Peak Oil Matters

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

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

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

Some food for thought….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How much better do we choose to be?

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

Sources:

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

In a recent column discussing the inane transportation bill proposed by the House, Isaiah J. Poole noted this charming piece of legislative integrity—admittedly, no doubt used by both parties since forever: “A more bipartisan Senate bill, which is not nearly as ambitious as the White House would prefer but nonetheless has its blessing, was being hung up over Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s demand for an amendment denying aid to Egypt over the government’s detention of some America citizens and Missouri Republican Sen. Roy Blunt’s amendment that would permit employers to deny coverage for health services that run counter to the employer’s ‘religious beliefs and moral convictions.’”

The relevance of these two stunts to transportation funding will—no doubt—be revealed to all of us at the appropriate time. Our tax dollars hard at work….

When does it start to get better?

As I noted in two prior posts about this legislation (here and here), the philosophy/ideology behind the bill’s intent to eliminate assured financing (insufficient though it is) for mass transit in favor of more money for roads is what’s most troubling. I keep hoping that at some point, some legislator from the GOP will have the balls to accept reality and propose legislation that will actually mean something long-term and for our collective well-being.

I’ve admitted before and will say again, I pretend no expertise in transportation legislation or its funding. I come to these discussions with concerns about the strategies employed in light of what I believe is an even more serious and long-lasting problem for all of us: inadequate energy resources to provide us all with business-as-usual lifestyles—current economic conditions aside. The failure to incorporate public transportation on a much broader scale than Congress seems capable of understanding creates a serious deficiency in our ability to adapt in the future to a society with less energy resources at our disposal—if continued growth is a goal.

Typical arguments include the following:

[T]ransit has firmly secured its place in the federal budget and has acquired a large and vocal constituency in Congress which can be counted upon to defend its interests….
Restoring the Highway Trust Fund to its original mission of being a source of funds solely for the federal-aid highway program would accomplish several things. First, the program would no longer need to rely on speculative royalties from future oil and gas leases, as currently proposed in the House bill. Second, the Trust Fund would not need to be periodically propped up with contributions from the General Fund. Third, the principle of the highway program paid for with user fees would be maintained. Lastly, the House bill would return the federal-aid highway program to its original roots. It would restore the program’s lost sense of purpose and focus Trust Fund resources on what they always were meant to do—preserve and renew the nation’s prized asset, its interstate highway system. [1]

A few comments are in order.

As to the first point about transit’s defenders in Congress, a wonderful sound bite which means absolutely nothing in this Congress with its Tea Party-dominated inability to think, plan, or legislate beyond next week. “Defend” transit all you want, but if no one is paying any attention, it loses some of its vigor and impact.

“[T]he program would no longer need to rely on speculative royalties…” It never had to! That’s like retirement planning via the lottery. It’s an idiotic proposal to begin with, duly lambasted by many with far more understanding than I possess, and merits exactly no discussion or consideration.

As for eliminating the “need to be periodically propped up with contributions from the General Fund,” the House could actually … you know, legislate intelligently and put together a plan, even if, GASP! it contained ideas from the left. What a concept!

“[T]he principle of the highway program [being] paid for with user fees would be maintained.” Really? “Principle” sounds good; reality tells a different story.

Long before this legislation was drafted, Tanya Snyder discussed the Republican Party’s expected antics when Congress would eventually get around to … you know … do what we pay them to do—legislate!

You’ve heard it a thousand times from the highway lobby: Roads pay for themselves through ‘user fees’ — a.k.a. gas taxes and tolls — whereas transit is a drain on the taxpayer. They use this argument to push for new roads, instead of transit, as fiscally prudent investments.
The myth of the self-financed road meets its match today in the form of a new report from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group: Do Roads Pay For Themselves? (link) The answer is a resounding ‘no.’ All told, the authors calculate that road construction has sucked $600 billion out of America’s public purse since the dawn of the interstate system. [2]

Quoting Dan Smith of U.S. PIRG, Ms. Snyder noted that: “Road advocates use these myths about the gas tax being this user fee and that highways pay for themselves to get preferential treatment, and to get a larger chunk of the dedicated fund.”

Paying a toll is a user fee; paying the gas tax when you fill your tank is not a user fee. Not very complicated, but you’ll find almost no one on the Right who dares explain that simple fact. As the above-referenced report makes clear, highways do not pay for themselves—period! Great talking point offered to the uninformed, but not true … if that kind of stuff matters—which, for some of us, it does.

And Mr. Orski’s final point, that this legislation will “restore the program’s lost sense of purpose and focus Trust Fund resources on what they always were meant to do— preserve and renew the nation’s prized asset, its interstate highway system.” Hate to break the news to those on the Right so desperate to return to Mayberry RFD, but this is 2012. Times have changed.

More changes are in the offing, and the GOP’s determination to keep us locked into a fossil-fuel dependent transportation system at the expense of our future well-being may not be such a good thing, great sound bites notwithstanding. And as Ms. Snyder made clear in the article I cited above, the gas tax/Highway Trust Fund—created during the Hoover Administration—was not intended solely for highways. Only during the 17 year period during which the interstate state was being built were federal gas tax revenues directed exclusively to roads. “Since 1973, the gas tax has been used for a variety of transportation programs and has even been used, on occasion, to pay down the deficit.” Facts….

And of course, no GOP-inspired legislation these days can be marketed without a snarky, irrelevant, and misleading statement or two, Right?

The new infrastructure bill no longer obligates states to spend highway funding on non-highway activities, such as museums or landscaping. But spending for mass transit appears to continue, even though there are better uses for the funds. States now spend 20 percent of their Highway Trust Fund allocation on mass transit, yet only two percent of passenger miles are used by mass transit.…
Just as users of roads should pay all of their costs, such as construction and maintenance, so should users of mass transit. If individual states want to subsidize mass transit, they should do it out of their own revenues. With Uncle Sam broke, the Federal government should not be subsidizing expensive mass transit systems. [3]

Just wondering how much of the funding states are obligated to use on “museums or landscaping?” All of it? Half? A third? Ten percent? Five? Perhaps less? A wild guess on my part, but I’m betting that “museums or landscaping” aren’t a primary focus, but we wouldn’t want to clue in the uninformed about that, now would we? And the lame “passenger mile” standard used by the Right is addressed nicely by Eric Jaffe here as well as in the report cited above, but I’ll admit it is a popular sound bite: “20 percent … for two percent” usage sure does sound unfair! But why add context if that ruins the point?

“Uncle Sam” is not “broke”, but it is another Page One sound bite from the Right’s playbook,  which does induce an appropriate measure of fear in the electorate. Nice strategy, huh? [Kinda like “Cheerful” Newt Gingrich’s uplifting comment in Debate # 4367 held in Arizona two weeks ago: “But everybody needs to understand -- and by the way, we live in an age when we have to genuinely worry about nuclear weapons going off in our own cities. So everybody who serves in the fire department, in the police department, not just the first responders, but our National Guard, whoever is going to respond, all of us are more at risk today, men and women, boys and girls, than at any time in the history of this country.”]

Writing on the “we’re broke” theme, commenting on Speaker of the House John Boehner’s identical comment last year, E. J. Dionne offered this:

Bloomberg News looked at Boehner’s statement and declared simply: ‘It’s wrong.’ As Bloomberg’s David J. Lynch wrote: ‘The U.S. today is able to borrow at historically low interest rates, paying 0.68 percent on a two-year note that it had to offer at 5.1 percent before the financial crisis began in 2007. Financial products that pay off if Uncle Sam defaults aren’t attracting unusual investor demand. And tax revenue as a percentage of the economy is at a 60-year low, meaning if the government needs to raise cash and can summon the political will, it could do so.’
Precisely. A phony metaphor is being used to hijack the nation’s political conversation and skew public policies to benefit better-off Americans and hurt most others.

And this*:

America’s Tea Party has a simple fiscal message: The United States is broke. This is factually incorrect—U.S. government securities remain one of the safest investments in the world—but the claim serves the purpose of dramatizing the federal budget and creating a great deal of hysteria around America’s current debt levels. This then produces the fervent belief that government spending must be cut radically—and now. [4]

So I’ll ask the same question raised in the first post discussing this legislation: “How much money, time, effort, and resources can we be expected to waste by devoting all of those assets to highways and roadways used by gasoline-chugging vehicles … highways and roadways and vehicles whose usage and very existence will be challenged in decades to come when the availability of affordable, efficient, and plentiful fossil fuels is no longer routinely assured to the masses?”

