but the Albert basin has already unearthed a billion barrels of proven reserves, figures that could go significantly higher when surveys are conducted….
Nairobi has struck its own oil. Tullow is plugging away in the Rift Valley; serious offshore plays are being looked at [my emphasis] in the Lamu Basin….
Thirty onshore and offshore areas are already under license, with a further eight
deep-water tracts coming up for auction….while trickier deep-water blocs have been taken….
Like it or not, East Africa has just added another serious swathe of hydrocarbon prospects to the global economy.…an attractive prospect for bullish supply side expectations. [2]

What The Peak Oil Denial Sampler Is Telling Us

Perhaps the author should have his keyboard checked out … other than the Albert Basin’s “billion barrels of proven reserves,” the entire essay was all but devoid of any production numbers amid all of those supposedly-optimistic, pseudo-factual pronouncements. (But we do have eight tracts coming up for auction, and we all know that ‘coming up for auction’ is almost like production by tomorrow … especially when ‘offshore plays are being looked at’ … and not just any offshore plays, mind you, but ‘serious’ ones! Wow! And one can only imagine just how much oil Nairobi has struck! We’re saved!

I think it’s fair to say that it’s entirely possible this information might potentially persuade several key officials that if certain things happen favorably, the oil supply future could very well appear to be bright … perhaps.

I’ll ask the same question I’ve raised before: How does this help us?

Humans don’t want to hear bad news. That’s just the way they’re built, the way they were designed by Nature. That’s the lesson I learned in a nutshell. If they’re not listening, that’s hardly a surprise. Certainly it’s nothing to worry about or get frustrated over. If they’re not listening to the bad news you’re bringing, for God’s sake don’t try harder. They simply don’t care about your carefully crafted, convincing arguments. [3]

It’s hard to dispute Dave Cohen’s perspective, and in fact quite easy to succumb to a healthy dose of despair when nonsense is the standard reply to our efforts to inform. The questionable notion argued by a more than a few deniers—that we derive some perverse pleasure in dispensing gloomy forecasts—seems enough of an excuse to pay no further attention to the information shared. It’s all the more discouraging when prominent media is more inclined to give voice to happy talk about the magic of “human ingenuity” and the Technology Fairy.

Peak Oil Denial Exhibit B

[T]he peak oil model itself shows an inadequate empirical representation of historical patterns. World oil discoveries have peaked at least four times since 1950. Take the United States: here, there has been a major deviation between Hubbert’s projections and real figures of oil production. As economist Daniel Yergin has pointed out, at the end of 2010, US oil production was 3.5 times higher than Hubbert forecast. [4]

Facts Keep Screwing Up Denials

U.S. oil production peaked four decades ago, exactly as Dr. Hubbert predicted! So what’s the point of nitpicking the fact he could not conjure up all of the future technological advances altering the amount of oil produced? The essential issue is that his prediction of the peak was spot-on!

It seems that Hubbert got the timing of the plateau (peak) of oil production almost perfectly, and he was off by a factor of two in the production level. He could not have possibly accounted for the offshore production in the North Sea, Nigeria, Angola, Brazil, deepwater GOM, etc. He had no way of predicting the discoveries and ascent of Cantarell, Tengiz, Majoon, Samotlor, Zakum, Prudhoe Bay, and many other supergiant oilfields….Hubbert’s data said nothing about the impact of 3D seismic, deviated wells, horizontal wells, massively hydrofractured wells, drilling in two kilometers of seawater, etc. Yet, almost 60 years ago, Hubbert was off by a factor of two in the production level and perfect in the timing of the peak. Now think about an economic forecast for the entire world that is this good after mere 10 years….
Hubbert’s prediction is close to a miracle….Hubbert simply did not have enough random variables in his data set, because these variables were still in the future when he plotted his [graphs]. In the intervening six decades, technology created by people like me brought these new random variables (oilfields) to life and doubled the production outcome, but did not change the location of the peak [my emphasis]. [5]

If At First You Don’t Succeed, Just Say Anything!

The same article cited in [4] above goes on to state:

Peak oil theory holds a static view of the world, and its models ignore price effects: lots of oil discoveries and high production mean that prices and profits wane, and incentives for further exploration decline. But ensuing oil shortages then restore these incentives. When incentives exist, the industry will continue to produce and is likely to produce even more…..
Peak oil theorists also neglect the role of technological advances in oil production as a great multiplier. The history of the oil industry reflects an endless struggle between nature and our knowledge. Progress in technology allows both new discoveries and the increase in recovery rate needed to turn non-recoverable or hypothetical resources into recoverable reserves….
Worse yet, peak oil theorists do not take into account the assessment of unconventional oil resources, such as oil shale, oil sands, biomass-based liquids, coal-based liquids and liquids arising from chemical processing of natural gas. These could substitute for conventional oil when new technologies, such as steam injection for oil sands deposits, mature.

Just a few comments on these statements. We can just assume that consumers/we are going to pay the higher prices no matter what? The first option available to most in the face of higher prices is to cut back on usage. So unless the fossil fuel industry has decided that they are going to absorb from profits the higher costs of exploration and production of the inferior substitutes relied upon to debunk Peak Oil, those higher prices get passed on to us, and we’ll react accordingly. Surprise!

When customers aren’t buying, profits decline. When profits decline, business investments aren’t made. Restoring those investments and deciding to resume exploration and production is not an overnight process, so the magic suggested in the first paragraph above isn’t quite as impressive when reality intrudes. And let’s keep in mind that what is being sought and eventually produced is of lesser quality, harder to access (and thus more expensive), and takes much longer to bring to market, among other notable drawbacks. Facts continue to suck!

And the suggestion that we “neglect the role of technological advances in oil production”  and “do not take into account the assessment of unconventional oil resources, such as oil shale, oil sands, biomass-based liquids, coal-based liquids and liquids arising from chemical processing of natural gas” is a flat-out lie! We argue our position on Peak Oil precisely because “technological advances in oil production” and “unconventional oil resources” are woefully inadequate in substituting for the finite conventional fossil fuels we’ve been extracting and using for more than 150 years!

Those conventional oil fields are depleting daily, and these pixie-dust unconventionals are simply not able to keep up with those numbers, let alone meet increasing demand. The truth is that cornucopians just don’t like the production reality facts about these magical substitutes.

Gotta Keep Hammering Away

It’s maddening to deal with so much nonsense helping no one but investors, oil company executives, and corporate bottom lines. Dave Cohen is perfectly justified in throwing up his hands! But throwing in the towel simply cannot be an option for those of concerned about the facts of oil production and what Peak Oil will mean to all of us. If at first (or second, or twenty-third) you don’t succeed, try again. And so I will….

[D]enial which arises out of the innate subconscious urge we all have to adopt views that agree with our tribe, because of the importance of social cohesion, does not seem unethical. That sort of denial is a product of subconscious motivations, to a large measure beyond our free will. But the deniers who are consciously trying to sow doubt, and block action on what could be an existential threat to human life as we know it, not purely as a matter of ideology but to protect their profits and power and personal interests, clearly are behaving unethically, and we should be outraged….
It may take more cognitive effort to think critically and independently rather than just parrot our tribal leaders (like some Limbaugh-ian ‘Ditto Head’) but that simply can not excuse people knowingly and selfishly putting themselves and their self interests above others in their community and as a result putting the rest of us at risk. Whether the community is local or global, and whether the issue is climate change or jeopardizing the economy with ridiculous investments that make you rich, the principle is the same. It is fair to call unethical, and be enraged by, the conscious actions of those who would put the rest of us in serious danger in order to protect their safety and profits and power….[6]

I’ll have some more thoughts on other recent, related “denial” articles in an upcoming post.

