[Graeme]

Three Cheers for Peak Oil!

After decades of back-and-forth, the debate about peak oil boils down to two points of contention: Is peak oil real, and is it cause for concern? But instead of arguing tired positions that don’t seem to be converging on consensus, maybe it’s time we shift our tack and instead see what we can do to bring about the peak as soon as possible.

So although peak oil sounds intimidating and disastrous, if its arrival is concurrent with a change in our consumptive culture, new behaviors, and the development of an abundant, domestic, renewable, clean, low-carbon alternative, then it can also be synonymous with many good things. Peak oil might mean peak smog. Peak water pollution. Peak obesity. Peak traffic congestion. Peak carbon. We might return to nature hikes, walking or cycling (to my daughter’s delight!).

If we find a suitable alternative to oil and quit worrying about when its production will decline (thus putting the “peak” behind us), it is possible to imagine a world where, instead of fighting over scraps of oil left below territories controlled by brutal dictators, we make oil irrelevant, and leave these autocrats sitting above boundless reserves of worthless oil, wondering what they did wrong to squander their mineral resource wealth. In these ways, peak oil can help us reduce our foreign entanglements and bolster our diplomacy. Such an approach is in great contrast with today, where our energy trade insistently undermines our foreign policy.

earthmagazine

Michael E. Webber
Webber is associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas at Austin. For more information, please visit: www.webberenergygroup.com. The views expressed are his own.

[Quinny]

Second para starts with bloody big IF!! :evil:

[jdmartin]

Not only that, but *if* we found a suitable replacement then none of the things in the first paragraph would probably end up being true anyway.

[mos6507]

Another guy who should read Overshoot.

[Roy]

ahem... Sarcasm alert!!!!

Clearly, the idea of finite resources such as crude oil (and the idea that extraction of such could have a maximum rate), is some loony whack job theory concocted by America hating conspiracy theorists, racists, white supremacists, terrorists, eco-nazis, communists, socialists, evolution believing scientific heretics, geologists, and petroleum engineers.

The Bible doesn't say anything about limited resources therefore any reference to such cannot be true.

If Rush/O'reilly/Hannity/televangelists: if they don't believe it, I don't believe it. That guy Lindsay Williams says there is another Saudi Arabia in Alaska and that the liberals are keeping us from drilling it. The oil companies are responsible along with the liberals, OPEC, PETA, Unions, and Obama.

If resources are finite then our whole society and its dominant paradigm are completely and irretrievably fucked. Wait, that can't be true because it just can't. That would be too awful to contemplate. Why are you guys always focusing on tinfoil hattery? Say a prayer and everything will be alright.



Sound about right?



Happy day.

[hillsidedigger]

The only possible replacement for oil will simply be 'doing without oil'

which will quickly result in the world's current number of people being radically reduced and the reduction will be a good thing for the survivors.

[Maddog78]

Second para starts with bloody big IF!! :evil:

Exactly what I was thinking.

Isn't that the whole damn problem? The answer for IF?

[Windmills]

Three Cheers for Peak Oil!

So although peak oil sounds intimidating and disastrous, if its arrival is concurrent with a change in our consumptive culture, new behaviors, and the development of an abundant, domestic, renewable, clean, low-carbon alternative, then it can also be synonymous with many good things. Peak oil might mean peak smog. Peak water pollution. Peak obesity. Peak traffic congestion. Peak carbon. We might return to nature hikes, walking or cycling (to my daughter’s delight!).

[/i]

The arrival won't be concurrent in any sense that will delight your daughter; the arrival will force those changes in an intimidating and disastrous manner. Less consumption will be the image of your emaciated body. Renewable energy will be your tired, sore feet. Less smog and water pollution will mean more homeless, more jobless, more desperation, more crime, more foreclosures, more urban blight. Peak traffic congestion will mean your daughter won't get that new bike shipped to her from across the world. You'll be on your nature hike because you'll be scrounging for food out in the woods while your daughter is crying and telling you that she's hungry and wishes the days before peak oil would come back.

"We weren't as hungry back when there was more smog, daddy."

That sends a shiver down mine spine, what with my infant son. Anyway. Enjoy your utopia.

[Graeme]

The author is imagining a world which is much better without oil. Population is another issue. I think all would agree that the world is better off without oil.

The second point relates to the IF question. Some have answered in the negative - surprise, surprise. Imagine again if you will that you are living in the 60's. Imagine the President saying that we will put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Get the picture?

[Maddog78]

Imagine the President saying that we will put a man on the moon by the end of the decade without using oil.
Get the picture?