Or this, from last week’s related post: “[W]hat transportation options will be available to us if we continue to allow shortsighted, narrow-minded ideologies dictate how we plan and prepare for our collective future?”

* as his Wikipedia bio notes, Simon Johnson, author of the quote, “is the ‘Ronald A. Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at the MIT Sloan School of Management[1] and a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.[2] He has held a wide variety of academic and policy-related positions, including Professor of Economics at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business.[3] From March 2007 through the end of August 2008, he was Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund” so really … what would he know about American being “broke”?

Sources:

[1] http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2012/02/now-were-getting-political.php; Now We’re Getting Political by Fawn Johnson – 02.06.12; Response from Ken Orski: In Defense of the House Highway Bill
[2] http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/01/04/actually-highway-builders-roads-don%E2%80%99t-pay-for-themselves/; Actually, Highway Builders, Roads Don’t Pay For Themselves by Tanya Snyder – 01.04.11
[3] Now We’re Getting Political by Fawn Johnson – 02.06.12; Response from Diana Furchtgott-Roth: How to Improve the Highway Bill
[4] http://www.slate.com/articles/business/project_syndicate/2011/08/the_tea_partys_circular_logic.html; The Tea Party’s Circular Logic – Its revolt undermines the private sector more than it reins in “big government” by Simon Johnson – 08.16.11

The conservative approach of starving the nation’s transportation system is bound to prevent it from being an effective engine for economic growth and could potentially lead to the loss of more than a half-million jobs. (How’s that for a bill that calls itself an ‘infrastructure jobs act’?) But to add to the insult, conservatives are turning the legislation into a virtual pharmacy of poison pills. [1]

More and more, I’m tempted to set aside considerations about Peak Oil and wonder when we reach Peak Ignorant, Narrow-Minded, and Shortsighted—hoping it arrives this week!

The (we can only hope) soon-to-be-buried transportation bill winding its way through Congress shows all the wisdom, planning, and foresight of your typical three-year-old [“I don’t care about later; I want only what I want and I want it now ... and you can’t play, either”!] We have a legion of the Clueless and the Dumb legislating on behalf of the (mostly innocent) Uninformed … and all for the benefit of the Few. American exceptionalism on display? Yikes!

As have many others (most much more knowledgeable about transportation policy than me), I recently offered commentary on the hideous bill sponsored by the GOP in its “leaders’” latest demonstration that recognition of reality and the needed long-term planning for said reality is for them defined as about a week, give or take, because facts and reality don’t count for much if they conflict with their narrow-minded ideology of Bad, Bad Federal Government 24/7.

Eliminating the federal transit tax benefit for public transportation users [2] was one of several credits benefiting the mostly middle and lower class lopped off the books in the payroll tax negotiations, demonstrating that transportation policy is not the only arena where it’s possible to kick citizens when they’re down. I keep wondering when the great majority recognizes that most of the legislation coming from the GOP nowadays screws them royally! But as long as the wealthy are catered to, I guess we shouldn’t complain, isn’t that right, Right?

For all practical purposes, the GOP’s transportation bill* eliminates funding for anything other than highways and roads. Eliminating the Mass Transit Account from the federal Highway Trust Fund, as the GOP proposes, eliminates the established source of funds for public transportation. Just like that….In the GOP’s future-less world, funds long-committed to an intelligent vision for the future will have to fight for scraps in a Congress being run mostly by the delusional and short-sighted. Terrific!

* [As I write this before the weekend, rumors are circulating that this provision may be dropped due to strong opposition, including some from members of the GOP as well. Last night one report indicated it had been dropped. The question remains: why would such a provision have been entertained to begin with? What does that suggest about their priorities and the long-term interests of this nation?]

More congestion! More pollution! Screw urban dwellers! More oil and gas sales! Let the poor walk! We dance to the Tea Party tune, and since they don’t understand much, we don’t care! (Actually, that’s a great title for the legislation; wonder why they didn’t give the bill that name? Kinda long, so perhaps that’s the reason….)

The Tea Party is superb at disguising cultural battles as the pursuit of responsible thrift. And mass transit exists at the vortex of many of their No. 1 ideological targets. It’s brilliant, when you think about it.
Defunding transit is how you smack down urbanites, environmentalists, and people of color, all in one fell swoop. It’s how you telegraph a disdain for all things European. It’s how you show solidarity with swing-state suburbanites who don’t understand why their taxes are going toward subways they don’t even use. And it’s how you subtly reassure your base that you’re not concerned about the very poor. [3]

(Neil Pierce also wrote a very nice column in the wake of this ridiculous legislation, expounding on the Tea Party’s nonsense—and influence over—transportation and related policy, even in the face of considerable bipartisan opposition. Worth the read. The Agenda 21 paranoia-driven, fear-based cluelessness he writes about would be comical if it wasn’t so genuinely disturbing.)

As PeakOilMatters has been discussing since its inception, as have many others with even more knowledge than me, at some point in time much sooner than most of us realize, and long, long before we are even remotely prepared, the effects of declining fossil fuel availability are going to extend into every facet of our lives—personal, commercial, professional, and social.

Given how much our entire transportation system is dependent on those fossil fuels to function, when availability and quality are in decline as costs increase, severe disruptions not just in industrial transportation but in our own every-day travels are inevitable. If the gas you use all the time isn’t as plentiful, as “good”, as available, or as inexpensive as you’ve been accustomed to, change is going to happen. And for all the reasons and FACTS Peak Oil proponents share, that’s the reality we’re heading towards. When? Who knows? The date doesn’t matter.

It will be a process that begins quietly and barely noticed at first [already has], and will likely continue for an extended period of time. But all the while that snowball will be gathering momentum as the decline continues. Then, the “potential might possible’s” and half-truths about shale oil and tar sands which the deniers toss out to cloud the issue about fossil fuel production and supply will stop mattering at all.

And when all of this is still gathering strength and affecting pretty much everything we do (absent a lot of planning and adaptation well in advance), what transportation options will be available to us if we continue to allow shortsighted, narrow-minded ideologies dictate how we plan and prepare for our collective future? No option is pain-free, easy, or inexpensive. But cutting off the viable options which may ease much of the burden in blind fealty instead to a system of (non) governance which will do nothing but cause untold and avoidable harm to tens of millions of us is … idiotic! Our leaders may not be better than that, but we are, and we need to step up.

Crisis, or opportunity?

I’m planning to be back with some final thoughts on the transportation matter in an upcoming post, laying out some of the more popular arguments against federal funding of mass transit and why most of it is indeed shortsighted; but for now, I’ll leave you with an additional comment first from Isaiah J. Poole’s column referenced above, and then a final one from the Neil Pierce column also linked to above. Food for thought….

Through this transportation bill, conservatives are pushing the transmission into reverse on everything from environmental policy to workers rights to women’s health. Their efforts would cost the nation’s jobs, make the movement of goods and services less efficient, convert what should be public resources into private profit centers, and keep us mired deep in the 20th century when our global economic competitors are pressing toward the future.

[W]e need courageous leaders — national, state and local — to assert that the United States does need a world-class transportation system, combining road and rail and air, and based on sane low-carbon energy alternatives, not overwhelming but rather serving accessible, livable, walkable communities. And that we’re willing to pay for it.
Ideology aside, what’s wrong with that?

What kind of a future do we want?

Sources:

[1] http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2012020714/conservatives-transportation-throw-america-reverse; Conservatives On Transportation: Throw America Into Reverse by Isaiah J. Poole – 02.14.12
[2] http://transportationnation.org/2012/02/18/transit-tax-break-buried-in-partisan-debate/; Transit Tax Break Buried in Partisan Debate by Janet Babin – 02.18.12
[3] http://www.salon.com/2012/02/13/the_tea_partys_war_on_mass_transit/; The Tea Party’s war on mass transit by Will Doig – 02.13.12

[Second in a series]

Last week, an especially egregious but all-too-typical article found its way into the blogosphere, echoing the same tired, fact-free nonsense which now serves as the biblical foundation for denying the reality of what’s happening to a finite (as in NOT infinite) resource used each and every day for nearly two centuries by billions of people, industries, and governments. It’s a simple mathematical premise which continues to confound too many with prominent public voices. Their efforts cannot go unchallenged.