Sources:

[1] http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34137.html; The Magical Decline Of Crude Oil Demand by Andrew McKillop – 04.15.12
[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewhulbert/2012/04/19/peak-oil-off-great-game-on/; Peak Oil Off: Great Game On by Matthew Hulbert – 04.19.12
[3] http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/04/a-peak-oil-update.html; A Peak Oil Update by Dave Cohen – 04.16.12
[4] http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4885; Rethinking peak oil by Lin Shi and Yuhan Zhang – 04.23.12
[5] http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-04-16/commentary-world-finite-isnt-it;  Commentary: The world is finite, isn’t it? by Tadeusz Patzek – 04.16.12
[6] http://bigthink.com/ideas/42502; The Heartland Institute and “Climate DenialGate” by David Ropeik – 02.16.12

Individuals can be expected to give dispositive empirical information the weight that it is due in a rational decision-making calculus only if they recognize sound information when they see it.
The phenomenon of cultural cognition suggests they won’t. 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….
This picture is borne out by additional well-established psychological and social mechanisms. One constraint on the disposition of individuals to accept empirical evidence that contradicts their culturally conditioned beliefs is the phenomenon of biased assimilation. [citations] 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. This disposition to reject empirical data that contradict one’s prior belief … is likely to be especially pronounced when that belief is strongly connected to an individual’s cultural identity, for then the forces of cognitive dissonance avoidance that explain biased assimilation are likely to be most strongly aroused. [with citations]. [1]

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

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

As I observed in that first post 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 the first four installments of this mini-series [* links at the end of this post], I’ve examined what my semi-snarky, decidedly liberal perspective viewed to be a perfect summation of stereotypical right-wing nonsense regarding fossil fuel production and gas pricing, relying on the concept of cultural cognition as described by Dan M. Kahan, Yale University and Donald Barman – George Washington University (link to PDF download in Sources [1] below). I’m doing so in the hope that this might afford Peak Oil proponents—and those who doubt—a window into how the discussion has been approached to date, and more importantly, how to get past the stumbling block of ideology (my own and the “others”). We’ll need all the intelligence, expertise, and assistance we can get to find some practical adaptations and solutions.

There’s not much doubt that Barack Obama’s election prompted extreme reactions across the entire spectrum of political beliefs. Many rejoiced, while many others were threatened by his Presidency for a variety of reasons … some much less honorable than others. Some were even worse—he is, if you hadn’t heard, our first black President … and no need to explain how horrible that is … he’s so … so, different—and his name is strange, besides! (21st Century, correct? Just checking….) That the animosity and fear carries over into areas with decidedly oppressive consequences absent rational, fact-based and ideology-free conversations is more than a bit troubling.

Let’s jump right in with more commentary from Mr. Folks: “Peak oil may be 200 years away; carbon emissions have not raised the sea levels by 12m, devastated our croplands, or engendered monster storms.”

Yet. (Just because the full scope of consequences haven’t knocked on everyone’s door by now is far different than acknowledging enough signs are already in place! Denial is a strategy … it just happens to be a particularly ineffective and very bad one!)

If by “200 years away” he means approximately 2005, he’s absolutely correct. I wasn’t aware that climatologists had issued a specific date for sea level rise or cropland “devastation”, and I apparently missed them both … damn! So that’s it? No more worries about climate change because those specific events haven’t materialized all at once by winter’s end, 2012? (Climate scientists actually inform us these conditions will develop over the decades to come—kinda like a leaky roof getting leakier day by day until it stops leaking entirely … because it collapses.)

We had a near-hurricane here in New England last summer (not to mention tornadoes), a god-awful winter in 2010-2011, and here in the Boston area all of about eight inches of snow this entire winter just concluded—on the order of about one-tenth the amount we had the prior, brutal winter. (And did I mention the Halloween weekend snowstorm this past autumn which dumped 32 inches of snow in the Berkshire Mountains community in western Massachusetts where my parents’ own some land?) Seems to me that one or two of those nefarious liberal conspiratorial climate scientists mentioned something about different weather patterns just like those as prime evidence of the gradual changes resulting from our ever-warming planet. Imagine that! But hey, if my leaky roof hasn’t collapsed by now, then I’m good to go! Who cares about the future, Right?

If those who dispute Peak Oil were willing to deal with facts—not the “could possibly might if only” suppositions they routinely engage in [the Peak Oil Denial Category in the Sidebar has a few dozen posts which address this in great detail], or the hosannahs given to the vast, more-than-a-trillion barrels of oil right here in the good ole’ U.S. of A. (while carefully neglecting to mention facts about production which kinda make more than a trillion barrels of oil a lot closer to less than dozen or two billion more likely to be produced … and over the course of a few decades to come)—it would be a lot easier for us to fashion effective solutions, or at least develop reasonable plans for adaptation. This is a different conversation if we Peak Oil proponents are arguing that space aliens are draining Earth’s oil fields in the dark of night. But since we’re instead relying on ideology-free facts, the approach has to be a sensible one.

What’s the purpose in avoiding/denying the facts? It’s the same question I’ve asked before: How does this help?

Keeping peers uninformed—or entirely ignorant of not just the facts but an understanding about consequences—isn’t exactly a noble, integrity-laden pursuit. So why keep doing it? What’s the reason? Who benefits? (Hint: very, very few of us … very few.) If you shade, hide, misrepresent, or flat-out lie about the facts, then any outcome or support is all but useless. So why keep doing it? Does “long-term” mean anything? Planning?

Is this the typical CEO strategy? One may proclaim an interest and commitment in dominating the garden and lawn supply market, but if the location of the “market” is in Antarctica, and you neglect to pass along that location factoid to your investors, well then … the support will wind up ringing a bit hollow, and investment rewards a bit on the slim side….Do you count on your health care provider to completely misrepresent your medical condition, hoping she’ll prescribe just-as-completely irrelevant treatments? How much success would NFL coaches have had in the past decade if they crafted game plans against Tom Brady or Peyton Manning on the premise that “This guy can’t pass and he’s not all that good, so our focus is all about punt coverage.”

So why keep misrepresenting or ignoring the facts and realities about Peak Oil? Just because civilization won’t collapse by Thursday is not a sound reason to avoid considering the implications or facts about declining oil production and supply issues, or to begin planning for the lengthy and inordinately complex, decades-long transition away from fossil fuels. No doubt denial means you don’t have to invest any time, effort, or money on the problem now. So there’s that. And that’s pretty much the entire benefit … today. (How long does one typically ignore a raging toothache, or recurring chest pains, or blinding headaches, before deciding a visit to the dentist/physician might be a good idea? Is saving money, time, or effort for a few more months a good strategy?) We’re not handling Peak Oil much differently than that right now … with consequences a bit more dramatic society-wide.

This is not a philosophical issue! We’re not arguing the “morality” of Peak Oil v. alternative energy. We have fact-based issues at hand which will result in enduring, fact-based problems of unimaginable complexity and scope, and we need fact-based solutions from any and all “experts” in any and all fields of endeavor because fossil fuels touch almost every aspect of our lives. Finite resources are … finite! Are we really better off waiting until we’re scraping the last little pools here and there before realizing we should probably be doing something else?

“The proper course is to withdraw all subsidies and allow market forces to decide where to allocate capital” proclaims Mr. Folks and those adamantly opposed to anything other than “drill, baby, drill”. Who benefits, and at whose expense? There’s no question that free-market principles and its benefits have an important role to play in crafting energy supply strategies in the years to come. But lamenting the relatively ineffective characteristics of fledgling alternatives currently decades behind fossil fuels in testing and implementation is a bit narrow-minded. Are we better off waiting until we truly have no other option? Just how quickly are these free-market proponents anticipating we can develop, test, market, and implement replacement energy sources once finite fossil fuels have done what finite things do: cease to be?

It would be wonderful if magnanimous corporations concerned primarily with mankind’s welfare might collectively decide all on their own that they are going to devote their expertise and resources to a broad-based energy strategy duly recognizing the challenges ahead in light of the facts at hand, and so we could then relax, comforted by their generosity of spirit.

The cynic in me suggests that that might not happen….Blind Faith … a great rock band. A strategy? Not so good.

