<Friday Open Thread The Oil Drum Saturday Open Thread and News Dump>

101 comments on Tertzakian: A Review by Dave

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

learning on March 24, 2006 - 3:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Dave, who is the "we" that are not preparing for PO? I'm assuming you are. I am. Lots of others here are. Richard Rainwater is. If your point is that the US government is not preparing, I'm not sure I agree with you. I suspect that is why we are in Iraq and don't have a reasonable exit plan - we don't want to leave. If your point is that the American people is not preparing, I agree. That may be why the government is not doing more, all they can do is use excuses (WMD, nuclear capability in Iran) to get troops in the Middle East to protect supplies. I don't like a government that lies and takes away my civil liberties even if they are doing it as their way of preparing for PO. I also don't need the government mandating things that we can do on our own if we recognize the problem.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on March 24, 2006 - 3:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Governments around the world are preparing, with varying degrees of success.  Our own state and federal governments have their (half-broken) programs.

As an example, the Governors' Ethanol Coalition is 15 years old.  CAFE is about 30 years old.  And so on.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on March 25, 2006 - 2:36am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Posted this link previously, but it is appropriate enough here too - http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060322-020039-9503r

Not only does it do a surprisingly good job covering a number of points which are often not found in a single article, it also provide a stark contrast to today's America. And notice the interplay between jobs, industries, and politics, so unlike what the Bush League seem capable of.

An America-centric bias remains one of my real problems when dealing with peak oil, even here, where a number of posters aren't American.

Essentially, the rest of the world has been quietly working at cutting itself away from America, in no small part because there seems no alternative, since the world's number 1 greatest debtor/superpower seems to feel no need for partners, junior or otherwise. Essentially, looked at from the outside, American society seems utterly incapable of changing itself. Even worse, America seems determined to block others that think and act differently.

But the world is a bigger place, and simply because America is showing signs of truly historic stupidity doesn't mean everyone else will follow its ever more evident downward spiral. That bit about lemmings was staged by Disney - at best, it is a very American metaphor, though sadly appropriate in the Hollywood world most Americans seem to believe in.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dave Cohen on March 24, 2006 - 4:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
One of Tertzakian's key points, for which I praised him, was that the free markets will not solve the problems we face. He believes serious government intervention is necessary to create policies that change the energy mix, promote conservation & efficiency and hence alter lifestyles. If you recall the energy bill from last summer, and if that is somebody's idea of preparing for Peak Oil, then I'm afraid it is sadly mistaken.

I believe the current yahoos running our government do know about the oil crisis and I also believe that invading Iraq was their idea of fixing it. Whoops!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
learning on March 24, 2006 - 10:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Dave, This (PO) is a case where I think there are things the government could do that would be good. My problem is that if you give the govt the power to do these things where do you draw the line. I'm willing to let the free market (such as it is and would argue for freer markets) deal with the problem in order to not give up my freedom to govt power. Note I did not say solve the problem. Dealing with the problem by the govt or the market alone will not be without a great deal of pain. As a society we have little appreciation for pain being a normal part of human existence. We will eventually learn differently.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on March 24, 2006 - 10:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think we will be losing freedoms.  Heck, we already are.  This is typical as societies approach collapse.  The government starts clamping down.  

And it might even be for the best in the long run.  Not because it spares us pain, but because it might save the environment...which the free market cannot do.  Free market capitalism is a great way to exploit natural resources as quickly as possible, but it does a lousy job of avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on March 24, 2006 - 11:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
you bet your cloths we are.
i am posting the whole article because it's a short three paragraphs but i will post a source link.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9. But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a "signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would "impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties."
Thursday, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., said Bush's statement represented "nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law."


here is the link.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060324/NEWS06/603240464/1012

basicly all that he needs to do to make this place a dictatorship is desolve congrass and the senate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on March 24, 2006 - 11:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You were aware, of course, that the Senate is part of Congress. Right? We should probably get that part right before we start talking about dictatorships.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on March 25, 2006 - 12:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Do not assume i am a idiot.
No where in my post do i say the senate is a separate branch of government. I only state that they both need to be dissolved.
The judiciary branch is more easily controlled, and because of that does not need to be removed.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on March 25, 2006 - 12:52am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
My point was since the Senate is part of the Congress, you only need to dissolve Congress(contrary to what you say in your second post).