Because it does so fine a job outlining many of the standard misrepresentations employed by those denying the truth about peak oil production, I’m devoting the first two posts in this series to a discussion of Mr. Cantu’s Why We Shouldn’t be Worrying About Peak Oil article [NOTE: all quotes following are taken from there unless noted otherwise]. The first post is here, and next week I’ll conclude this latest series on Peak Oil Denial by discussing issues related to the themes developed from this referenced article.

Picking up where we left off….

The author scoffs at the notion of our nation’s energy security being compromised by our dependence on foreign oil (the argument that we “fund our own enemies”), although I’ll confess to not being entirely clear on where he’s going with his argument that “terrorist attacks are so inexpensive that a decrease in Middle Eastern oil revenues would have virtually no impact on al-Qaeda’s fundraising capabilities.” I’ll leave that one alone.

Mr. Cantu then points out:

… [T]wo of the largest suppliers of crude to the United States are Canada and Mexico, among our staunchest allies and countries that are hardly terrorist breeding grounds. All of the talk about the benefits of choking malevolent countries from U.S. oil demand borders on ignorant isolationism.

A couple of observations on that argument: Mexico’s largest oil field is Cantarell. I discussed it in one of my first blogs posts, and noted that:

Cantarell in Mexico has long been considered of the supergiant oil fields on the planet. As recently as 2004 it was producing about 2.5 million barrels a day of oil, and about half of that was shipped here. Production has fallen off a cliff since then, and in 2 – 3 years, it’s expected that production will have declined by close to 80%. Aside from the enormous financial, political, and social problems that will create for our neighbor south of the border (Cantarell was the major source of income to the Mexican government), this also poses a dilemma for us. Where and how do we make up that shortfall?

Roger Blanchard recently offered more up-to-date production details about Mexico’s total production:

Mexico’s oil production peaked in 2004 at 3.48 mb/d. By 2010, it was down to 2.62 mb/d, a decline of ~860,000 b/d. In 2010, Mexico’s total liquid hydrocarbons production was down to 2.98 mb/d according to US DOE/EIA data. [1]

So … should we just pretend that all is well with our friendly neighbor to the south and make no plans for declining imports from Mexico? So I’ll ask again (and keep in mind that the situation and facts are not unique to Mexico’s oil production): Where and how do we make up that shortfall?

As for the tar sands of Alberta, Kurt Cobb offers this:

The hydrocarbons locked in the tar sands and the Orinoco oil belt in Venezuela aren’t what we call oil and must be heavily processed at high cost using enormous amounts of energy….
The hard-to-get oil resources are large, but they take a long time to develop and require strenuous, expensive and energy-intensive methods to extract. All this, when combined with the relentless depletion of existing fields, spells little or no growth in the worldwide rate of oil production in the coming years. [2]

Tom Murphy adds these observations:

Presently, Canadian production is a little over 1 million barrels per day (Mbpd)
….Optimistic projections expect 3–4 Mbpd by 2020 in Canada. For scale, ten years of conventional oil decline at 3% per year will leave a shortfall over 20 Mbpd….
Heavy oil and tar sands require more effort to extract and process than conventional oil, lowering the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) to something in the neighborhood of 5:1 (citation). At least it’s net-positive, but nowhere near the 100:1 originally enjoyed by conventional oil, or even the 20:1 levels we find in conventional fields of today’s caliber.
Heavy oil and tar sands will no doubt relieve some pressure on declining conventional oil, but they are capable of only partial relief. In other words, just because we believe the resource to be half-a-trillion barrels, rate-limited extraction will limit its ability to mitigate conventional oil decline. [3]

Mr. Cantu concludes his essay with these statements:

All of this is not to suggest that we should abandon hopes for a more renewable and sustainable energy future. Indeed, there are many promises in the prospects of renewable energies. Yet, we must not kid ourselves to think that we can transform a crucial part of the global economy overnight, nor that our reliance of fossil fuels creates more problems than it does solutions.
Nearly every source of energy comes with its own risks. And with this in mind we can conclude that the risks posed by fossil fuels are far outweighed by their benefits. While this may come across as heretical, the cold truth is that for the time being, there is little to no cause for alarm in how we consume our current energy supply.

And therein the problem. Those who dispute the imminent onset of Peak Oil production (check your rearview mirror) seem entirely incapable of appreciating not how much we rely on fossil fuels for just about everything we do; rather, they seem to have no concept of how much will have to transition from conventional fossil fuel reliance to the various Plan B’s we eventually decide upon. And for anyone to think that we can just ramp up our efforts and transition our entire industrial/commercial/transportation/production/manufacturing/travel/cultural foundations away from fossil fuel dependence to “other” in a matter of a few weeks is beyond delusional.

No one is suggesting that “we can transform a crucial part of the global economy overnight.” That’s the problem! We can’t, which is all the more reason why shunting Peak Oil to the back of the closet for now is about as self-destructive an endeavor as we could undertake.

The simple math is that the finite resource once available to us in nearly-inconceivable abundance and affordability nonetheless has now passed its tipping point. We’re not running out of it for decades, but “nearly-inconceivable abundance and affordability” have left the building. What’s left isn’t as abundant, easy to access, inexpensive, or always available no matter what the circumstances. And what we think might potentially hopefully possibly could if only replace that astonishing resource just isn’t as “good” or efficient or affordable. Those are the facts, unpleasant though they are to consider.

“For the time being” there may be “no cause for alarm”, but that’s a very tiny, narrow window that is all but closed now and forevermore. Denying the facts prevents not only leaders from engaging in the critical dialogue, planning, and implementation needed to transform how we do everything, it prevents citizens from having any appreciation whatsoever about the challenges looming and the consequences we’ll all have to deal with somewhere in the much too-near future.

More to come….

Sources:

[1] http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2012/02/how-reliable-are-us-department-of-energy-oil-production-forecasts/; How Reliable are U.S. Department of Energy Oil Production Forecasts? by Roger Blanchard – 02.15.12
[2] http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2012/01/fossil-fuels-vs-renewables/; Fossil Fuels vs. Renewables: The Key Argument That Environmentalists are Missing by Kurt Cobb – 01.23.12
[3] http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/02/fossil-fuels-im-not-dead-yet/; Fossil Fuels: I’m Not Dead Yet – 02.14.12

The official mourning period is now over, and I’m once again able to discuss the Super Bowl in somewhat dispassionate terms (%^&$*$ Eli Manning! Sorry….)

What if there was no Super Bowl game?

In a January article entitled “Super Bowl 2012: Indianapolis Invites Visitors for Weeklong Celebration” by Mark Johanson, city officials were said to be expecting 150,000 visitors during Super Bowl weekend (nearly 70,000 of whom would attend the game itself). Another source suggested the number was more likely in excess of a million….

In Diana Lind’s piece (“The Economic Mixed Bag That is the Super Bowl“), she reported that while the National Football League claims that the host city for the Super Bowl receives revenues totaling anywhere from $300 to $500 million, Indianapolis was expecting less than half of that lofty amount ($150 million was the stated estimate, and the calculations for that were questioned as being too optimistic and inaccurate as well, as Lind noted).

Having been lucky enough to attend a Super Bowl several years ago (much happier memory—the Patriots won that one!), I can personally attest to the fact that it is indeed quite the spectacle.    The Colts home city appears to have left no stone unturned in its efforts to present itself in the best possible light while offering fans and visitors the full scope of Super Bowl pageantry.

The Johanson piece quoted a Convention & Visitors Association official as promising a complete transformation of the downtown area, filled with “food carts, vendors, three stages, warming stations, food and beverage” with the intent of re-making that part of Indianapolis into an Olympic Village. And for those not satisfied with that (?), Johanson reported that there would also be “interactive games, concert stages, bars and restaurants, and a so-called ‘Tailgate Town,’” together with “four zip lines” enabling users to “fly over the Super Bowl Village.” Not to be outdone, the “NFL Experience” located at the Convention Center serves as the sport’s interactive theme park with all the bells and whistles one might expect: “participatory games, displays, entertainment attractions, kid’s football clinics, free autograph sessions, and the largest football memorabilia show ever staged.”

I am not nearly versed enough in the intricacies of planning such an event, but it stands to reason that a lot of time, effort, equipment, personnel, machinery, and transportation is needed to turn an American city into the center of the pro football universe (and for that matter, the entertainment one as well, given that the game itself drew more than 117 million viewers—a new television-viewing record, topping the 2011 Super Bowl audience.)

