For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Joined: May 02, 2005 Posts: 3277 Location: at the convention
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 10:45 am Post subject: Effectively Breaking Through PO Denial
1. Present irrefutable facts. As much as possible, choose facts that have have no counter argument available.
2. Extract conclusions from the listener. Do not define outcomes for them.
Here is the order I would present the facts:
1. Mega field production, percentage of total, and age of fields. Reference Matthew Simmons (I have the link at home and will paste it in later).
2. Single field production modeling(basic curve, examples of specific field history, texas is best, links anyone?)
3. New projects coming on line (petroleum review mega projects, link later).
4. Growth in demand projections(IEA, etc.)
5. Impact of historical oil shocks.
That's all the time I have at the moment. Please expand on this and comment. We all need help in this area, I think.
I doubt the "tough love" or "confrontational" approach common with addiction denials is helpful here. That's just my very uneducated opinion, I would really like some expertise to weigh in on this issue. _________________ "Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
Robert A. Heinlein
Joined: Sep 05, 2004 Posts: 205 Location: Washington, DC
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 2:31 pm Post subject:
present all of the best available data you can... let people draw their own conclusions. if they still aren't convinced... just tell them: "then wait and you will see"
One problem with previous oil shocks is that they always ended....
Joined: May 02, 2005 Posts: 3277 Location: at the convention
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 4:04 pm Post subject:
TheTurtle wrote:
Just out of curiosity, who are you trying to convince?
"Average American", I guess. I hadn't really considered a specific target audeince when I first posted topic. _________________ "Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
Robert A. Heinlein
Joined: May 26, 2004 Posts: 309 Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 9:40 pm Post subject:
The approach I'm currently trying is to briefly set up Hubbert, and then hit the audience with my "kill list":
-By backdating oil reserves (examining the date of discovery, not business statements), it becomes clear world oil discovery actually peaked in 1964
-80% of the global oil supply is from fields found in 1973 or earlier, and 20% comes from 14 giant oilfields whose average age is over 50 years old
-Since 1980, with perhaps 2 exceptions, each year the world found less oil than it consumed
-Currently, the world can only find one barrel of oil for every 4 it uses
-Almost every non-OPEC nation is already peaking or post-peak
-Spurious reserve revisions suggest OPEC stocks may be severely over-estimated
-World energy demand is projected to triple by 2050, with China and India becoming car nations
-No mega projects (fields with over 500 million barrels of oil) were found in 2003 or 2004, something which has not happened for over 70 years. None are scheduled to come online after 2007, and any we found today would take 6+ years to develop
-For various practical reasons, tar sands and shale oil will almost certainly never contribute more than 10% of current world demand – never mind growing demand
-There is a fair consensus about how much oil the world contains. If you triple that, for the sake of argument, and run the Hubbert equations, you still get a peak within 25 years
Hopefully it has been made clear that oil is on the way out; Hubbert is merely the best predictive tool available, not some radical method. Discussion about alternatives & etc. can later follow as required (you'd have to build 2 nuke plants every day, not enough platninum for hydrogen, etc.)
If anyone has other bullet points, I'm collecting. I really should go back and find the exact references for each point (most are from Campbell's work, a little ODAC).
For natural gas I usually let this do the talking. (Source). _________________ "Our forces are now closer to the center of Baghdad than most American commuters are to their downtown office."
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, April 2003
Joined: May 02, 2005 Posts: 3277 Location: at the convention
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 3:43 am Post subject:
Great job whitecrab! The gas link does indeed speak for itself. _________________ "Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
Robert A. Heinlein
Joined: May 02, 2005 Posts: 3277 Location: at the convention
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 3:49 am Post subject:
TheTurtle wrote:
MD wrote:
TheTurtle wrote:
Just out of curiosity, who are you trying to convince?
"Average American", I guess. I hadn't really considered a specific target audeince when I first posted topic.
Target audience makes a difference.