Are you really serious? Do you really believe that a dictatorship is something that we as Americans should be worrying about right now? That 200 years of stability and precedent might not have just a wee bit of influence in stopping something like that from happening.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on March 25, 2006 - 1:19am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Neither age or type of government can make a country immune to becoming a dictatorship.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on March 25, 2006 - 1:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Granted. But now let's compare the US with, oh let's say every other country on the face of the planet. How do we rank as far as immunity? I'm just trying to get a better picture of how concerned I should actually be about this. Because when I got up this morning I had a bunch of concerns, a bunch of problems, and a bunch of other stuff. But nowhere on that list was George Bush possibly deciding to dissolve congress, declare martial law, and throw dissenters in Halliburton concentration camps(as was mentioned last week, I know not by you). But since this topic keeps coming up, I thought I would give it more thought. So help me out. Do you really think this  should be an important new addition to the list of crap that I should be uptight about?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on March 25, 2006 - 3:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
currently yes it is a possibility. it's a short hop from quietly ignoring the normal procedure(doing what i linked to above, signing laws unconstitutionally (look here:http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20060320_bush_bill_congress ) to out right seizing control.
as for the population, i don't really think the majority will care that much anyway. as long as they can continue to do more or less what they are doing now they won't stop him. even less will care if he times it right to some world event.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Simstim on March 25, 2006 - 8:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I tend to see the Bush administration in the same light as the Blair government here in the UK.  They're not fascists, but they're putting in some damn fine groundwork for a fascist state.  Bush seems to be worse than Blair, but the US is starting from a "worse" (from the POV of fascism) position than the UK which in having an imperfect separation of powers and a non-codified constitution has always been rather tolerant of executive power.  

I'm doubtful that the Bush/Blair moves towards authoritarianism are due to PO, rather I see it as the natural tendency of government to grab more power for itself whenever possible, and The War Against Terror is providing legitimation for the current moves.  Of course, if/when the effects of PO start to hit then this provides another excuse for the erosion of liberty ("what is more important, the freedom to be a traitor to our country or the freedom to have food on the table?", that kind of thing).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Charles Mackay on March 25, 2006 - 7:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
We'll I think I've already said this here before:  the US is already functioning under a subtle state of martial law. Not even follwing the rules of the powerful Patriot Act is just one example.  The administration didn't even bother to follow its own rules while starting a war against Iraq (i.e. it never proved that Iraq was threat to the US, which was required per the Congressional authorization given), it conducts searches of anyone it choses and doesn't bother to notify anyone about it, it hold prisoners without due process and condons torture, etc..

There is really no need to abolish Congress, the public stays under better control with it.  The last fair presidential election may have already been in our nation's past.  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
learning on March 25, 2006 - 6:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
See my reply to Will and Oil CEO further below. Please don't be so quick to sacrifice freedom.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on March 25, 2006 - 6:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I saw your reply, and don't agree.  Corporations have all the rights of individuals - but none of the responsibilities.  Indeed, the whole point of corporations is to shield individuals from responsibility.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will on March 24, 2006 - 11:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The problem with expecting the freee market to find a solution is the dominance of corporations.

Corporations are driven by profit and growth. They scour the world for resources to deplete. You cannot name a corporation which promotes sustainable practices or has sustainable objectives.

Without conservation or sustainable objectives we are back to square one. So how is the free market going to work?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on March 25, 2006 - 12:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"You cannot name a corporation which promotes sustainable practices or has sustainable objectives."