Granted, the Super Bowl is not your average sporting event (not with secondary market ticket prices starting in excess of $2000 per, and “a field-level luxury suite with a capacity of 35 people can be yours for $650,000!” as noted in a Huffington Post article by Andrew Brandt). The “normal” ticket-purchasing fan is not the typical attendee at the Super Bowl, and the marketing aspects attending the event are far from routine, given that it is the biggest event of the year for most advertisers.

Brandt’s article went on to report that NBC received more than $250 million just from TV advertising, and (citing other sources, including this one) that “5 million people are projected to buy new televisions in preparation for the game, and fans are expected to spend $11 billion on Super Bowl-related purchases (including the consumption of 1.25 billion chicken wings).” That’s a lot of grocery stores, caterers, restaurants, sporting goods stores, electronics stores, party-favor suppliers, etc., etc., reaping tangential benefits. (Wikipedia reports it’s the second-largest day for food consumption in America; Thanksgiving is first.) Brandt also pointed out that the city’s 6000-plus hotel rooms were all sold out (at inflated rates, no doubt), leaving many visitors obliged to stay at facilities nearly an hour away (also at exorbitantly higher rates.)

That’s a lot of traveling (personal and commercial), together with a lot of supplying and delivering. (Johnson’s article reported that “Over 1,000 private planes are expected on the ground during the weekend ushering in countless celebrities.”)

John Russell and Jon Murray wrote a separate article at the indystar.com website that one national restaurant chain in particular drew more than 1200 people to its facility in Indianapolis over Super Bowl weekend, more than double its usual amount. Obviously merchants and retailers expect/hope to reap secondary benefits from consumers who leave with favorable impressions of the service or product and might thus frequent those same commercial establishments in other locations. Certainly the host city itself likewise expects/hopes to attract additional tourists and convention business from the favorable reviews.

However, the Russell/Murray piece also noted that when all relevant revenues (more than $7 million, including several million dollars from the NFL along with hotel and restaurant taxes, etc.) and expenses (labor, insurance, utilities, personnel, security, etc.) are tabulated, the city may be looking at shortfalls of anywhere from $450,000 to nearly $900,000. Not pocket change in this economy….

So I’ll ask again, what if there was no Super Bowl game?

Nearly two years ago, I wrote my first piece about the impact of declining oil/gas supply (i.e. Peak Oil) as it relates to sports and sports travel. In that post, I offered these observations:

How do teams (high school, college, the pros) deal with travel issues and schedules when gas is much too expensive to enable teams to transport their players even short distances, or when air travel is severely curtailed and wildly expensive because not enough jet fuel is being processed to meet demand (and airports are shuttered because air travel has diminished markedly), or when the fans cannot afford to put the gasoline in their vehicles that in the past allowed them to attend the games without a second thought?
What happens when half, or a third, or one-tenth the number of fans can afford to attend games because budgeting all that money to drive to an in- or out-of-state stadium no longer makes financial sense? Pure supply and demand: when demand continues and supply is reduced, prices go up. Decisions are then made about where to allocate funds. Does a trip across the state to attend a Red Sox game make more sense than paying for your children’s basic needs for the next few months?
Where will the revenue to pay players come from when the majority of fans are no longer traveling to see the games either because limited gas supplies are now being allocated or it’s simply become too expensive for “frivolous” trips? How do owners continue to fund their vast operations (office staff, marketing, scouting staffs, minor leagues, utility services for the stadiums and training facilities, and on and on it goes)? What happens to the vendors and other suppliers when the majority of fans just stop attending … permanently?

What happens when the mind-boggling efforts in planning, preparing, transporting, supplying, delivering, etc., etc. needed to stage this incredible event by countless thousands of individuals and merchants and organizations and government officials are simply no longer feasible because every single entity up and down the supply and service chain is faced with the reality of insufficient availability of “affordable”, quality, energy supply to make this extravaganza happen?

How many economic dominoes tumble as a result? How many businesses lose out? How many employees?

I’m not anticipating that the NFL will cease production of the Super Bowl anytime in the near future, but the reality of Peak Oil will affect this event and this organization just as it will every other commercial enterprise. It will take an incredible amount of planning and thought to figure out an appropriate Plan B just for this one event … how much more planning and thought will be needed for everything else?

A few more of those annoying facts to keep in mind as we (don’t) prepare for looming energy challenges, courtesy of three recent and excellent articles/interviews well worth the time to review in full [see Sources below for the links]:

Nothing can replace oil as the lifeblood of our culture and there is no domestic supply source which will eliminate or even reduce our dependence upon the 10 million barrels per day we import from foreign countries. There are some hard truths that are purposefully ignored by those who want to mislead the public about the grim consequences of peak cheap oil:
* The earth is finite. The amount of oil within the crust of the earth is finite. As we drain 32 billion barrels of oil from the earth every year, there is less remaining within the earth. We have drained the cheapest and easiest to reach 1.4 trillion barrels from the earth since the mid 1800s. The remaining recoverable 1.4 trillion barrels will be expensive and hard to reach. [1]

While it is critical we invest our current resources to finding solutions to the approaching energy gap, it’s also essential we approach the situation realistically and with as little magical thinking as possible. Currently, the US is consuming 10 million barrels per day more than it produces domestically….The short of it is there is going to be no single fuel source that replaces oil, and the transition to a post-Peak Oil future is going to involve a period of “less energy” for society for an undetermined period of time. [2]

We tend to have self-confidence in our ability to solve any problem. But we have no historical analog to the peak of fossil fuels, without a clear (and superior) replacement on the horizon. As a result of our fossil fuel binge, we have unprecedented problems in population, water, agriculture, fisheries, pollution, climate change, and so on. Our moment in history is rather special. It is dangerous to assume that we’ll gracefully handle problems at this scale, because such assumptions amount to dismissals and concomitant inaction. Unacceptable.
It bothers me that we don’t have a plan. It scares me that we (collectively) don’t think we even need a plan. Faith in the market to solve the problem represents a high-stakes gamble. We can and should do better. [3]

Another in the body of recurring themes of Peak Oil Matters is that we do ourselves no favors by denial and delusion. The psychological purposes they serve are no match for the potential harm we’ll cause ourselves over a much longer period of time by ignoring, hoping, or wishing. Strategies available to us, of course, but their usefulness—such as it may be—is completely useless at this point.

The authors above each discuss similar themes raised in prior posts of mine and by any number of others doing their best to put us all on notice that we need to start thinking about the energy issues at hand, and then thinking differently about how to address the challenges. More importantly, planning should be among our top priorities starting about ten years ago. We’re a wee bit behind.

Echoing proposals I offered several months ago (as have others), Jim Quinn boils it down succinctly:

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.

And Tom Murphy bolsters that theme, citing the much-discussed and highly-respected The Hirsch Report (a subject I’ve covered in a number of prior posts; see the Category in the sidebar):

The bottom line was that initiating all such crash programs in parallel 20 years ahead of the peak (or more to the point, 20 years before the start of decline) may be sufficient to avoid major hardships. Waiting until 10 years before the decline would result in major disruptions as the efforts struggled to establish a large enough foothold in time for the decline. Initiating the crash program at the moment the decline starts was characterized as having catastrophic repercussions. Not treated was the more politically realistic scenario of waiting until 5 years after the start of decline while we bicker about the fundamental cause of our woes and strategies for mitigation….
Because we will more likely wait until the pain of decline has made itself clear, we may find ourselves handicapped by recession and debt, hampering our ability to act boldly….
… [S]tarting a crash program toward replacement of finite fossil fuels too early has great up-sides and marginal downsides (opportunity cost); but failure to act has enormous downside for marginal upside.

What exactly are we waiting for? For all the happy talk about the “potential possible if only we do X and Y might work” options discussed by others [as I’ve cited ad nauseum in the many “Denial” posts], too many of us have been lulled into a false sense of security that the problems—if any—are being handled.

Jim Quinn wasn’t as “kind” in his assessment (but he’s right) while pointing out a serious consequence of this pattern of deceptions and half-truths offered up by not only politicians but also by many in the oil industry who know better (and, as I’ve also emphasized repeatedly, by our own failure so far to learn more):

American presidents have propagated the Big Lie of energy independence for the last three decades. The Democrats have lied about green energy solutions and the Republicans have lied about domestic sources saving the day. These deceitful politicians put the country at risk as they misinform and mislead the non-thinking American public….
The propaganda blared at the impressionable willfully ignorant American public has worked wonders. The vast majority of Americans have no clue they have entered a world of energy scarcity.