More likely, scores of the largest corporations are going to do what corporations do: devote their resources and capabilities to what they do best so as to maximize their profits. Millions more smaller businesses will do the same. All fine and well, except that with problems on a scale beyond the capabilities of most to fully appreciate, the fundamental capitalist approach is not the long-term strategy to implement with finite resources so broadly utilized and depended upon … assuming the well-being of everyone beyond next week is a concern. If your interests are a bit more narrowly focused (investment portfolio, bonus potential, profitability), then that path is the one to follow. “You’re on your own” is not just a bad economic policy….

I’ll ask again: Who benefits, and at whose expense?

One more installment coming up.

* links to the prior installments:

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/12/peak-oil-denial-the-liberal%E2%80%99s-dilemma-pt-1/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/19/peak-oil-denial-the-liberal%E2%80%99s-dilemma-pt-2/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/26/peak-oil-denial-the-liberal%E2%80%99s-dilemma-pt-3/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/05/03/peak-oil-denial-the-liberal%E2%80%99s-dilemma-pt-4/

Sources:

[1] 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 [quote from pp. 163-164]

[Last 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 past six weeks, I’ve taken advantage of her arguably controversial yet well-reasoned assessments to elaborate and extend the thought process as it applies to Peak Oil. This is the final installment of the discussion inspired by Ms. Klein’s essay [links to installments 1 - 6 are at the end of this post].

