40 comments on Peak Oil and Community Solutions Conference (Saturday)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
40 comments on Peak Oil and Community Solutions Conference (Saturday)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
—Gandhi
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
The US embargo does not deny Cubans access to free market energy - their own government does.
Pol Pot was a Communist as is Fidel Castro. Both have ruined the countries they rule or ruled. How is pointing out the self-avowed similarities an extreme right wing marker?
The presenter on sustainable agriculture would argue (if he dared) that the elimination of billions of people would be a "natural" and logical consequence of the policies he sees as necessary. The only way to get to the future he postulates and advocates is mass death. Pol Pot caused the death of millions of his subjects in the name of his ideology too. Granted, Pol Pot was worst but then, none of the presenters have gotten absolute control of a country yet!
I'm criticizing proposals, analysis, and methods that are founded on a strain of political thought that has caused the misery and death of millions of people over the last 100 years - Radical Leftism.
While trying to fathom people's motivations is always risky, I also think that radical leftists are attracted to Peak Oil issues BECAUSE the topic offers the prospect of radical transformation of industrial civilization and would weaken the existing democratic paradigm. One can see this is in the anti-Americanism in Campbell and others, a topic with little to do with the geology and technology of oil extraction. Admit it, doesn't the heart quicken at the thought of being in the Vanguard of Sustainability?
As to Stuart's point about we all have to live together, I'd have to remind people that even Stalin had to give Trotsky the ax for being too radical.
I'm listening too but what I'm hearing is too often not constructive and is too often against the peace, freedom, and tranquility of the great mass of people. And guess what? People are going to catch on and any discussion of "peak oil" will be labeled a subject for cranks and discontents only.
As to me being a Republican - yep. Straight ticket, Rocked Ribbed, and (if those new nukes get ordered), maybe someday a Country Club Republican. Higher gasoline taxes, excess profits taxes, and price controls are all too liberal for me. I will say that the re-regulation of electric utilities is a sensible idea so you can call me a Progressive Republican.
I do feel that peak oil is going to pose some challenges for Republicans. Carter was the first peak-oil president. Your leaders, from Reagan through Bush II, have been extremely clear that it was "Morning in America" and that any effort to conserve energy, or even research conserving energy, was a bad idea. I think that's going to be very politically damaging and hard to shake off, if indeed the near-term peak hypothesis is correct. I also think the interaction of net-present-value calculations with both renewable and non-renewable resources is going to look, well, imprudent, as we get into a post peak world. So I think free-market economics might take a big ideological hit, in the same way that the collapse of the Soviet Union just about finished off Marxism as a credible ideology.
However, all that makes me extremely appreciative of those of you Republicans who are more interested in the truth about peak oil than defending your ideological position. In general, I prefer competence and pragmatism over ideological correctness (eg I would vote for a Schwarzenegger/Giuliani type Republican sooner than a Ralph Nader type leftist and I'm with Dave in his call for a 2008 Roscoe Bartlett presidential campaign).
I am handicapped by not being in attendence but I didn't mean to imply that some presenter is ADVOCATING the immediate death of billions. I'm also sympathetic to a vision of our planet with only 1 billion rather than 8 or 10 billion - but only as a fantasy. To present and advocate policies that condone and facilitate such a policy of involuntary population reduction is morally analogous to building the mythical Doomsday Machine back in the Cold War days and just as repugnant. Both are bad ideas and pointless.
The only morally worthy activity is to engage in physical and mental work to keep the current world population fed, healthy, educated, and prosperous. Zero population growth is an excellent, useful position but willful, involuntary NEGATIVE population change is unethical.
As to Cuba, how an imploding, isolated, comand and control economy can offer meaningful "lessons" to a giant, global, vibrant free market is difficult for me to envision. Also, I don't think that anyone has proposed an overnight 50% reduction in oil supply as a plausible scenario for the US economy.
Remember that Beatles lyric:
"You go talking about Chairman Mao, ain't nobody gonna listen anyhow..."
To reiterate my political point - the Peak Oil community needs to understand the moral and ethical implications of their advocacy. Your efforts will be endorsed by the wider community only as to how it is judged to support the welfare of people. Holding up an enslaved society like Cuba as an exemplar or prescribing the death of 80% of the world's population will get you turned off and ignored.
Secondly, no, we are not going to lose 50% of our oil in one year. But "a giant, global, vibrant free market" is in a way far more sensitive to smaller declines in oil supplies than was Cuba. Once we are on the backside of the oil curve, we could see declines over 5% or more a year. If this were the case, without adequate preparation, the results could be very serious.
two points:
- the point about Cuba is that a command economy might be more capable of making a rapid adjustment to a change in its circumstances, than a more free market economy.
There is precedent. By any measure, the most successful economies in WWII at mobilising resources for war were the British and the Russian. The latter was already a completely socialist state, and the former adopted total market socialism (rationing, the works) for the period of WWII-- so successful was Britain, that despite having a pre war economy only half the size of the Nazi one, and despite the brutal disruptions of the submarine war, in 1941 they managed to outproduce the Nazi economy in terms of total war production. It was a stupendous feat, and, indeed, another part of Britain's 'finest hour'. (see Alan Milward, The World Economies 1939-45. Penguin Books).
- 50% drop in oil supplies is dramatic. But it's not impossible. It would take a serious blowup in the Middle East, but the world is on a very fragile supply line from Middle Eastern oil. If someone found a way to close the mouth of the Gulf, and/or there was a revolution in Saudi Arabia, we would be well on the way to a 50% cut in supply.
Cuba made a dramatic shift. If one believes the Peak Oil thesis, the whole western world will have to make that shift, albeit over a longer time period.
Such a time period may give time for the marketplace to work its magic, create new technologies and new sources of energy. But we can't double the fuel efficiency of the US car fleet overnight for example.
Welcome to the Oil Drum.
The Republican Party has been hijacked by some truly scary groups of people. Whether it is the 'tax cuts, above all' crowd, regardless of the Federal Budgetary position, or the 'the Gospel of Revelations determines our Middle Eastern policy' or 'there is no global warming', the modern Republican party has been hijacked by the radical fringe.
The point about Cuba was what does a society do when it is forced to alter its position radically in a very short time period?
Whatever we might think of Cuba (a fairly unpleasant totalitarian state) the fact that they adapted so quickly and successfully is a tribute to their people and their system. Cuba is not wholly responsible for its current position (the US embargo is mean and irrational) but it is substantially so.
The open question, in light of some of the events of the 1970s in the US, or the petrol strike in the UK in 2000, is whether our societies could adapt as quickly to changed circumstances.
My own view is the global CO2 problem will be the acid test. If we don't tackle it, with substantive measures, and soon, we won't have any options left by mid century.