For all the talk about the magic of Technology riding to the rescue, almost all of the research, planning, testing, marketing, etc., etc., etc required before establishing various Plan Bs as solutions require fossil fuels to make the processes happen from A to Z. What gets prioritized in a future with fewer of those resources available to begin with? Just how quickly will these various, successfully-tested and fully-implemented Plan Bs be showing up on our doorsteps?

Does anyone have a full appreciation for just how much and how many (processes, productions, transportation plans, products, etc., etc.) will have to be effectively and efficiently converted/prepared/tested for successful utilization of these Magic Technology Saviors (while fossil fuel reserves continue their steady march down the Depletion Slope)?

As Tom Murphy so nicely summed up: “Even though energy may represent something like 10% of GDP, it’s what makes the other 90% possible.”

Is anyone paying attention to the energy “quality” of all the alternatives being considered/hoped for? There’s not a single unconventional (tar sands, shale) or alternative (wind, solar, etc) energy resource that comes close to matching the energy density and efficiency of the hundreds of billions of barrels of crude oil we’ve consumed in the last century and a half. Hello! One need not be schooled in quantum physics, advanced algebra, or geology to appreciate that replacements which are for starters less efficient and more costly are not going to actually “replace” crude oil’s extensive benefits. They’re at best poor substitutes, and how might the consequences of that fact play themselves out for the billions of people with their trillions of products and demands and needs currently supplied by crude oil? Hello again!

With almost all of the major oil fields now on the downslope of their own production peaks, how much stock should any of us be putting in the still-rosy assessments of ramped-up production from those same fields over the next few decades? How does that math work? (We’re of course blindly assuming that these primary oil exporters will of course continue to serve the needs of Americans before … their own citizens? Seriously? Who gets to deliver that message? Safe to assume there might be a complaint or two?)

The most optimistic, arguably-realistic assessments about production potentials of the various unconventional and alternative resources will barely match current depletion rates. It’s now been several decades since we were finding more oil than was being consumed. Given that these crude oil wannabes aren’t as efficient, what kind of math is     being passed around to make this all seem acceptable and not worth a moment’s worth of concern?

As Tom Murphy again summed up for us:

The geological upshot is that oil is not a lake into which we thrust a straw, slurping as fast as we wish. Rather, oil is a viscous fluid in porous, permeable rock that resists rapid recovery. It’s not a spigot or valve that we can turn at will. Nature has a say in how fast we can claim the oil….
The lesson is that we don’t have full control over oil production. If previous discoveries are in decline, and we are not adding new fields at a replacement rate, we should expect aggregate decline.

Each of the three referenced authors do us all a great service by discussing these and other relevant considerations (economic and geopolitical, for example) which put a bit of a crimp in the blind happy talk which gets far too much airplay … at our expense.

I think I can safely speak for each of them, and almost every other proponent of Peak Oil, when I say that I would LOVE to be wrong about all of this! But the harsher truth is that there are just too many warning signs in too many aspects of fossil fuel exploration, discovery, production, cost, quality, and supply to ignore it all and expect that hope, wishes, good thoughts, and crossed fingers are all we need.

The potential exists, therefore, for major disruption to our accustomed ways of life. We will become viscerally aware of how fundamentally important oil is to all that we do.. It’s not just another commodity like sneakers or widgets. Curtail transportation and watch the grocery store shelves struggle to stay full. See food prices escalate and cause immediate hardships around the world. Find out how far-flung about the globe the material resources are that comprise a cell phone. [Tom Murphy]

So, assuming the Peak Oil camp is on to something, what’s the likelihood for a disruption-free transition to another energy source that can replace the energy output we currently enjoy from oil? … How realistic are these hopes?
Not very. [Martenson and Rapier]

Shouldn’t we at least be having broader and more meaningful discussions starting right about now?

Sources:

[1] http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31542.html; U.S. Energy Independence – The Big Lie by James Quinn – 11.15.11
[2] http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/robert-rapier-scientific-challenges-replacing-oil-renewables/65387; Robert Rapier: The Scientific Challenges To Replacing Oil with Renewables [interview with Robert Rapier by Chris Martenson, posted by Adam] – 11.26.11
[3] http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/peak-oil-perspective/; Using physics and estimation to assess energy, growth, options by Tom Murphy – 11.01.11

Although it is likely that the President and his Secretary of Energy understand that a decline in world oil production is not far away, it is simply not a topic to be raised prior to an election as the political risk is simply too great. Someday, likely within the next decade, the US and the rest of world’s governments will have to acknowledge there is a problem here, and unless alternative sources of energy can be developed and brought     into general use quickly, major changes in economic activities and lifestyles are going to take place. [1]

So that’s sufficient reason to be allowing moronic decisions to serve as current policy instead? Do any of our “leaders” in Congress understand the concept of “long-term planning”? Foresight? How about just plain ‘ol basic “planning” … the kind that runs beyond Election Day? Are they all clueless … and self-serving beyond all bounds of basic decency?

The latest demonstration of short-sighted, narrow-minded “leadership” comes courtesy of the House Ways and Means Committee. Last week, the Committee’s majority, in their infinite wisdom, proposed a much-needed transportation bill which managed to all but eliminate currently-legislated funding for public transit, among other egregious, ignorant and decidedly ideological proposals having very little to do with national best interests.

This awesome display of brazen hypocrisy (and a giant “screw you” to millions of not-wealthy citizens who use and/or rely on public transit) calls for that funding to now take a number and wait in line for crumbs from the general fund—the same general fund which supplies the needed revenue for all other government spending. Now, the billions collected from the (wildly insufficient) gas tax will be directed exclusively to road programs, rather than allocating a percentage of those revenues to transit as has been customary and routine for decades.

But the good news is that the House wants $40 billion in spending cuts to offset this “transfer” of funding to the general fund. Another giant “screw the future” message….

With a House like this, what advances can American transportation policy make?
Actions by members of the U.S. House over the past week suggest that Republican opposition to the funding of alternative transportation has developed into an all-out ideological battle. Though their efforts are unlikely to advance much past the doors of their chamber, the policy recklessness they have displayed speaks truly poorly of the future of the nation’s mobility systems. [2]

Wouldn’t it be easier for them to just announce that they genuinely don’t give a shit about 99% of Americans? Think of how much time and energy they’d save by making it obvious to even the densest of right-wing, (non-wealthy only, of course) supporters that what’s in their best interests really does not matter any more than it does for those who support the Democrats.

Dan Smith of USPIRG put it like this:
The House Ways and Means Bill stops just short of defunding America’s public transit system. Instead it says that the real money with a funding source will all go to highways, while the tooth fairy will pay for transit. For Big Oil and the highway lobby, this is a dream, but it’s a nightmare for America’s transportation future. [3]

Here in Eastern Massachusetts, the state’s Department of Transportation recently rolled out a grim set of proposals designed to counter severe budget shortfalls. All indications are that an increase in the state’s gas tax as a viable source for funding is a dead issue before it’s even raised in the legislature, so cutbacks in Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority [MBTA] services—  coupled with fare hikes affecting commuter rail, bus, ferry, and subway riders—are Plan B. Parking fees at various transit stations would also be raised.

Under one scenario, fares overall would increase by 43 percent, while under the other, they would increase by 35 percent.
Under both scenarios, MBTA ferries would be eliminated, commuter rail weekend service would be eliminated and nighttime service would end at 10 p.m., and weekend service on [specified transit lines] would be eliminated.
But in the second scenario, a larger number of bus routes would be cut, generating savings that would enable the smaller fare increase. [4]

The MBTA also provides commuter rail service to the Massachusetts North Shore community where our summer home is located. We try to spend as many weekends there as we can during the late spring through mid-autumn period. But under what I labeled as the MBTA’s Plan B as noted above, elimination of weekend rail service there is also on the table.