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

~~~

If oil production can’t grow, the implication is that the economy can’t grow either….This is such a frightening prospect that many have simply avoided considering it.…
Economists and politicians continually debate policies that will lead to a return to economic growth. But because they have failed to recognize that the high price of energy is a central problem, they haven’t identified the necessary solution: weaning society off fossil fuel [1]

And as the author of this above-cited article notes, “Unfortunately, since most governments are unwilling to admit the prospect of indefinite economic stagnation due to our reliance on fossil fuels, they’ve been unable to generate the political will to even begin these efforts.”

We’re at a crossroads. Up to this point, cheap and abundant energy has fueled consistent economic growth. The only real discussion among the managerial elite was how to grow the economy—whether in planned or unplanned ways, whether with sensitivity to the environment or without.
Now the discussion must center on how to contract. Sadly, that discussion is radioactive—no one wants to touch it. It’s hard to imagine a more suicidal strategy for a politician than to base his or her election campaign on the promise of economic contraction. Instead, discussions in policy circles tend to turn on how to maintain the illusion of growth. Denial runs deep, but sooner or later reality will make itself known.
And sooner or later we must make conservation the centerpiece of economic and energy policy. The term conservation implies ‘efficiency’ in the usual sense—building cars and appliances that use less energy. But it also means cutting out non-essential uses of energy. Rather than continuing to increase economic demand by stimulating human wants, we must begin to think about how to meet basic human needs with minimal consumption of resources, while discouraging extravagance.
This of course amounts to a profound change of course for our economic system, and it will not be undertaken except by necessity. But necessity is inevitably approaching. We will have less energy, like it or not. And with less energy, we will no longer be able to operate a growing consumer society….
The transition would go much better if we were to plan for it, pre-adapting to a low-energy global economic regime. However, little of that planning is likely to occur, simply because nearly everyone—from investors to policy makers to ordinary consumers—wants the fossil fuel-fed fiesta of manic consumption to continue as long as possible. So we are most likely in for a wrenching shift. [2]

We are unwilling to compromise, much less relinquish, the historically unprecedented material living standards associated with our industrialized American way of life, which we consider to be a birthright. Our vested interest in the continued success of our existing lifestyle paradigm is simply too great to permit us even to consider deviating from our current trajectory, despite the fact that our current trajectory leads to collapse. [3]

If large-scale mitigation of peak oil and climate change is not feasible soon, what will happen? Given current investments in the existing pattern of trade and the high costs of reorienting it, change will be resisted, with resulting widespread economic disruption. But change will occur. Clearly, increased fuel costs and higher transport risks will cause supply chains to shorten and long-distance trade to decline…..
It is now critical for economic planners, laypersons, and governments to recognize that long-term energy and climate realities will impose limits on the global movement of goods. …This is not the result of either ideology or policy. Only when we accept these realities can we design and rebuild less vulnerable patterns of production and trade throughout the world. [4]

Common sense about our energy supplies and what needs to be done should not be among the shortages we’re going to contend with. A finite resource–magnificent to be sure—whose substitutes simply do not match the original resource in terms of its efficiency, availability, cost, and other essential criteria, cannot and will not last forever. No matter how optimistic one is about the still-available reserves of conventional crude oil, what’s left is now on borrowed time.

And for all the hoopla about the tar sands and shale oil and North Dakota’s great economic miracle, those resources are not up to the tasks which conventional crude has performed so ably for so many decades. A recent opinion piece by Tom Dennis in North Dakota’s Grand Forks Herald, gushing about the wonders of the state’s increased oil production, is yet another example of the half-truths, context-free assertions which do nothing but provide false assurances to an uninformed citizenry.

The author cites a statement by a University of Michigan economics and finance professor that the state’s production is “currently on track … to exceed 800,000 barrels per day” by the end of 2012. Furthermore, we’re offered this assertion: “‘At that point, North Dakota oil could be [my emphasis] enough to displace either Venezuela’s or Nigeria’s imports.’ Venezuela and Nigeria, of course, are longtime members of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
‘So, now that North Dakota is poised to pump oil at the rate of an OPEC country, can we at last retire the notion that the world is in the clutches of ‘peak oil’”?

Seriously? The U.S. consumes some 18 million barrels of oil per day. Our total oil production is currently in the neighborhood of 6 million barrels per day, down from a four decades-ago peak of more than 10 million … which we have not come close to since the early 1970’s. And we’re supposed to be doing cartwheels about 800,000 barrels of an inferior quality, harder to extract, more expensive substitute? (Of course, there was no mention in that piece about depletion of existing fields which might counter the wonder of 800,000 barrels, nor are readers given any information whatsoever about the process….)

And displacing “Venezuela’s or Nigeria’s imports” means … what? Did space considerations prevent the author from offering any context? If just mentioning OPEC, coupled with some vague reference to the import totals of two lesser producers serves as one’s argument that our energy worries are over, perhaps some reconsideration is in order. Adding facts and context would be a good place to start.

Recently, beliefs have shifted again, with people worshipping just one part of a god, the invisible hand. Thanks to Adam Smith and those who followed him, especially the current neoclassical economic theologians, we have seen such an increase in the world’s wealth and sheer numbers that it is hard to imagine life before the industrial revolution, with its shift from mostly human and animal muscle power to the energy dense fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas. It is also hard to imagine that humanity could someday slide back into another age of scarcer and more expensive energy, but that is a possibility that cannot be excluded from our thinking.
The Faustian Bargain
What about the Faustian bargain? It remains deeply hidden from view because its exposure by the high priests of modern economics would force us to rethink how we live and why we live this way, as well as what we’re planning to leave for future generations. The Faustian bargain goes something like this: Thanks to the discovery and exploitation of fossil fuels, humans (really just a small minority of them) are able to live richer lives today than even the queens and kings of yore could have dreamed of.
The other side of the bargain, the side hidden from view and never mentioned in economics texts is this: At some undetermined time in the future, one that creeps ever closer, this economic system, fed by energy and other resources at ever increasing rates at one end and spewing out waste products at rates that cannot be absorbed by Earth’s ecosystems at the other, is unsustainable. What that means is simple enough: Industrial society as we know it cannot go on as it has forever—not even close. [5]

… [I]t’s such a huge change, the implications of the end of growth and what that means for our institutions and the way that our society is organized. The politicians now would be thrown out of office because people, the average American, is not educated to understand these things, so it’s a very threatening story. I mean, it’s very difficult to grasp that the biggest threat to the American way of life is the American way of life. And that’s kind of a profound crossroads that we’re at….we are not going to respond to this crisis until the crisis is truly upon us….
… [S]o we have this physical constraint that’s coming because of Peak Oil. There’s nothing we’re going to do about it. We can’t out-clever that. It’s just a constraint, it’s a limitation, there it is. We could manage it well or we can manage it poorly, but it’s there. We have a political system that’s not really geared for the magnitude of the change that we’re seeing, so the most likely outcome is that we’re going to wait, we as a culture are going to wait until we’re forced to deal with this. That’s probably going to come with disruptions….[6]

What to do? It will not be enough for us to hope our leaders start planning at some point. We need to educate ourselves and get involved in the process in our own communities. It’s not pleasant to contemplate no matter what spin you conjure up; but the alternative—to just wait for       life as we’ve known to change because of the drastic changes in our supplies of energy—seems like an utterly foolish relinquishing of opportunity.

At some point, we’re going to have to accept the facts for what they are and begin the long, complex, not-always-satisfactory process of planning for and then implementing change on a grand scale beyond our individual capacity to fully appreciate at this moment. Without the steady supply of high quality, affordable, always-at-the-ready crude oil to provide the energy which makes possible almost every aspect of our personal, economic, and cultural lives, adaptation and transition to something other than the profit-driven capitalism we’ve all reaped countless benefits from will be an inevitability.

And because that process is so all-encompassing, revising if not undoing major elements of a multi-centuries old, entrenched economic system is an undertaking that will be years in the making. How much farther down the short road do we kick this can?

And in the end, although almost none of us will approve, agree, or enjoy this, Naomi Klein’s conclusion about the economic system we’ve built and enjoyed may be our only viable option:

It means that a green-left worldview, which rejects mere reformism and challenges the centrality of profit in our economy, offers humanity’s best hope of overcoming these overlapping crises.
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.

Crisis or opportunity? The choice is ours.

Links to this series:

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/03/26/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-1/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/02/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-2/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/09/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-3/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/16/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-4/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/23/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-5/
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/30/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-6/

Sources:

[1] http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/01/weve-hit-peak-oil-now-comes-permanent-price-volatility.ars; We’ve hit “peak oil”; now comes permanent price volatility by John Timmer – 01.26.12 [quoting the University of Washington's James Murray and Oxford University's David King in a late January article published by Nature magazine]
[2] http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-07-25/conservation-there-no-alternative; Conservation: There is no alternative by Richard Heinberg – 07.25.11 [Published by Post Carbon Institute - Original article: http://www.postcarbon.org/article/415728-conservation-there-is-no-alternative]
[3] http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50623; Continuously less and less – the New American Reality [PDF] by Chris Clugston – 11.05.09 at pp 34-35 [from http://www.wakeupamerika.com/ ]
[4] http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/1042; The new geography of trade: Globalization’s decline may stimulate local recovery by Fred Curtis, David   – 01.24.12
[5] http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/01/09/the-faustian-bargain-that-modern-economists-never-mention/; The Faustian Bargain that Modern Economists Never Mention by Dr. Gary Peters – 01.09.12
[6] http://www.chrismartenson.com/page/transcript-nate-hagens-were-not-facing-shortage-energy-longage-expectations; Transcript for Nate Hagens: We’re Not Facing A Shortage of Energy, But A Longage of Expectations [comments by Chris Martenson and Nate Hagens, respectively] – 08.02.11

