Peak Oil Matters

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

[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.

[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]

[Fourth 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 three more weeks), I’ll take advantage of her arguably controversial yet well-reasoned assessments to elaborate and extend the thought process as it applies to Peak Oil. [Part 1 here; part 2 here; and part 3 here].

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

~~~

Late last month, in the course of my research and readings, I came across a number of essays and articles by and about Ted Trainer, the proponent of The Simpler Way….

Echoing themes raised by others which I’ve noted in recent posts—and in particular a key feature in Ms. Klein’s essay—Trainer argued that the very system which has produced so much prosperity and technological wonder is simultaneously the very reason why we face monumental challenges in the coming years—most notably the economic inequality front and center these days, as well as the effects of climate change and Peak Oil.

Resolution of the problems we’ll confront, while ensuring the hopes for a future which can and will support our continuing well-being, necessitate much more than a tweak here and there. More troubling still is his (and others’) assessment that the economic system which brought us to this point is not the one to rely on for the next part of our journey.

These considerations of sustainability, global economic justice and social cohesion show that our predicament is extreme and that it cannot be solved in consumer-capitalist society. This society cannot be fixed, because its problems are caused by its fundamental structures and processes. There is no possibility of having an ecologically sustainable, just, peaceful and ‘spiritually’ satisfactory society if we allow market forces and the profit motive to be the major determinant of what happens, or if we seek economic growth and ever-higher ‘living standards’ without limit. [1]

Ms. Klein was a bit more expansive in her similar assessment:

Responding to climate change requires that we break every rule in the free-market playbook and that we do so with great urgency. We will need to rebuild the public sphere, reverse privatizations, relocalize large parts of economies, scale back overconsumption, bring back long-term planning, heavily regulate and tax corporations, maybe even nationalize some of them, cut military spending and recognize our debts to the global South. Of course, none of this has a hope in hell of happening unless it is accompanied by a massive, broad-based effort to radically reduce the influence that corporations have over the political process. That means, at a minimum, publicly funded elections and stripping corporations of their status as “people” under the law. In short, climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative.

Piece of cake! Can’t imagine anyone offering even the slightest objections … couple of weeks and we oughta have everything switched over to ah, um, whatever Plan B is. In truth, the enormity of such an undertaking is for all intents and purposes inconceivable. What to do?

Critical for us all to understand and accept, as Ms. Klein also noted, is that:

Outside the [right-wing, climate change-denying] Heartland conference and like-minded gatherings, the return of planning is nothing to fear. We are not talking about a return to authoritarian socialism, after all, but a turn toward real democracy. The thirty-odd-year experiment in deregulated, Wild West economics is failing the vast majority of people around the world. These systemic failures are precisely why so many are in open revolt against their elites, demanding living wages and an end to corruption. Climate change [and Peak Oil - my comment] doesn’t conflict with demands for a new kind of economy. Rather, it adds to them an existential imperative….
There is a growing body of economic research on the conflict between economic growth and sound climate policy….
The way out is to embrace a managed transition to another economic paradigm.…But the role of the corporate sector, with its structural demand for increased sales and profits, would have to contract.

Her observations are no less relevant to the onset of Peak Oil, and every bit as daunting in execution.

We must guard against the notion that Peak Oil’s impact (like climate change) is just a one-time, cataclysmic episode “scheduled” to happen but only at some random time at an indefinite point sometime in the future, and thus we can put off dealing with it until “later.” It’s already here … has been for more than five years! We’re now cruising along atop a somewhat steady (?) plateau of crude oil supply while feverish exploration continues; but the mountain tops are now all below us.

The fact that we’re addicted to Middle Eastern oil is a national embarrassment.
We’ve had almost a half-century to prepare for this situation, and we haven’t done jack. If we remain in denial, fighting to preserve the status quo, a transition of Middle Eastern oil will ultimately be forced on us. And it’s hard to see why we would ever want that.
So it’s time we focused on this problem. And it’s time we did what any individual or company focused on fixing a long-term problem would do: Start by developing an intelligent long-term plan….
[W]e can elect people who will actually lead us, instead of telling us what we want to hear. And we can encourage these leaders to develop a 10-Year-Plan to cure our Middle Eastern oil addiction.
Such a 10-year plan would likely have elements that will initially be unpopular. The alternative to this unpopularity, however, is continued lack of control over our destiny—which most folks who look at this situation objectively will probably agree is worse. [2]

The assessment is spot-on, but seriously: Who DOESN’T want our marvelous capitalist system to continue full bore, pumping out one astonishing technological feat after another, while producing enormous wealth for many, and equal opportunities for so many more? Who doesn’t want to do all that they can to ensure the continuation of the promises of this lifestyle (present woes duly noted and notwithstanding)? Who in their right mind wants to contemplate for even a micro-second the creation of Mr. Blodget’s suggested ten-year plan, let alone the twenty-year proposal suggested in The Hirsch Report (see related links in the Category sidebar)?

The problem is that at some point, we bump up against reality. We may be enjoying this heady ride for all its worth, but we are doing so because we have enjoyed the untrammeled use of a seemingly-endless supply of resources … and the ride is going to come to an eventual end because reality tells us that the “seemingly-endless supply” is instead quite finite. The end of the ride won’t happen next month or next year or maybe even 2016 or 2020. Who knows for certain?

The issue is that whenever it does arise, based on current observations, we will have not done anywhere near the amount of work and planning and transitioning needed. We will then be faced with more people with more demands who will then be dealing with limited and declining supplies (with alternatives insufficient to match and meet demand) at the very point where they most need them and are most prepared to use them. And no one will have been informed about what we’ll all be confronted with or what we all must do. Is that really our best strategy?

• Waiting until world oil production peaks before taking crash program action leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for more than two decades.
• Initiating a mitigation crash program 10 years before world oil peaking helps considerably but still leaves a liquid fuels shortfall roughly a decade after the time that oil would have peaked.
• Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.

The obvious conclusion from this analysis is that with adequate, timely mitigation, the costs of peaking can be minimized. If mitigation were to be too little, too late, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), which would translate to significant economic hardship [3]

Sound like a good idea to implement? Or: Sit back, wait, hope for the best, and see what happens?

More to come….

Sources:

[1] 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

[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/middle-eastern-oil-addiction-2011-12; It’s 2012–It’s Just Absurd That We’re Still Addicted To Middle-Eastern Oil by Henry Blodget – 12.28.11
[3] http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf; The Hirsch Report p. 52 [PEAKING OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION: IMPACTS, MITIGATION, & RISK MANAGEMENT by Robert L. Hirsch, SAIC, Project Leader Roger Bezdek, MISI Robert Wendling, MISI - February 2005]

[Third in a series]

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

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

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

~~~

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

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

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

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

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

Two choices, it seems.

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

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

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

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

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

Last May, I offered this:

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

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

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

Ms. Klein observed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Step up to the plate or sit on the bench.

More discussion on this topic is on the way….

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of a nation do we choose to be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens then?

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

Perfectly understandable! But will it help?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

[Second in a series]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Klein sets out the challenge:

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

~~~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

[First in a series]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just getting started….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just getting started … much more to come.

Sources:

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