… [O]fficials said there is no way to quantify exactly how many weekend visitors who come by commuter rail would stay away if they had to drive instead.
But during the summer, Rockport and Manchester fill with out-of-towners, many of whom take the commuter rail in order to save money or to avoid the difficultly of finding parking space. [5]

(That same article also notes this distressing fact: “According to the MBTA, 12 percent of commuter rail passengers would be affected by the cuts, and 6.7 million fewer people would ride the commuter rail each year than do currently.” That’s not an insignificant number of people obliged to now use autos instead….)

I’ll admit that to date this is not an issue affecting me personally. We drive to our summer home, as I’ve noted in other posts such as this one. I did, however, make use of public transportation on one notable occasion back in 2010, as I recounted (here):

As I noted way back when in my introduction to this blog, we are very fortunate. We own an exquisite (at least to us), spacious summer home a hundred yards or so from the Atlantic Ocean. We vacation here and enjoy every blessed minute of it! In normal driving conditions, it takes us fifty minutes or so to go door-to-door from our suburban Boston home to the ‘beach house’, which is where I am as I write this. What a treat for us!
Summer vacation usually means grabbing as much time as we can here—work and young adult schedules permitting. That means frequent travel along the Route 128/Interstate 95 corridor … most times with more than one vehicle; most times more than once or twice a week.
As a strong proponent of Peak Oil, I have decidedly mixed feelings about this, as I have mentioned before….I love this lifestyle, and I approach my task of disseminating information about our soon-to-be-curtailed availability of fossil fuel supply with more than my fair share of selfish trepidation. We do not yet own hybrid vehicles, and so we spend more than our fair share of time filling the gas tanks of my wife’s German import and my Japanese SUV in order to make many trips to and from our summer home from Memorial Day through mid-October. I balance that guilt with the acknowledgment (rationalization?) that I work from home, and that my wife’s office is about 6000 feet from our home, so we actually spend no more on gas than most other families.
Once gas prices begin their inevitable climb up, whether that’s later this year, next year, or a couple more years down the road, and with a simultaneous curtailment in how much fossil fuel will remain available to us to meet all of demands and expectations and needs, my rationalizations may not matter much.
With that in mind yesterday, for the first time in the 6 summers that we’ve owned this home, I used public transportation to make most of the journey from home to here at the beach house. My daughter drove me a couple of miles to a commuter rail stop which took me into Boston’s North Station, where I then—some fifteen minutes after my
arrival—boarded a different rail line to take me to the North Shore. I then hailed a cab to take me the three miles or so from the train station to our summer place. (I’ve already informed my wife that I will soon take public transportation door to door, just to see what that’s like. That will add two bus trips and a decent amount of walking at the beginning and end of my trip, along with two separate subway rides. I’m expecting at     least an additional hour of travel each way, but no more than a few more dollars in fares.)
The one way trip yesterday cost me about $20.00, and took me two hours and ten minutes door to door. Compare that to less than $10.00 of gas and less than 60 minutes of travel time when I drive. More expensive certainly, and clearly more time-consuming, but all in all it was a pleasant enough experience, and surprisingly scenic in several places along the way. It was nice to be able to read and engage in some computer work while traveling … not an option when I’m barreling along at 65 miles per hour on Route 128.

So when we all begin experiencing first-hand and on a regular basis the myriad consequences of reduced availability of the fossil fuel resources we’ve long taken for granted, how quickly can our local communities, regional administrations, states, and federal authorities reinstate and create new transportations modes? Has that thought occurred to any of our brilliant Congressional officials who now feel emboldened to all but eliminate these options right now because they are intellectually incapable of thinking beyond November, and morally opposed to anything that might smack of decency and national interest (except, of course, the national interests on the wealthy)?

How much money, time, effort, and resources can we be expected to waste by devoting all of those assets to highways and roadways used by gasoline-chugging vehicles … highways and roadways and vehicles whose usage and very existence will be challenged in decades to come when the availability of affordable, efficient, and plentiful fossil fuels is no longer routinely assured to the masses?

… A]s the consumer of a quarter of the world’s oil supply, we can have a significant effect on the world oil market by making sure that our economy can adjust quickly and easily to changes in the oil price….
Increased investment in alternative modes of transport, such as mass transit (both buses and rail), bike lanes, bike and car sharing, and walking improvements to allow many more workers the option of getting to their jobs without the use of a personal car.
Improvements in our nation’s rail system to allow more freight to be shifted from truck to rail.
Encouraging the electrification of transport (including the alternative transport options mentioned above) to provide transport options which are not dependent on oil.
In short, we need to make the market for transportation services more efficient by encouraging new entrants (mass transit, bikes, trains) and competition with the incumbent car/internal combustion engine infrastructure. [6]

Wouldn’t it be nice to have voted into office leaders who think about these fact-based possibilities on our behalf (even if these contrary-to-their-ideology issues are not 100%, absolutely guaranteed to occur in every moment and circumstance?)

Why should this be wishful thinking?

Sources:

[1] http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/national/11048-the-peak-oil-crisis-election-2012.html; The Peak Oil Crisis: Election 2012 by Tom Whipple – 02.01.12
[2] http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/02/06/time-to-fight/; Time to Fight by Yonah Freemark – 02.06.12
[3] http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/02/02/house-gop-takes-transit-funding-hostage/; House GOP Moves to Decimate Dedicated Transit Funding by Ben Goldman – 02.02.12

[4] http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/01/state-unveils-two-mbta-fare-increase-service-cut-scenarios/DoUG26YM6frTKPtULQkOUK/index.html; MBTA fares could rise as much as 43 percent; ferry, bus, commuter rail cuts also eyed by Martin Finucane – 01.03.12

[5] http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x1666061106/MBTA-service-cuts-seen-hurting-Cape-Ann; MBTA service cuts seen hurting Cape Ann by Stephanie Bergman – 01.05.12

[6] http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomkonrad/2012/01/26/the-end-of-elastic-oil/; The End of Elastic Oil by Tom Konrad – 01.26.12

Although here in the Boston area we couldn’t offer definitive proof that it’s winter (a few single digit wind chill days aside)—given that after a surprise few inches of snow here on Halloween weekend, our next accumulation of snow (all of two inches or so) didn’t occur until mid-January …  with just a couple of trivial “storms” since then along with some very nice, mild temperatures such as yesterday’s near-60 degrees—‘tis the season for winter getaways.

Family and business obligations serve as our excuses for upcoming travel. The first trip is to DC, but at the end of February we’ll spend 5 days in Orlando.

That prospect, like most other plans these days, got me thinking about what happens a few years down the road when travel requirements might still be part of at least some portion of the population—business or pleasure.

Both of our trips entail a seven or eight mile drive to and from Boston’s Logan Airport (not a big deal if you avoid the rush-hour-parking-lot-on-the-highway experience) and then round trip (nonstop) flights to both of our destinations. A rental car awaits us on our DC trip, corporate transportation in Orlando.

We figure the fares total about $1500.00 for my wife and I. It’s possible that two of our children will join us on the DC trip, so there’s the potential for added costs.

The nice thing is that we have a number of flight options available at the moment. Both trips afford us multiple nonstop options to and from our destinations, along with a number of other options via connecting flights.

The airline industry, battered though it may be, nonetheless generates tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue. That means a lot of employees, suppliers, suppliers’ employees, airports, airport employees and countless others up and down the supply and service chain depend on daily flights to feed their families and pay their bills. Warmer winter weather down South is usually sufficient incentive all by itself!

As will be the case for us, air travel usually includes hotel stays and some other transportation needs. Travel is indeed a big business. Aside from the airline and airline-related personnel and suppliers mentioned above, restaurants and retailers likewise depend on airline-delivered tourists and business travelers to help pad their bottom lines.

One issue that seems fairly obvious to me is that since no one has yet figured out how to fly planes on anything other than jet fuel—at least commercially and on a mass scale—what happens when refineries decrease the supplies of jet fuel because Peak Oil necessitates basic changes in the allocation and supply of crude oil and its by-products? [Tom Whipple wrote a piece on that very subject just last week.]

Supply and demand operates in the airline industry just as it does most other places in our increasingly global economy. So when demand remains as is, but supplies are harder to come by or much more expensive, what happens then?

How much business planning has even been considered to date, let alone implemented to any degree?

When we start brushing up against the limits of oil production (and I believe we already have) and are left scrounging around for less than ideal substitutes as the years go by, what happens to all of the winter tourist travels to warmer locales? What’s our Plan B?

What gets prioritized and why? Which business industries will insist upon travel priorities and actually get what they need? Who will be making those determinations? How will they and their travel planners deal with fewer flights, fewer hotels, fewer transportation, and fewer dining options?