We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, emotional and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture and society at large. After forming our beliefs, we then defend, justify and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments and rational explanations. Beliefs come first; explanations for beliefs follow….I call this process, wherein our perceptions about reality are dependent on the beliefs that we hold about it, belief-dependent realism. Reality exists independent of human minds, but our understanding of it depends on the beliefs we hold at any given time….
Once we form beliefs and make commitments to them, we maintain and reinforce them through a number of powerful cognitive biases that distort our percepts to fit belief concepts. Among them are:
Anchoring Bias. Relying too heavily on one reference anchor or piece of information when making decisions.
Authority Bias. Valuing the opinions of an authority, especially in the evaluation of something we know little about.
Belief Bias. Evaluating the strength of an argument based on the believability of its conclusion.
Confirmation Bias. Seeking and finding confirming evidence in support of already existing beliefs and ignoring or reinterpreting disconfirming evidence. [1]

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

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

As I observed in that first post 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 of 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 the first three installments of this mini-series (here, here, and here), I began an examination of what my semi-snarky, decidedly liberal perspective viewed to be a perfect summation of stereotypical right-wing nonsense regarding fossil fuel production and gas pricing, relying on the concept of cultural cognition as described by Dan M. Kahan, Yale University and Donald Barman – George Washington University [link to PDF download]. I’m doing so in the hope that this might afford Peak Oil proponents—and those who doubt—a window into how the discussion has been approached to date, and more importantly, how to get past the stumbling block of ideology (my own and the “others”). We’ll need all the intelligence, expertise, and assistance we can get to find some practical adaptations and solutions.

I ended the most recent post of this series with a listing of the points Mr. Folks made in the above-referenced article. I “replied” to one of his many criticisms of President Obama—specifically the failure of his policies and actions to lower gas prices—by providing a lengthy list of recent articles demonstrating rather convincingly (or so I like to think) that no President has the ability or power to lower gas prices (not even a socialist-Marxist-not-born-here-America-hating liberal like Obama … and have you noticed he’s not Caucasian?).

Gas prices are set on the world market for all the reasons explained by those with far more knowledge of such things than me. And since all those reasons have little or nothing to do with adopting a balls-to-the-walls “drill baby, drill” strategy, complaining that Obama’s ineptitude is only raising gas prices is … nonsense! Red meat for some; not much nutritional content.

Why continue to make an arguments which facts quickly debunk? How does this help?

As an aside, a bit more than a year ago I offered this:

During the Bush Administration, the United States’ Energy Information Agency issued a report (updated and confirmed in its 2009 follow-up: ‘Impact of Limitations on Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf’) in which its analysis of the difference between full offshore drilling (‘Reference Case’) and restricted drilling (‘OCS limited case’) concluded there would be no impact on gasoline prices in 2020, and a whopping ‘three cent’ (that’s not a typo) per gallon decline by 2030.
GOP officials who continue to tout drilling never get around to mentioning that little factoid. Of course, they also never bother to mention any other facts about drilling off-shore or in the Arctic such as the extreme exploration conditions which must be accounted and paid for, the length of time that will pass before full production (such as it may be) will be reached (i.e., several decades), and an assortment of other bothersome little details which would only contradict the ‘benefits’ their sound bites imply. It goes without saying that there is no mention of the current political turmoil in the Middle East and parts of Africa … annoying considerations which most market analyst experts believe to be primarily responsible for recent price spikes. What good are experts if a good political sound bite is available instead?

When “dialogue” about a contentious topic features facts on one side and a genuine desire to find solutions, and fear-based irrelevancies and/or half-truths and/or misrepresentations on the other side, how can anyone expect meaningful exchanges and acceptable solutions? What’s the benefit in not having solutions to urgent challenges because ideologies must be protected first? There’s not all that much of an advantage in postponing shooting oneself in the foot.

Another argument posed by Mr. Folks: “For over 40 years the left has brought out one argument after another against fossil fuels.”

None of us are “against” fossil fuels. What we are concerned with are the facts about declining rates of production in the highest quality conventional crude supplies which have powered our society for decades. We’re simply not finding much of it any more (while what’s left depletes by the day); what we are finding is more costly to extract and refine; takes longer to bring to market; with inferior substitutes in lesser produceable quantities failing to make up for that decline … among other problems.

So what we recognize as likely consequences affecting ALL of us calls for us to find ways to deal with the impact and find ways to adapt before the problems strike full force. So until and unless the Magic Technology Fairy finds an acceptable substitute at acceptable costs, in wildly abundant quantities, easily accessible, while providing the same energy bang for the buck, we’re going to have to rely on developing alternative sources of energy—recognizing that they are indeed no match for what fossil fuels have provided us. And by the way, we also recognize that billions of people around the world and their governments are also planning to use the conventional crude oil supplies still being produced. With their growing populations and increasing domestic demand, oil-producing nations won’t be exporting quite as much in years to come … while the magical shale oil and tar sands continue to fail to meet demand.

Worse than the decline of oil production is the decline of net oil exports. Net oil exporters, awash in the cash from their oil sales, are growing up and industrializing, which causes them to consume more of their own production and cuts into their exports. At the same time, rapidly growing economies like China and India are consuming an ever-larger share of the available net exports. As analysts Jeffrey Brown and Samuel Foucher have shown, available net exports have fallen at an average rate of about 1 mbpd per year from 2005 to 2010, from about 40 mbpd in 2005 to about 35 mbpd in 2010 (BP and EIA data, total petroleum liquids). On current trends, China and India would consume all of the available exports in about 20 years, while the U.S. is slowly squeezed out of the global market. [2]

Basic math; facts; reality—call it what you will—this is what we have to deal with. We are suggesting that what we perceive to be laughably ignorant paranoia-derived fears about socialist takeover from a Muslim-Marxist-alien-President should be left to the Fantasy Cable Network. Keeping the uninformed agitated and fearful is an at best questionable exercise, given the challenges Peak Oil is going to impose on all of us long before we’ve properly prepared.

(Perhaps if we could design energy-based solutions benefitting only liberals and progressives we could stop being concerned….)

“If only he could gain control over oil and gas drilling — regulatory control that still rests mainly with state governments — he would soon have his boot on the neck of America’s energy companies — extorting billions from them to further his political ambitions.” – Jeffrey Folks.

Seriously? Might there instead be some benefit to understanding the reasoning behind the “Liberal” approach to energy “policy” instead of relying on increasingly lame, pointless fears about mind-control and government takeovers and wild-ass conspiracies which at least 99.8% of us wouldn’t know how to contemplate if our lives depended on it?

I’m honestly saddened by that perspective. When reading statements that the President (and all liberals, I assume) are presumably plotting to “gain control” so that we can put a “boot on the neck” to help the President “further his political ambitions”, it is very difficult to look at those pronouncements as anything other than the rantings of a tinfoil-hat-wearing, paranoid loon. I’m betting that’s not especially constructive on my part if I’m trying to engage an author/speaker in mutually beneficial, problem-solving dialogue. I’m equally at a loss to understand how that perspective serves practical long term needs for one who thinks/fears such outlandish motives. At what point does that stop being the best option going forward?

We remain optimistic that upon reflection (ideology-free), of the facts at hand and recognition of at least the possibility Peak Oil advocates may be on to something, conservatives will have something of great value to offer all of us. But if contributions are going to remain at the fear-based level, coupled with an unwillingness to accept facts (and thus fail to offer the expertise and experience we’re counting on from you), what happens to all of us?

Of course it’s threatening to think that our lifestyles, systems of governing, and capitalist processes themselves may all face drastic changes in the not-too-distant future because of the facts and reality of Peak Oil and climate change! As I’ve stated repeatedly, I’m betting that almost every single Peak Oil proponent want nothing more than to be wrong! I’m certainly not the poster-child for Peak Oil advocacy and lifestyles. I have a very nice, capitalist, well-to-do existence: 7 bedroom summer home by the ocean, luxury vehicles for my wife and I, and assorted other technological goodies in quantities too embarrassing to detail. To hell with all of you, I don’t want MY life to change!

I just don’t see much value in ascribing super-secret, nefarious conspiratorial aims to someone ever-so-gently (too cautiously, perhaps?) trying to get Americans to recognize we ought to consider preparing for change before we have no choice … and no plans in place.

Two generations came to think of declining oil prices as normal, which accounts for the current sense of entitlement, the outrage at rising prices, and the search for villains: politicians, oil-producing countries, and oil companies are all targets of scorn in public-opinion surveys.
A substantial failure of education about non-renewable natural resources lies in the background of current public sentiment. And now, having underinvested in energy efficiency and security when the costs of doing so were lower, America is poorly positioned to face the prospect of rising real prices. Energy policy has been ‘pro-cyclical’ – the opposite of saving for a rainy day. Given the upward pressure on prices implied by rising emerging-market demand and the global economy’s rapid increase in size, that day has arrived….
Rather than anticipating and preparing for change, the United States has waited for change to be forced upon it….
Obama is correctly attempting to explain that effective energy policy, by its very nature, requires long-term goals and steady progress toward achieving them.
One frequently hears the assertion that democracies’ electoral cycles are poorly suited to implementing long-term, forward-looking policies. The countervailing force is leadership that explains the benefits and costs of different options, and unites people around common goals and sensible approaches. The Obama administration’s effort to put long-term growth and security above political advantage thus deserves admiration and respect.
Declining dependence on external sources, properly pursued, is an important development. But it is not a substitute for higher energy efficiency, which is essential to making the switch to a new and resilient path for economic growth and employment. A side benefit would be to unlock a huge international agenda for energy, the environment, and sustainability, where American leadership is required.
This effort requires persistence and a long official attention span, which in turn presupposes bipartisan support. Is that possible in America today? [3]

Good question.

More on the way next week.

Sources:

[1] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-believing-brain; The Believing Brain: Why Science Is the Only Way Out of Belief-Dependent Realism by Michael Sheerer – 07.05.11

[2] http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/when-should-we-pursue-energy-transition/159; When should we pursue energy transition? by Chris Nelder – 11.02.11

[3] http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-energy-deficit; The Energy Deficit by Michael Spence (Nobel laureate in economics) – 03.20.12

I’m passing along some useful/informative Peak Oil-related articles of note which crossed my desk during the prior month … in case you missed them!

Enjoy.

http://www.startribune.com/business/145851905.html

Article by: THE ECONOMIST
04.02.12
Oil: Saudis are burning through it