[Graeme]

You missed the point. The issue is a technological challenge (of replacing oil with substitutes) that requires political will. It is nothing to do with oil. This effort is already underway.

[Maddog78]

You have a lot more faith in political will helping to replace an irrepaceable commodity than I do.

[joewp]

You missed the point. The issue is a technological challenge (of replacing oil with substitutes) that requires political will. It is nothing to do with oil. This effort is already underway.

Graeme, I believe I once challenged you to read "Overshoot" and get back to us. That would cure your lack of understanding of physics, biology and ecology. What you're missing is that there's no "political will" that can replace the ancient, massive energy savings account that oil (and other fossil fuels) represented. It's not a "technical challenge", it's an ecological predicament, the same predicament that algae face when they've consumed most of the detritus in the pond, the same predicament the reindeer on St. Matthew Island faced when they ate all the accumulated lichen and the the same predicament faced by the Mayans, Easter Islanders and countless other civilizations throughout history.

You and the author of the article in the original post have no inkling of what we're facing here, none at all.

[Graeme]

Joewp. The problem is finding a replacement or substitute for oil. This does require political will. Do you agree that the oil supply is finite? Then eventually we have to replace it gradually with something else. There are thousands of people working this problem now. I can't find reference to all their efforts. From what I can gather, movement away from oil is faltering. If you read my thread entitled sustainability news in the finance forum, you can see that some progress has been made in some states (eg Colorado). We won't know the impact of the Waxman-Markey bill until after July. Replacing oil requires political wil.

As I said above, population growth is a separate issue. Increasing population will deplete our resources faster. It just makes the technological challenge of finding a replacement for oil more urgent. I understand the issues of overshoot because I can read ecology articles. If you read the excellent scientific american article i referred to above, then you will see that the best way to reduce population is to educate women. This is a separate problem.

[ki11ercane]

We do not have enough cheap available fossil fuels to make the transaction with our current population, economical and environmental damage load. We're 50 years too late. Sorry to be so gloomy but sometimes reality is just that. It will take a total collapse and re-invention of our economy, a culling of about 6/7th's of our planetary population, and an energy solution that has ZERO effect on the environment to make this "transition." None of this is even being considered and no one is running to cut their mortal coil. What is being FORCED on us is an economical and environmental destruction which may produce a population reduction but not enough to have an effect.

Enjoy the party. Plan for your kids. That's all "we" can do. Unfortunately we are a species that has destruction of our selves imbedded in our DNA.

[Graeme]

I don't think reality is quite as bad as you portray. Sure we have problems. Try to look for the more positive contributions that are being made every day to improve our predicament. I am posting some of these.

[mos6507]

the best way to reduce population is to educate women. This is a separate problem.

It's not a separate problem in my mind. The "problem" is an attempt by humanity to grow beyond its limits. Solve the oil issue and the population issue (as well as lingering environmental doom) remains.

[mos6507]

I don't think reality is quite as bad as you portray. Sure we have problems. Try to look for the more positive contributions that are being made every day to improve our predicament. I am posting some of these.

Expect the worst, hope for the best. I appreciate your posts. If everyone in the world were as doomy as doomers then we wouldn't see the sort of R&D going on that you post about. Everyone would be rushing to the bunker. So whether the optimism is deluded or not, I'd rather see an effort be made than not be made.

[joewp]

Joewp. The problem is finding a replacement or substitute for oil.

Graeme, there is no substitute for oil. Either we find a way to live at a much reduced energy level and reduce our population as humanely as possible, or both will be forced on us by circumstances. Like mos, I appreciate your posting of these hopeful projects and articles. Unlike mos, I think they're wastes of resources that could otherwise be used to mitigate the impact of peak oil.

Of course, since 99% of the world is in complete denial of the predicament, we're not going to mitigate the problem, we're going to step on the gas right over the cliff and do everything possible to make the problem even worse.

That's why I'm well stocked up on popcorn.

[Graeme]

I don't think reality is quite as bad as you portray. Sure we have problems. Try to look for the more positive contributions that are being made every day to improve our predicament. I am posting some of these.

Expect the worst, hope for the best. I appreciate your posts. If everyone in the world were as doomy as doomers then we wouldn't see the sort of R&D going on that you post about. Everyone would be rushing to the bunker. So whether the optimism is deluded or not, I'd rather see an effort be made than not be made.

Thank you mos. We are trying to solve our problems. I think some are giving up too soon. If everybody was educated and thought in a positive manner, then our problems would be greatly diminished.