What happens to business conferences [see my 2011 post on that topic here]. What adaptations and transitions will be required of and from businesses from the small local to the mega-giant internationals when travel and transportation needs are restricted? How quickly does all this planning fall into place if we’re not already starting now?

What happens when even more smaller airports shut down when diminished supply cuts into current demand?

And given the incredible shortsightedness our Congressional leaders routinely display, what transportation alternatives will be in place that won’t prove to be infinitely more inconvenient at best?

What happens when your children now living on an opposite coast are no longer afforded the same reasonable and reasonably-priced options to visit you? Now, booking flights is as simple a process as logging on and ordering up a flight. What happens when there aren’t as many flights, or the remaining ones aren’t as affordable, or conveniently located and scheduled because jet fuel prices have shot the through as a result of basic supply and demand constraints? My oldest friend’s daughter (my godchild) now lives in Colorado. How often will she be able to visit with her siblings and parents here on the East Coast when that travel shoe drops?

Of course, we could just come to a conclusion that jet fuel must remain a refinery priority, and the countless other industries relying on their piece of the refined oil product pie will have to take a number and wait their turn? Volunteers? Doubtful.

And what of all the related transportation services dependent on all these flights: rental cars, limos, taxis, hotels, restaurants, airport gift shops and the like? What happens to them, and their employees, and their suppliers? What kind of plans have been discussed in the boardrooms?

How many employees in each of those industries, each individual business establishment, and each spouse or partner or child dependent on each one of those countless employees might be adversely impacted when those businesses start to feel the serious pinch of declining energy supplies? We’ve already gotten a good taste of how our economy gets hammered by poor business environments … what happens when a failure to plan for alternatives leaves with us poor business and economic environments as the norm?

And what of the ripple effect?

What happens when this air travel decline is extended to hotels and rental cars and all the rest; when rental cars are either much more costly and/or there are less of them to begin with? What happens when the preferred hotels have downsized because business and tourist travel has declined?

Nothing escapes the reach of declining fossil fuel availability, and there is nothing on the horizon which suggests that any substitutes currently in place are anywhere near as plentiful, affordable, or energy efficient as good ‘ol crude oil.

The resource agenda for business leaders
To thrive in an era of higher and more volatile resource prices, companies will need to pay greater attention to resource-related issues in their business strategies. The goal must be to improve a company’s understanding of how resources will affect profits, produce new opportunities for growth and disruptive innovation, create new risks, generate competitive asymmetries, and change the regulatory context. [1]

It won’t happen all at once. Slow leaks are the more likely scenarios played out across countless industries. But if we’re not thinking about these possibilities now, or getting better ideas about what changes will be sure to occur and what options might be available to us as this years-long process unfolds, we’re not giving ourselves much of a chance.

I believe the top three challenges to making progress on solutions are: 1) a lack of public and policy maker knowledge on these issues, and strong resistance to understanding and believing that such a profound threat to everything that many of us hold so dear–our big houses, automobile-centered lifestyles, frequent air travel, access to consumer goods from around the world– is close at hand; 2) very strong vested interests that will oppose changes in their industries and how they do business; and 3) our amazing lack of preparation for what we are facing, after investing in a built environment, food production system, transportation system, and overall economy that is so heavily reliant on cheap and plentiful oil. [2]

Thinking about and planning for these likelihoods before they become monumental problems might not be a bad idea….

Sources:

[1] https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/ghost.aspx?ID=/Energy_Resources_Materials/Strategy_Analysis/Mobilizing_for_a_resource_revolution_2908; Mobilizing for a resource revolution by Richard Dobbs, Jeremy Oppenheim, and Fraser Thompson – January 2012
[2] http://countercurrents.org/cardoni230110.htm; Dealing With Peak Oil by Salvatore Cardoni & Dr. Brian Schwartz – 01.23.10

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….

What comes after the ideology is appeased? How do we each and collectively deal with the outcomes of roads taken and not taken?

I could spend hours pointing out the nonsense of Republican orthodoxy, and sure as hell ten from the Right will rise up and point out what an idiot I am because they happen to have Chart A, Opinion B, and Evidence C to show me why I’m so thoroughly wrong. And just as quickly, ten of my peers will produce Chart D, Opinion E, and Evidence F to show why the Right is clueless. There are surely no topics having influence or impacting any segment of society which are not subjected to this type of analysis, dialogue, and dispute. And on and on it goes….

As an ideological exercise designed to reassure us that we are obviously correct and our opponents are just as decidedly insane, there’s merit in continuing to wage philosophical, political, and economic war with those on the “other” side who just simply don’t get it … at all! Ever! In a fact-free and consequence-free world, we could indulge ourselves forever by playing this game. Every day is Groundhog Day.

What is this getting us, exactly (besides a healthy stroking of our egos and intellect, of course)?

Back in the day, when all of life was so much simpler and easier, we could afford to just take care of our own, prosper, debate, solve problems, and then carry on with the assurance that tomorrow all but guaranteed better opportunities than those of today. That dizzying pace never got away from us.

But today, “our own” is … everyone else, and the pace has quickened in every direction. Several billion people want to be just like the best of our best. But when the few best resist the efforts and attempts of everyone else, or deny them the very opportunities which boosted them up the ladder, we have problems. And when the game board itself has changed to, and we no longer have all the pieces we need to win the game on our own, we’ll have even more problems if we don’t consider changing the rules a bit—assuming “winning” is still the goal. If not, then the current winners will by and large remain, everyone else loses, and pretty soon, everyone loses … all 100% of us.

Sound like a good strategy for the 21st Century?

I’m thinking a bigger vision is needed. As I suggested several months ago: “do we bog ourselves down by nit-picking—working harder to find out why something won’t work or why it is not perfect in every way under every condition and for every person—or do we adopt a grander strategy that will under no conditions be perfect or even acceptable to everyone, but provides us with the best long-term opportunities…?”

That remains a choice we each and all own.

The challenges are exacerbated by little tricks each and every one of us plays. They must help us in the moment, else we would change, but introspection might offer up some different approaches to help us all, and for a longer period of time. We shouldn’t be turning down any chances to make things better.

… [P]eople who know very little about an issue — say the economic downturn, changes in the climate or dwindling fossil fuel reserves — tend to avoid learning more about it. This insulates them in their ignorance — a pattern described by researchers as ‘motivated avoidance.’
Faced with complicated or troubling situations, these people often defer to authorities like the government or scientists, hoping they have the situation under control….
‘This is psychologically easier than taking a significant amount of time to learn about an issue, all the while confronting unpleasant information about it,’ [Steven Shepard] added. [1]

Too often, the “authorities” deferred to have motivations and interests entirely at odds with those who have turned to them for assurances that everything is being managed and “under control.” The result is obvious: Authorities misinform, misdirect, or even outright lie to promote their own agenda.

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]

Is this the better and wiser approach (notwithstanding the pointlessness of it all)? Will there come a time when most of us (I’m not that optimistic!) decide that perhaps we ought to consider choosing paths which give us the best chance of leading to a reasonable and acceptable level of continuing well-being and prosperity—even if those choices do not mesh with the ideologies and beliefs we cling to so tenaciously?

That commitment requires that we take a moment to consider what happens if we don’t do so. This is not the time or place for delusion and denial.

… [A]n array of new discoveries in psychology and neuroscience has further demonstrated how our preexisting beliefs, far more than any new facts, can skew our thoughts and even color what we consider our most dispassionate and logical conclusions. This tendency toward so-called ‘motivated reasoning [citation]’ helps explain why we find groups so polarized over matters where the evidence is so unequivocal: climate change, vaccines, ‘death panels,’ the birthplace and religion of the president [citation], and much else. It would seem that expecting people to be convinced by the facts flies in the face of, you know, the facts….
We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close. We apply fight-or-flight reflexes not only to predators, but to data itself….
[O]ur quick-fire emotions can set us on a course of thinking that’s highly biased, especially on topics we care a great deal about….
‘[We] retrieve thoughts that are consistent with [our] previous beliefs,’ says Charles Taber [political scientist from Stony Brook University], ‘and that will lead [us] to build an argument and challenge what [we’re] hearing.’
In other words, when we think we’re reasoning, we may instead be rationalizing … Our ‘reasoning’ is a means to a predetermined end—winning our ‘case’—and is shot through with biases. They include ‘confirmation bias,’ in which we give greater heed to evidence and arguments that bolster our beliefs, and ‘disconfirmation bias,’ in which we expend disproportionate energy trying to debunk or refute views and arguments that we find uncongenial. [3]

Okay … guilty as charged. So now what?