~~~

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/the-last-sip/455

Chris Nelder
04.04.12
The last sip

~~~

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/eric-reguly/oil-price-salvation-wont-be-found-in-the-bakken/article2394553/

Eric Regally
04.06.12
Oil price salvation won’t be found in the Bakken

~~~

http://robertreich.org/post/20538393444

Robert Reich
04.05.12
The Fable of the Century

~~~

http://www.alternet.org/visions/154945/heroes_and_villains:_how_to_tell_the_progressive_economic_story?

Richard Kirsch, New Deal 2.0
04.10.12
Heroes and Villains: How To Tell The Progressive Economic Story

~~~

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/15/economy_killers_inequality_and_gop_ignorance/

Paul Krugman and Robin Wells
04.15.12
Economy Killers: Inequality and GOP Ignorance

~~~

http://www.southernlimitsnz.com/2012/04/seven-myths-deniers-use-to-debunk-peak.html

“Southern Limits”
04.22.12
Seven Myths Deniers Use To ‘Debunk’ Peak Oil, Debunked

~~~

http://transitionvoice.com/2012/04/deepwater-what/

Erik Curren
04.20.12
Deepwater what?

~~~

http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1581/home_run_for_peak_oil

Andrew McKillop
04.23.12
Home Run for Peak Oil

~~~

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/04/09/what-the-new-2011-eia-oil-supply-data-shows/http:/

Gail Tverberg
04.09.12
What the New 2011 EIA Oil Supply Data Shows

[Sixth 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 (and for one more week), 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. This is the sixth installment of the discussion inspired by Ms. Klein’s essay [Links to Parts 1 - 5 below].