Next question: why bother trying to convince Average American?
Because early awareness can help.
Question right back at you...why wouldn't you want to convince Average Americans? _________________ "Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
Robert A. Heinlein
Joined: May 02, 2005 Posts: 3277 Location: at the convention
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 3:56 am Post subject:
Great job whitecrab! The gas link does indeed speak for itself. _________________ "Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
Robert A. Heinlein
I agree with the general approach, but the facts and the order they are presented should be chosen depending on the person you are talking with. The facts and order you suggest are good for convincing a technical person. A non-technical person will be confused and unsure about technical details. Think of somebody trying to convince you about some theory on an area you know little about. They wouldn't convince you, because you don't know enough about the subject to develop a clear opinion.
My approach with a non-technical person that is familiar with economy is presenting economic facts first, and then explaining that the problem is structural because of geological reasons.
If the person is neither technical nor financially savvy, I would approach the problem as "experts think that there's a new oil crisis brewing". Everybody knows what an oil crisis is. Then present facts coming from whatever authority this person respects. The latest energy speeches of Bush can be quite convincing, for example.
Joined: May 14, 2005 Posts: 2125 Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 6:49 am Post subject:
MD wrote:
TheTurtle wrote:
MD wrote:
TheTurtle wrote:
Just out of curiosity, who are you trying to convince?
"Average American", I guess. I hadn't really considered a specific target audeince when I first posted topic.
Target audience makes a difference.
Next question: why bother trying to convince Average American?
Because early awareness can help.
Early awareness COULD have helped. But the time for EARLY awareness was three decades ago when President Carter asked everyone to put on a sweater and lower their thermostast and drive 55mph. Very few Average Americans listened then and now it is exactly too late to make any difference on any appreciable level. The damage has been done. The dye is cast. The consequences are inevitable.
Quote:
Question right back at you...why wouldn't you want to convince Average Americans?
Because the Average American does NOT want to hear that their Way of Life is fundamentally wrong. The Average American likes his SUV. The Average American likes her McMansion in suburbia filled with inexpensive gadgets manufactured and shipped from far away. The Average American likes green. green lawns devoid of biodiversity (which they call "weeds" and assualt with massive amounts of herbicides). The Average American will not only NOT want to listen to you, but they will also go out of their way to ridicule your concerns. So, if pounding your head against the wall seems like a good way to spend your time, go ahead and try to convince the Average American. Enjoy yourself.
On the other hand, if your target audience is friends and family, then that is a different thing. And you MUST try to reach them with compassion and concern. Because mental flexibility is the key to surviving the years to come. Average Americans can't acquire that trait anytime soon, but perhaps a handful of those closest to you can be shown the way. For that, Doly and Whitecrab have given good advice.
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 16 Location: Oahu, Hawaii
Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 3:02 am Post subject:
Because I believe that with proper leadership, it is possible for a nation like the U.S. to execute programs that will greatly soften the impact of the decline in fossil fuel supplies. However, an enlightened populace must come first, because the required programs will demand the whole-hearted support of most of the people. Granted, the likelihood of pulling it off is not all that great, but....
I bought 5 copies of "The End of Suburbia" (DVD) and am keeping them moving among individuals and groups. I also write letters to newspapers, some of which get published. It might not help, but one has to try.
I think many people in general don't want to "soften the impact." They are so confident in themselves and their abilities (either well founded or not)that I think they see greater opportunity for wealth and power in the increase and escalation in competition for resources than a more planned egalitarian approach. It wouldn't matter that it isn't likely they will thrive, the idea that the opportunity is there to test whether they could is much more important to them.
Joined: May 02, 2005 Posts: 3277 Location: at the convention
Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 3:24 pm Post subject:
Back to the original topic:
How to effectively present the facts of Peak Oil? _________________ "Don't ever become a pessimist... a pessimist is correct oftener than an optimist, but an optimist has more fun, and neither can stop the march of events."
Robert A. Heinlein
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
