Trying to get the word out about peak oil (and the Oil Drum) via Digg.com, I wrote up a "diggbait" post that you can read at my blog:

http://www.saveandconserve.com/2006/12/top_25_peak_oil_websites.html

If you think the list is worthy, please head over to Digg.com and digg the post. To find the post at Digg, just search for "peak oil" or click this

If the post gets 50 to 75 diggs, there is a good chance it could land on the front page of the World & Business section.

That could drive significant awareness of sites like TOD to Digg users who otherwise would not be searching for "peak oil".

thanks! -tom

Dude, CERA and PeakOilDebunked in your top 25? And ahead of Ken Deffeyes and Kunstler's pages? Come on now, put down the CERA-crackpipe.

On a unrelated note,

To Dave Cohen and other smart asses reading this:

I call dibbs on the future article title "Smoking the CERA Crackpipe"

Something must be done
About vengeance, a badge and a gun
cause I'll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system
I was born to rage against em

Fist in ya face, in the place
And Ill drop the style clearly
Know your enemy...know your enemy!

If you had ever bothered to read Peak Oil Debunked, you would realize that its not about denying Peak Oil, but rather about humanities options to solve the Peak Oil Problem.

Granted, certain articles go into details about how the PO movement and neo-green activist are intricately linked to force Americans back to the farmlands.  Others deal with the PO communities beliefs that there is no more oil to be found.  But on the whole, it's a wealth of information that you probably wont find here as most of us seemed to concede that we are screwed and that no technological solutions and efficiency gains can possibly help us :P

hothgar, the global village is screwed.  "Techno solutions and efficiency gains" will be very useful in some places, some times, but will not save Humpty Dumpty.

Lol, you didn't read any of the "peak oil debunked" articles, did you. They are actually very insightful. You have problems seeing how anyone could survive your coming "apocalypse", but only because you start with assumptions that make survival impossible. If we need oil (not energy, oil) to survive, then we'll all eventually die, but that scenario is not terribly realistic.

It has the (for instance) tiny problem of explaining the existence of advanced societies long before oil was discovered, and explaining how it is that some advanced societies use vastly less oil than others. The correlation (to say nothing of causation) you're looking for (between oil and advanced society) is not immediately evident.

I went to the Podebunked site once. When I saw Colin Campbell compared to Osama Bid Laden, I realized jd was insane.
I missed that. Can you give me a date? I've got to read it.

JD is pretty funny, but he has always been sane. I'm not saying you are wrong, I just think it needs a second opinion.

What did you think about JD's exposure of Kunstler's Y2K views? Just curious.

JD was great comic-relief, I was actually one of his biggest fans.
I'm hallucinating. Savinar is responding to Jack Bauer. aaaaawwwww. I'm fucking dizzy, man. This is crazy. Leanan's gonna be pissed. I'm supposed to be in China. Hey man, I'm sorry about what I said. But I have friends that were in Nam and my brother wants to be a Marine. I just want a cigarette.
How can we help this man?
Your "tiny problem" refers to a period of time when there were far fewer people and they had the skills necessary to survive without oil.  

Put 6 billion people in those same past societies and make them dependent on fast-food or at least populated with folks incapable of growing their own food and see what happens...

Also look at the fate of many of those past advanced societies... they collapsed at some point and disappeared or were rebuilt by others on top of the wreckage.  Even most of our "Ancient Cities" that still exist today changed hands via war or other mechanisms that decimated their populations (ebb and flow of civilization).

My assumptions start with our world as it is now - fully functional only with abundant oil and fully dependent on that oil.  If we really did have decades to prepare maybe less of the global village would fail.

The "apocalypse" I envision does not mean the end of civilization completely, everywhere, forever.  Patches will survive, and afterwards those survivors might be able to build upon the wreckage again.  

Much depends on the mechanisms of collapse, how many survivors there are, how many and how much accessible resources there are, and probably a number of other variables I haven't thought of yet or have forgot already.

As REM said - "It's the end of the world as we know it".  Not necessarily the end of the world period.

If we need oil (not energy, oil) to survive, then we'll all eventually die, but that scenario is not terribly realistic.

So we should REPLACE oil?
By WHAT?
WHEN ? (how fast)
How is the current scenario realistic?


Ah, the right questions.

  1. Nuclear + wind + solar.
  2. Over the next ~20 years or so. Obviously faster is better for everyone, but when oil hits $100/barrel you'll be amazed at how quickly things move. The world isn't static because of it's massive inertia, but rather because of the dimutive force acting upon it. Transitions of this type have been pulled off in 10 years or less in times of significant (often merely preceived) need.
  3. Not really a well formed question, so ignoring.
i tried to read peakoildebunked and got sick and vomited   trying to save humanity my ass these whackos are claiming that overpopulation is "no problemo"   get a brain
It's been 'no problem' now for hundreds of years.  Why is it now that we wont be able to grow enough food to satisify our population?  I might have agreed with you if they were still predicting the population to max out at around 15 billion people, but the demographic trend is pointing too a 7.5-9 billion population max before an eventual decline, and even that is steadily being revised downward!  And so much food goes to waste as it is right now.

Talk to any farmer and they'll laugh at you when you suggest theres not enough food to feed that same 7.5-9 billion people.

Now try to feed that same range AND power our transportation... thats certainly out of the question in my opinion.

"Why is it now that we wont be able to grow enough food to satisify our population?"

Because we require oil for the yields of modern agriculture - and that allows us to grow enough to feed "most" of our world, not all.  

"Talk to any farmer and they'll laugh at you when you suggest theres not enough food to feed that same 7.5-9 billion people."

I know few if any farmers who actually think about feeding the world's population - with or without oil.  They spend their time thinking about running their farms.

Oil goes much, much deeper than "transportation."  

Take some time to look into the oil needed for production (as a feed-stock and/or in the running of the infrastructure necessary for production) of farm machinary, pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides, medicine (veternary), plastics, tractor tires, metals for anything (wire fencing, water pumps and pipes, etc) etc, etc...  

AND then of course there is the competition for oil between the farmers and the City Saps for all of their oil needs (remember, most farmer's I know worry about actually keeping their business running and that is hard enough as it in today's economy).  

Oil is found in virtually every crevice of our civilization's infrastructure - not just transportation.  And when supplies get tight and shortages develop and wars break out...

The farmers might get dibs when it comes to rationing but their yields will go down and there will be even less to go around and that less will be at MUCH higher prices than today.

financialsense.com should certainly be in the top 25 as there is a wealth of information and interviews on the topic.
That's a good call - I'm sure there are others that i've missed.

Any other recommendations? Post them here and i'll append to the list.