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

~~~

The biggest and most difficult changes will have to be in world view and values.  The present commitment to individualistic competition for affluent-consumer ‘living standards’ and endless increases in wealth must be replaced by a strong desire to live simply, cooperatively, and self-sufficiently, and by concern for the common good. [1]

It has been another of my main themes that small changes here and there, every now and then, by a few of us when we can spare the time, are not the optimal strategies for us to pursue in the face of Peak Oil’s looming challenges to our well-being and our industrialized society (with all the attendant benefits we currently enjoy). Change is coming….The sooner the majority of us recognize and accept that fact, enabling us to then prepare intelligently for what we’ll all adapt to, the better our chances of creating a rewarding future for us all.

And as I have noted in the most recent posts in this series, others better credentialed than me have stated with more than a bit of urgency that we will need an entirely new and different economic and industrial system to not only provide us with the opportunities and the means to continue growth, we will need such systems to function at all. As with most great undertakings, the saying is easier than the doing.

The media and the government understandably see the preservation of the status quo as good, and anything threatening it as bad. But if we adopt that outlook, we condemn ourselves to a future of endless bad news. In order to make our way through the decades of transition ahead, it’s important that we adopt a longer view, and devote much less effort to preserving a beguiling veneer of normalcy. The more of us who have a long view, the better. Without it, people (including world leaders) will get scared or unrealistically, giddily optimistic and do foolish things. [2]

The responsibility rests with all of us. Ceding that to others clearly possessing their own agenda (or worse, serving masters who clearly have different agendas which do not allow for concerns about the community at large), is no longer acceptable—if it ever was. While speaking specifically to the issue of climate change denial, Naomi Klein’s observations apply with equal force to Peak Oil and the opposition mounted against that reality:

Heartland’s campaign against climate science grew out of fear about the policies that the science would require. ‘When we look at this issue, we say, This is a recipe for massive increase in government….Before we take this step, let’s take another look at the science. So conservative and libertarian groups, I think, stopped and said, Let’s not simply accept this as an article of faith; let’s actually do our own research.’ This is a crucial point to     understand: it is not opposition to the scientific facts of climate change that drives denialists but rather opposition to the real-world implications of those facts.

… ideas about minimal government, no matter how demonstrably at war with reality, remain so profitable to the world’s billionaires that they are kept fed and clothed in think tanks by the likes of Charles and David Koch, and ExxonMobil….
The deniers are doing more than protecting their cultural worldview—they are protecting powerful interests that stand to gain from muddying the waters of the climate debate.

As President Obama noted recently:

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. And it leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them – that our elected representatives aren’t looking out for the interests of most Americans. [3]

We need to come to a decision—soon—about whether or not this system which clearly favors so few at the continuing expense of so many must be allowed to continue in its present form. On the near-horizon are critical, complex, consequence-laden assessments to be made about what kind of a society we choose to be going forward and in the kind of nation we choose to occupy. And it is not because there must be a declared winner in the idiotic partisan war we’ve been engaged in with increasing fervor since we elected a Socialist-Martian-Kenyan-tax-loving-America-hating-whatever-the-hell-‘Charming’-Newt Gingrich-is-calling-him-this-week President.

As much fun as it has been to paint the other side delusional and unpatriotic (but only when we want to be nice; and yes, I’m guilty, too), we’ve accomplished absolutely nothing beyond a near-paralyzed state of governance and deeply-embedded animosity to the “other side” who are clearly intent on destroying all that our side holds near and dear.

The decisions to be made are not limited to the kind of culture we’ll adopt or which political ideology triumphs. To take but one popular source of never-ending contention, banning gay marriage so that those satanic, heterosexual-marriage-destroying and choosing-to-be-gay-for-the-hell-of-it sickos no longer have the opportunity to destroy this entire country by encapsulating us (apparently) in some kind of destructive force fields which will then presumably cause every heterosexual marriage to spontaneously combust (whew!) … should be shelved. And that’s but one of too many other equally idiotic distractions that do nothing but play to irrational fears of the clueless. Policy by ignorant, red meat sound bites ought to be trashed once and for all. We’re better than that … or at least we should be, by now.

We’ve got more important things to worry about than whether or not Bill and Dave’s marriage to each other will end civilization as we know it. (Here’s a clue for the clueless: it won’t. People loving for one another and committing themselves a permanent relationship has rarely led to the downfall of nations, and it won’t now either. Perhaps the more-than-once married heteros who fight that fight might instead spend a bit of time in introspection … or at the very least familiarize themselves with the term “hypocrite.”)

The reasons why we need to start making adult decisions about our very serious adult problems are much more pronounced:
For decades, our best science has suggested that staying on our present growth-based path to global development implies catastrophe for billions of people and undermines the possibility of maintaining a complex global civilization. Yet there is scant evidence that national governments, the United Nations, or other official international organizations have begun seriously to contemplate the implications for humanity of the scientists’ warnings, let alone articulate the kind of policy responses the science evokes. The modern world remains mired in a swamp of cognitive dissonance and collective     denial seemingly dedicated to maintaining the status quo. We appear, in philosopher Martin Heidegger’s words, to be ‘in flight from thinking.’ [4]

Now might be a good time to try something else. We all have skin in this game, and since the consequences that spill out across the landscape once we really start having to deal with the impact of Peak Oil in our day-to-day lives are going to affect just about each and every one of us, we need to join in the debate. And as I have been urging throughout, that means we all need to become better educated about the facts and the risks. Relying on the feel-good pablum dispensed by those with interests at odds with our own is another tactic we should toss into the trash heap.

NO ONE wants to even think about, let alone plan for and then step into an entirely new lifestyle where the fundamental tenets of capitalism, growth, and profit-making are subsumed to something much less “appealing.” Who among us wants to spend the rest of our days living in a society which, after all of our technological achievements and progress, resembles something much more like a life on a little house on the prairie, circa 1756? That existence and the sacrifices which might be be necessary as we transition to a world powered by some other less efficient and less plentiful sources of energy are as foreign to us as adaptation to life on the outer moons of Jupiter.

But the question which will confront us all soon enough requires some hard choices and levels of involvement and change few of us are prepared to even think about, let alone act on. Do we want to survive and carry on with new definitions of success and contentment and prosperity as our guides, or do we continue to drive the profit-and-all-the-gadgets-we-can-muster bus over a cliff?

What to do?

Choices….

I’ll have some final thoughts on this series in an upcoming post.

Links to Parts 1 – 5 of this series:

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/03/26/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-1/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/02/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-2/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/09/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-3/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/16/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-4/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/23/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-5/

Sources:

[1] http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/TSWmain.html; WE MUST MOVE TO THE  SIMPLER WAY: AN OUTLINE OF THE GLOBAL SITUATION, THE SUSTAINABLE ALTERNATIVE SOCIETY, AND THE TRANSITION TO IT by Ted Trainer, Faculty of Arts, University of N.S.W. – 10.22.09
[2] http://www.postcarbon.org/beguiling_veneer; A Beguiling Veneer of Normalcy by Richard Heinberg · 04.23.09
[3] http://robertreich.org/post/13852130536; The Most Important Speech of His Presidency by Robert Reich – 12.06.11
[4] http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol6iss2/1001-012.rees.html; Rees W. 2010. What’s blocking sustainability? Human nature, cognition, and denial. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 6(2):13-25. Published online Oct 14, 2010.

Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information. And then we vote.
This effect is only heightened by the information glut, which offers — alongside an unprecedented amount of good information — endless rumors, misinformation, and questionable variations on the truth. In other words, it’s never been easier for people to be wrong, and at the same time feel more certain that they’re right. [1]

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

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

As I observed in that first post 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 Part 1 and Part 2 of this mini-series, I began an examination of what my semi-snarky, decidedly liberal perspective saw as a perfect summation of stereotypical right-wing nonsense regarding fossil fuel production and gas pricing, relying on the concept of cultural cognition as described by Dan M. Kahan, Yale University and Donald Barman – George Washington University [link to PDF download]. I’m doing so in the hope that this might afford Peak Oil proponents—and those who doubt—a window into how the discussion has been approached to date, and more importantly, how to get past the stumbling block of ideology (my own and the “others”). We’ll need all the intelligence, expertise, and assistance we can get to find some practical adaptations and solutions.

Studies of everyday reasoning show that we usually use reason to search for evidence to support our initial judgment, which was made in milliseconds. [2]

Our task, then, is to organize society so that reason and intuition interact in healthy ways. [Jonathan] Haidt’s research suggests several broad guidelines. First, we need to help citizens develop sympathetic relationships so that they seek to understand one another instead of using reason to parry opposing views. Second, we need to create time for contemplation. Research shows that two minutes of reflection on a good argument can change a person’s mind. Third, we need to break up our ideological segregation. [3]

Problems solved!

And now, back to reality….I’ve argued in any number of posts that how we approach, plan for, and then finally adapt to the changes Peak Oil and a warming planet are going to impose requires not just better efforts from our so-called political and business leaders. As full as our plates may be, meaningful adaptation to a very different future requires understanding, effort, cooperation, and contribution on our parts as well.

So far, most of our leaders have done an admirable job of ignoring and pandering instead. “Gotta cover my political ass” is the unfortunate, long-lamented but yet-to-be-changed legislative approach for most. No one seems willing or able to get past that and have honest, full-disclosure conversations with the electorate (all of them, not just constituents on the same side of their ideological fence), to thus explain why change is on its way and why (and how) we need to plan for it now. It’s a daunting challenge to be sure, but it’s the only way. (I’m not suggesting that President Obama isn’t attempting to do so. He is. It’s just not enough, and that’s not solely his “fault.”)

It’s well past time for us to ask: What’s the incentive and benefit in keeping people uninformed? Expecting delivery of honest (albeit unpleasant) truths shouldn’t be just an ideal….How is not doing so of any benefit past the next election?

And so again we circle back to more of the perspectives commonly adopted and expressed by those who deny Peak Oil, artfully shared by the above-referenced Mr. Folks. (There’s a lot to discuss. I’ll examine and discuss these points in the final installments.)

That’s been more than enough time to fix the problem, but he’s done nothing but make it worse. If the president had promoted domestic production of fossil fuels as he should have done, we wouldn’t need a quick fix.  We would have had a fix already in place, and it would now be working.

Meanwhile, on his four-stop ‘energy tour,’ Obama continued pushing the failed policies that have resulted in soaring gas prices.  At every stop — even at Cushing, Oklahoma, the heart of oil country — he insisted that drilling for oil is not enough.  It will take “all of the above,” he stated, including greater subsidies for solar outfits like Solyndra and higher taxes on oil companies.  How is that going to bring down gas prices?
At the same time, Obama’s surrogates are attacking Wall Street speculators and ‘greedy oil companies’ for driving up prices.  Those same speculators drove down prices during the Bush administration — why are prices soaring only now, if not as a result of Obama’s policies?  And those so-called greedy oil companies have had to fight Obama for permission to drill anywhere.

For over 40 years the left has brought out one argument after another against fossil fuels.

Whether it is ‘peak oil,’ ‘carbon emissions,’ ‘can’t drill our way out,’ or ‘no quick fix,’ every argument has the same goal: to force Americans off fossil fuels and onto expensive, government-regulated green alternatives.

When Obama tells us there’s no quick fix, he is not suggesting that we should get started on a fossil fuel fix.  He’s saying that since there is no quick fix with fossil fuels, we’re better off dumping them and moving on to renewables. But if the fossil fuel fix is not all that quick, the green energy fix is glacial.  In fact, it is no fix at all, because no matter how many windmills and solar farms we subsidize with taxpayer money, it will not be enough to fuel even one tenth of our energy needs.

The proper course is to withdraw all subsidies and allow market forces to decide where to allocate capital.
Yet Obama refuses to consider this obvious solution, despite the fact that in the real economy and at the state level, where federal regulation has not yet intruded, it is already working.  The oil and gas boom in North Dakota, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other states is spurring growth, producing cheap energy, and why can’t you recognize the facts about its limitations and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

If only he could gain control over oil and gas drilling — regulatory control that still rests mainly with state governments — he would soon have his boot on the neck of America’s energy companies — extorting billions from them to further his political ambitions.

If Obama is re-elected, the effort to bring the energy sector under national regulation will only be intensified.  A large part of that effort will be punishing new taxes and environmental regulation at the national level.  None of this will result in lower gas prices.  In fact, it will continue the push toward European price levels, currently at $10 a gallon.
Despite what the president tells us, there actually is a ‘fix’ for high gas prices.  It is to get government out of the way and allow America’s world-class energy companies to compete in the production of cheap and reliable energy.

Sigh….

For starters, the ongoing whining (I know, I know—not helpful, but I am duly acknowledged that this is not a practice limited only to the Right bashing a President on the Left) that President Obama’s policies are either raising gas prices or not lowering them has been thoroughly discredited by a long list of experts from across the political spectrum *, yet the “argument” persists. To what end?

The question I posed above as it relates to our political and business leaders is no less applicable to these “messengers:” What’s the incentive and benefit in keeping people uninformed?

How do we get past that? Can we? We don’t have much of a choice.

More on the way….

* A random search of articles I’ve reviewed in just the last 6 – 8 weeks produced the following list. It’s a nice cross-section of fact-based debunking of the gas price whining mentioned above. The optimist in me says this should be sufficient to put that argument to bed, but it won’t. (A few weeks ago, I also posted a discussion about the President’s “responsibility” for keeping gas prices high.)

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/cpt/2012/03/06/our-view-on-the-price-of-oil/
OUR VIEW ON THE PRICE OF OIL
by Glen Bottoms
03.26.12

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/23/obamas_most_dangerous_foe_high_gas_prices/
Obama’s most dangerous foe: High gas prices
by Andrew Leonard
02.23.12

http://energypolicyinfo.com/2012/02/get-real-on-gas-prices/
Get Real on Gas Prices
02.27.12

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/breaking-views/drilling-alone-wont-bring-cheap-us-oil/article2350463/
Drilling alone won’t bring cheap U.S. oil
by Christopher Swann
02.26.12

http://www.greatenergychallengeblog.com/blog/2012/02/27/presidents-and-the-price-of-oil/
Presidents and the Price of Oil
by Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson
02.27.12

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/436254/empty-promises-experts-say-keystone-xl-wont-do-anything-for-gas-prices/
Empty Promises: Experts Say Keystone XL Won’t Do Anything For Gas Prices
by Stephen Lacey
03.02.12

http://www.truth-out.org/gas-us-elections/1330365861
Gas in the US Elections
by Dean Baker
02.27.12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/playing-politics-with-us-gasoline-prices/2012/02/27/gIQAIRKieR_story.html
Driving the politics out of gas prices
by Charles Lane
02.27.12

http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/presidential-oil-lies/2088
Presidential Oil Lies: Politicians Lie, the Market Doesn’t
by Nick Hodge
02.28.12

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/02/drilling_gas_prices.html
More Drilling Won’t Lower Gas Prices
by Michael Conathan
02.29.12

http://theenergycollective.com/node/77794
Who’s To Blame For Current Gas Prices? (Newt Gingrich — Gas Price Fairy)
by Robert Rapier
02.28.12

http://mediamatters.org/research/201203060003
Energy Experts Debunk Right-Wing Defense Of Oil Subsidies
03.06.12,

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-story-behind-us-gas-price-pain
The Story Behind US Gas Price Pain
by Tyler Durden
03.08.12

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/03/14/the-truth-about-obama-oil-and-the-gasoline-blame-game-part-i/
The Truth About Obama, Oil And The Gasoline Blame Game-Part I
by Rick Ungar
03.14.12

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/03/17/the-truth-about-obama-oil-and-the-gasoline-blame-game-part-two/
The Truth About Obama, Oil And The Gasoline Blame Game-Part Two
by Rick Ungar
03.17.12

http://c4ss.org/content/9933
Big Oil, Big Government, and Big Hypocrisy
by Kevin Carson
03.18.12

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2109474,00.html
Viewpoint: Gas Prices and the Big GOP Lie
by Bryan Walsh
03.20.12

http://grist.org/media/media-produces-laments-public-ignorance-on-gas-prices/
Media produces, laments public ignorance on gas prices
by David Roberts
03.21.12

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DRILL_NOW_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
FACT CHECK: More US drilling didn’t drop gas price
By SETH BORENSTEIN and JACK GILLUM
03.21.12

http://www.alternet.org/news/154724/why_the_right%27s_zombie_lie_about_gas_prices_is_wrong_but_they%27ll_never_let_it_die
Why the Right’s Zombie Lie About Gas Prices Is Wrong But They’ll Never Let it Die
by Joshua Holland
03.27.12

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.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html; MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION by Jonathan Haidt – 09.22.07
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html?pagewanted=1; Why Won’t They Listen? [book review of] ‘The Righteous Mind,’ by Jonathan Haidt – March 23, 2012 by William Saletan

[Fifth 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 (and for two 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. This is the fifth installment of the discussion inspired by Ms. Klein’s essay [Links to Parts 1 - 4 below].

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