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. “Greater/better” leads to greater responsibilities of course, and there are ample reasons why we may prefer to just leave that to others.

A choice, of course. But every choice has an outcome, and when the challenges are great, great effort is called for. The alternative outcome is usually quite obvious: worse….

Guilty as charged there, too. Not much long-term benefit, to be sure, but easier in the moment by a long shot….

… [A]ccording to Charles Taber and Milton Lodge of Stony Brook, one insidious aspect of motivated reasoning is that political sophisticates are prone to be more biased than those who know less about the issues. ‘People who have a dislike of some policy—for example, abortion—if they’re unsophisticated they can just reject it out of hand,’ says Lodge. ‘But if they’re sophisticated, they can go one step further and start coming up     with counterarguments.’ These individuals are just as emotionally driven and biased as the rest of us, but they’re able to generate more and better reasons to explain why they’re right—and so their minds become harder to change.
Cherry-picking is precisely the sort of behavior you would expect motivated reasoners to engage in to bolster their views. [4]

Sound familiar?

More shoulder-shrugging, or do we reach for and seek to be … more?

Sources:

[1] http://www.eenews.net/public/climatewire/2011/12/19/1; PUBLIC OPINION: Report finds ‘motivated avoidance’ plays a role in climate change politics, by Umair Irfan – 12.19.11
[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://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney; The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science – How our brains fool us on climate, creationism, and the vaccine-autism link, by Chris Mooney – 04.18.11
[4] Mooney

If we focus on trying to wean ourselves from dependence on oil, we can do it.
No, it won’t be easy–kicking an addiction never is. Yes, it might lead to some people eventually switching jobs or being slightly less fantastically wealthy (oil industry executives). And, yes, it will require some lifestyle and philosophical changes (ditto). But some of those changes will eventually be positive, not negative.
And, done intelligently, kicking our Middle Eastern oil addiction will also lead to the development of vast, exciting new jobs, companies, and industries–industries that we own and control and that will ultimately employ and enrich millions of Americans…..
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. [1]

Creating and disseminating an executable, unambiguous and widely adopted vision with supporting goals is one of the first steps to successful goal setting and implementation for any organization. The more complex the initiative and the larger the organization, the more important the creation and adoption of a shared vision becomes. [2]

Both quotes above echo themes I’ve been promoting since my first post more than two years ago. Addressing concerns and the challenges we face now by promoting ideas and policies designed to get us to the next election is not enough, and we should not for one moment be content with this strategy. Feckless Democrats and mind-numbingly narrow-minded Republicans serve no useful purpose, and we should all work to make sure that our elected leaders share the Vision we create for our future, and that they will abide by the directives we establish to make that our reality.

The challenges Peak Oil and Global Warming impose on us demand nothing less. Leadership has been almost entirely absent, and we’re past the point where we can wait through one or two more election cycles to get what we need. So far, we’ve gotten too much of the leadership we’ve deserved, and so there is responsibility on our parts to become more involved and knowledgeable about what takes place in the world outside our front door. Leaving others entirely in charge is no longer a viable option. The sooner we come to grips with that, the better our chances for the future most of us still hope to create.

Those themes are among the guiding tenets of what I’ll be proposing as this blog evolves, as I first suggested here.

As time passes, we’ll have fewer resources at our disposal to make the great changes we’re destined to make. Accordingly, we cannot afford to waste more now. We clearly have to find ways to move beyond the soul-crushing partisanship and the idiotic battles we wage to preserve ideologies at the expense of this great nation. Putting ourselves further behind cannot be a guiding strategy any longer. It never was, and is less so now.

So too must many of us come to accept that a blind, stubborn, and/or arrogant insistence on having now what once was is not the path forward either. Certainly it is more appealing and psychologically easier, given that it requires less of a (or no) commitment and effort on our part. We cannot do that to ourselves and our children, for one. And the uselessness of Congressional officials has made it abundantly clear that ceding all authority to them is a pointless exercise on its best days. We should be far more embarrassed than we are. We need to move beyond that, as well. Finger-pointing cannot be in the playbook, either.

In truth, the future could be unrecognizably harder than today in as little as 20 years. To reject this real possibility is to be willfully biased toward a bright future. Just because I warn of a possible future of hardship does not mean that I reject the notion that we could pull through the transition ahead in glorious fashion to a splendid shiny future for all. In fact, I’d love to see this happen, and I’d love it if we find a way around all my worries. But given the scale of our challenges, we would be foolish to assume that this path will materialize.
Assuming that a high-tech future will naturally unfold on the back-side of this curve is dangerous.
But for us to pretend that we are not stressing the ecosystem on a multitude of fronts at a scale never before seen in this world is irresponsible. It really is no wonder that we have a sense of unraveling. The future is unwritten, and the recent past may not be a good     template for the near future. We must accept that we face in the decline of fossil fuels the mother of all problems for humanity, and that past success has been against the backdrop of cheap and abundant energy. An unfamiliar phase awaits. [3]

The evidence of a warming planet and diminishing fossil fuel supplies are everywhere. What’s not at all clear are the motivations which support the destructive strategy of denial (although Naomi Klein had a brilliant piece on this recently—one to which I’ll be devoting considerable time to in the next few weeks.) Changes are going to force adaptations on our part. We can either lead by making intelligent, rational choices for the long term, or be at the mercy of changes for which we’ve instead chosen to be foolishly unprepared.

One could go on. The point is that the way we live together now, the way we govern ourselves, the way we arrange our physical spaces and our commerce, the way we do economics and measure prosperity—all these have to be changed in creative ways if we want to achieve the goal of sustainable prosperity. All these changes require … wait for it … innovation. Innovations in the way we think, interact, and structure our lives require just as much imagination, intelligence, persistence, and funding as innovations in technology. [4]

We buy fire insurance for our homes even though the likelihood of ever needing it are exceedingly small. The National Fire Protection Association reports that approximately 400,00 house fires occurred per year in the last half of this past decade. The U.S. Census Bureau reports there are more than 90 million single detached and mobile homes in this country, and 40 million other types of housing units. The percentage of homes requiring such coverage is thus exceedingly small, on the order of about four-thousandths of a percent if I did the math correctly (odds aren’t good, but regardless, the number is small!)

We weigh the risks and decide nonetheless that it is one we cannot and will not chance. Global warming is happening, and the quantity and quality of fossil fuel reserves available to us will not meet demand in the years to come. Much better odds (almost a guarantee) of dealing with the varied and overwhelming consequences, yet we are doing almost nothing about these challenges which carry the potential for greater harm and disruption to all of us! Hello!

Even if you want desperately to doubt, and can muster all the artillery possible which favors your point of view, the reality is what it is. Deniers must demonstrate the courage to at least consider the possibilities that there are indeed many truths and facts in support of the evidence they so ardently deny, and thus preparation and planning ought to at the very least be considered.

If you choose not to purchase fire insurance for your home because of your supreme confidence it will never be needed, then this argument will fall on deaf ears. But for all the others, you owe it yourselves and your children to consider the possibility—however slim it might appear to be from your perspective—that the evidence offered by your ideological opponents might … just might, have some validity.

America needs to resurrect the benevolent community and take on a new challenge. The Great Seal of the United States bears the dictum, ‘E Pluribus Unum,’ Out of many, one. That’s the historic spirit of America that is needed now more than ever. [5]

Sources:

[1] 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
[2] http://www.businessofgovernment.org/blog/strategies-font-color-redcut-costsfont-and-improve-performance/reduce-energy-use-leading-vision; Reduce Energy Use: Leading with a Vision and Acting with Strategic Intent by Tim Fain – 07.20.11
[3] http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/12/the-future-needs-an-attitude-adjustment/; The future needs an attitude adjustment by Tim Murphy – 12.27.11
[4] http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51627; Why Bill Gates is wrong by David Roberts – 02.17.10
[5] http://www.opednews.com/articles/Lost-in-Space-The-Decline-by-Bob-Burnett-110715-765.html; Lost in Space: The Decline of the American Spirit by Bob Burnett – 07.15.11