And no, I'm not talking about whatever drivel I might put to paper, so to speak, but rather what someone else has to say. I'll link to that commentary shortly.
But first, I'd like to offer a couple of quotes from folk warning about the dangers of peak oil (Peak Oil, n. the condition at which oil production has reached its zenith, and from which point on, oil production will decrease and oil prices increase).
The quotes:
By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day.
and,
What people need to hear loud and clear is that we’re running out of energy in America.
Who are these alarmists? Anti-corporate environmental wackos with an agenda? They're none other than Dick Cheney and George W. Bush, respectively.
If our esteemed oil barons-in-chiefs think we're facing dire times with a looming oil shortage, who am I to disagree? But how bad could it be? I mean, if gas gets expensive enough, we'll simply drive less, right? That's how the market works to self-correct, right?
Maybe not, if this fella is anywhere near right. Please read at least a bit of what Matt Savinar says at Peak Oil: Life After the Oil Crash. Or, for a shorter but excellent essay on the situation, visit our old friend, Eleutheros.
Is Savinar exaggerating the consequences of our actions? Perhaps. With our limited capacity for genius, we simply can't guess with complete accuracy what the results of bad policies will be. But he makes an intriguing case that's hard to ignore. What do you think?
7 comments:
Here's a slightly different perspective.
I certainly hope it's true. Can you imagine what shape our planet (and its peoples) would be in if we continued as we are for another hundred years?
Without a doubt, we will run out of affordable oil in this century (or so it seems now) and probably this decade. I just hope we can make the transition gracefully and don't do something foolish like develop little nuclear powered tanks to replace the cars...
Interesting perspective Wasp, and I usually like Palast but I'm not sure if I'm buying what he's selling today.
Gregg Palast has been thoroughly critiqued and debunked on several peak oil blogs and sites (see: peakoil.blogspot.com and www.theoildrum.com).
His view is clever, but he needs to dip into his savings and buy a clue. Hubbert did not predict when we would run out of oil, he predicted when oil production would peak. That is, he predicted when we would run out of CHEAP oil.
Hubert predicted in 1956 that US domestic oil production would peak in 1970. He wasn't guessing or speculating, it was a mathmatical analysis. He predicted that world oil production would peak by a formula. That is, if use continued unabated from his perspective in the 50's, it would have peaked in the year 2000. But production and use dipped in the mid 70's during the oil price shock and that delayed the peak year, according to his formula, to the year ...... yes, you guessed it .... 2006.
Palast says that there is essentially no problem. So we run out of cheap oil, that only means that there will abundant expensive oil (the gist of his blurb). What he leaves off is that as far as our economy and our very civilization go, that's like saying there's limited supply of free air to breathe, no problem, there will plenty of expensive air for those who can pay for it.
One difference beteween Savinar's case and Palast's is that Savinar has extensive and credible references for his claims. Virtually everything he says has a link to a reliable source to back it up. That's what makes it so compelling, and scary.
Palast makes some claims that I'd like to see sources for, because they are news to me...
Dan,
Interesting post. I have the school of thought that the market regulates supplies, but I have yet to check out your links. I may be wrong.
Here is my question though, and it addresses remarks from liberals in general. What exactly makes our P and VP oil barons-in-chief? And why do people always insist that they are in the oil companies pockets? If its because of Cheney's connection to Halliburton, I understand. But in my opinion, choosing not to regulate oil prices or simply not raising the 18 cent federal gas tax does not qualify "being in the oil companies pockets." I would consider oil subsidies as being so, but simply regulating a market less than one wishes does not mean it is done so out of corruption, necessarily.
By the way, I blogrolled your blog.
Thanks, Chance. Sorry I didn't notice this sooner.
As to your question about P and VP, I think many of us have made the (what-we-consider) logical jump that they're beholden to and in bed with the Petroleum industry because:
1. It's the field from which they've come
2. The Petroleum industry heavily invested in Bush/Cheney at election time
3. The Administration wrote its energy policy at meetings with the Petroleum people (the minutes to those meetings, by the way, which Bush/Cheney refused to surrender to the GAO, despite an order to do so)
4. They've stacked their staff with Fossil fuel industry ex-officios. When the Coal Industry overseer is someone from the Coal industry, it's a bit like having the fox guard the ol' chicken house.
Reasons like that. We're suspicious of Big Gov't that way.
It's not even that most of us suspect too much of any kind of conspiracy. It's more that these are people who deeply believe in Fossil Fuel solutions, who've become rich thanks to the Fossil Fuel industry and, with no balance, we think it's logical to assume that we're getting a very lopsided policy machine.
I forget who said it or the exact quote, but as someone roughly once said:
It is difficult to have an open mind when our income depends upon seeing things one way.
Post a Comment