~~~

If you’ve read the first four installments of this series, “What the f*ck are we going to do?” would seem a reasonable inquiry right about now. Unfortunately, finding even a reasonable approximation of just one well-developed comprehensive response is a pipe-dream at the moment, although there have been many well-reasoned contributions to the discussion.

If/when a petroleum shortage impacts it will concentrate minds wonderfully. But when it comes the window of opportunity could be brief and risky. If things deteriorate too far too fast there could easily be too much chaos for sense to prevail and for us to organize cooperative local alternative systems. [1]

I’m fairly certain that that should not be our first option. And while there’s no disputing this sage observation, we’re going to need much more, as is duly noted:

I submit that most of the world today is in the thrall of a grand, socially constructed vision of global development and poverty alleviation centered on unlimited economic expansion fueled by open markets and more liberalized trade (Rees, 2002). This mythic construct springs from the demonstrably flawed assumption that human well-being derives from perpetual income growth….
Mere information, including scientific analysis of a problem, is generally not enough to stimulate policy reform or effective action. [2]

Here’s what I see as a fundamental and quite serious obstacle to Peak Oil/Climate Change-mandated adaptations: We will soon be asking several billion people to adopt an entirely new mindset about how to live their remaining years on the planet—economically, industrially, socially, personally—with all that this entails. At the same time we’ll be telling several billion more on the verge of finally enjoying at least some semblance of the economic and personal lifestyles of the former that most if not all of those expectations are not going to be met. Messenger volunteers?

All major governments and international development agencies are committed to maintaining the growth in per capita income that has characterized industrial countries for more than a century and to extending consumer culture to the three-quarters of the world’s people who have yet to join the party [3]

In essence, absent planning (and education) at levels and in scope at this moment beyond our rational embrace, a distinct possibility is that all of us are going to have to live our lives and conduct our commercial enterprises in the much more limited manner which this latter group of several billion have been obliged to all their lives.

Who’s prepared for that option?

In my very first post I made my position on the subject quite clear:

… I am definitely not the peak oil movement’s poster child.
I’m an American consumer through and through, but/and yes, a political and social liberal. To our teens’ never-ending annoyance, we recycle religiously. Nearly every one of the seeming seven million light bulbs in our two homes is an energy-saving one. I installed them all myself. But that’s pretty much it for now.
We own two very nice, new luxury automobiles—one an SUV. We have a terrific second home a short walk from the ocean; less than an hour’s drive from our home in the ‘burbs of Boston….
We drive [there, in lieu of public transportation]. Often. Always. Sometimes we make two round trips in the same day. Most times we take at least two if not all 3 vehicles (the third belongs to our 3 teenagers. A fourth—car, not teenager—will soon make its appearance in our driveway). We go to our summer home a lot between May and October.
We’ve traveled a fair amount, have lots of neat household toys, and in general have enjoyed a very nice lifestyle in recent years. I do not recite this to boast about what a great life we have, which we admittedly do—none of which I take credit for. We are indeed very, very lucky, and we know it. But I also understand that we won’t be donating or selling any of our possessions in the near or not-so-near future.

Still haven’t, by the way. Like more than 99% of you, I do not want to have to deal with this; think about it; figure out how to plan, or do anything else of the kind. The enormity of it all is paralyzing!

It would be naïve to think that any attempt to articulate a new sustainability-oriented cultural narrative would not be met by strenuous pushback. We have already shown how reluctant society is to respond consistently to evidence that the world is on a collision course with biophysical reality. Few people opt for ‘voluntarily simplicity’….
‘Contraction’ is simply not a narrative that resonates with the times. On the contrary, most people are psychologically committed to continuous economic growth, the illusion of ever-increasing material prosperity, and the myth of progress (citation). Powerful and privileged elites, those with the greatest personal stake in the status quo, control the policy levers that are steering us onto the ecological rocks.  [4]

It is thus perfectly understandable why instead we are inclined to deny, deceive, or hope that technology will somehow lead or find a way….Some clearly have more than a vested interest in ensuring that we don’t tinker too much with what has been working—for them.

The truth is different. Harsher. Daunting at its best.

[F]or reasons confined to sustainability consumer-capitalist society is so grossly unsustainable that it cannot be fixed. You cannot reform such a system so that it remains focused on affluence, market forces, and growth yet does not cause ever-increasing problems of resource depletion, environmental destruction and social conflict. If you still want to claim that such a system is redeemable the above discussion makes clear the magnitude of the problems you will have to show can be solved by technical advance; statements of faith in technology are not acceptable here. [5]

This not a value judgment about the merits of capitalism versus its drawbacks. It is beyond that. It must be if we are to successfully adapt in some semblance of “just in time.”

This is no longer about blame or condemning the wealthy. We need to move beyond that cat fight. It is instead a recognition we must all come to terms with: That life as we have known it, as wonderful and thrilling and rewarding a ride as it has been, depended on certain fundamental conditions and resources to make it all happen, and now the availability of those essential provisions is diminishing.

We’re still blessed with all kinds of choices. Not a single one of us has to accept this premise or believe in it even a little bit. We are free to continue to go right on living as if life had no limits, and enjoy this until reality puts an end to it. Soon enough, the unpleasant truth is that reality is going to smack each and every one of us upside the head. Denial and hope have their effectiveness limitations, too.

This is instead a simple recognition that certain outcomes flow from the many wonders of capitalism. There are countless good rewards and benefits. Who can rationally argue against that proposition? A peek out one’s window is sufficient proof; a glance around the room inside is no less convincing.

But some results are not so good. There exists an amply-documented inequality in income and opportunity that all but the most viciously self-centered or delusional must admit to. That cannot continue. It’s also quite true that it is admittedly and practically impossible for us to conceive of any other kind of economic system. It’s almost as difficult to believe that we won’t find a way to adapt through even more technological advances and thus continue to carry on.…

But the critical difference is that the fuel—literally—which enabled and supported the creation and maintenance of the society we’ve known over the past 150+ years is simply no longer available as it has been throughout this great ride. Again, not good or bad; just an end result. What to do?

Choices….

Links to Parts 1 – 4 of this series:
http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/03/26/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-1/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/02/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-2/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/09/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-3/

http://peakoilmatters.com/2012/04/16/peak-oil-capitalism-sustainability-pt-4/

Sources:

[1] http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/TheTransitionProcess.html; Thoughts on THE TRANSITION To a Sustainable Society by Ted Trainer – 04.10.11
[2] http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol6iss2/1001-012.rees.html; Rees W. 2010. What’s blocking sustainability? Human nature, cognition, and denial. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 6(2):13-25. Published online Oct 14, 2010. http:///archives/vol6iss2/1001-012.rees.html
[3] Rees
[4] Rees
[5] http://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/ted-trainer-the-simpler-way-perspective-on-the-global-predicament/; Ted Trainer: The Simpler Way perspective on the global predicament – In Around the web – 06.01.11 [from TED TRAINER, The Simpler Way]