I could probably name one every minute for the next 10 or twelve hours. What industry did you want to start in? Maybe we should narrow it down. How about you pick a minimum market cap?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will on March 25, 2006 - 12:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
At one a minute for the next 10-12 hours, you've got 600 plus in mind. I'd be happy with just four or five. I thought of Whole Foods as a potential exception to my opinion and I tried out a few paper companies you know... "take a tree, plant a tree" but I dunno, I've seen plenty of really damaged land from 25,000 feet. If Habitat for Humanities is a corporation, I'd agree. But then I think of ADM, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow  Chem, the Oil businesses, the Auto businesses, the construction businesses, the computer businesses, the businesses that have moved offshore... and so the very great majority of corporate existence doesn't seem sustainable.

By sustainable I mean capable of recycling their production, both product and waste, capable of no-growth scenarios, capable of improving capital assets without subsidies...  

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on March 25, 2006 - 3:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
See, I got youto name one. Or more. Look hard at things from different perspectives. I understand your point. But we must be careful. And don't try to redefine sustainable, it's already in the dictionary. Cheers, CEO.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
beggar on March 25, 2006 - 5:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I agree with both of you.

My cynical side is dismissive of "Green" coroporate claims.

And yet individual leaders and corporations do actually make some changes.

The book "The Corporation" (and movie of the same title) features at least one executive of a major corporation who had an "epiphany" about the environmment and went on to begin a program at his company to make very big changes to stop pollution and waste.  I've loaned the book out, and so do not have the name of CEO and Company at hand, but it is one of the largest carpet manufacturers in the world.

(The company is not "there yet" but has made great strides.)

The tough part is that there is just so far to go in making changes.

I suspect that the system will disintegrate given the ecological pressures we exert on the planet, but I do hold out some hope that we can make changes to let another generation or two live and have whack at making it possible for the next generation or two to live, and so on.

The generational relay may go for awhile yet.

It is tough to face any issues on the macro level because the complexities of issues and possibilities tend to isolate us from those we already feel suspicious of -- whether we are CEO's or "beggars."

Our current models of business may have to change very fast to adapt to the changing energy and environmental context.  I wonder if we can navigate the tremendous changes we'll need to make.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
learning on March 25, 2006 - 5:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Will and Oil CEO,

Corporations are nothing more than a contractually organized legal entity to create standing as a "person" under the law. As a form of organization it is owned by shareholders who elect a board of directors to oversee their interests. The board in turn selects officers to run the business. The corporation is a powerful way to combine capital from many shareholders to undertake major captial investments. These investments may be such things as cutting down rainforests with all the environmental devastation that may entail or it may be building an agricultural infrastructure that feeds millions that would otherwise starve. Corporations are not good or evil.

Corporations may become evil when mangement begins acting in their personal self interest at the expense of the shareholders. As the number and diversity of shareholders grow this becomes more likely. It is the Board's responsibility to see that this does not happen. Some boards have done a very poor job of this but it cannot be blamed on the corporate form of organization.

Corporations may become evil when they take something that is part of the "commonwealth" as their own. By "commonwealth" I mean resources whose use or extraction impacts others besides the owners. For example clean air, water, mineral extraction that results in downstream pollution, etc. As one who believes in a very limited role for government, I do consider protection of the commonwealth an important governmental role. When a corporation "robs" from the commonwealth the government is not doing its job. But again it cannot be blamed on the corporate form of organization.

My point is that it is a mistake to talk about good and bad corporations - there are plenty of each (Patagonia and Clif Bar being a couple of good ones that Will might recognize).

I expect Oil CEO will find much to agree with here, I am particularly interested in your thoughts on the "commonwealth" concept. I expect I share some of Will's concerns for the environment but certainly not his dislike of free markets. The earth has some characteristics of a self-healing system. As the free market drives the price of scarcer oil up we will see solar, wind and other alternative energy sources become attractive to the free market. Not because they are environmentally responsible but because they make economic sense. Long live the free market so long as the commonwealth is respected and protected.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Will on March 25, 2006 - 6:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Learning,

I think the free market is an interesting concept that is mostly theoretical. No one would suggest that agriculture in the U.S. represents a free market. There are billions of dollars of subsidies that skew it. No one would suggest the oil services businesses represent free marketing either. We see billions in no bid/cost plus contracts for military work now. The industries that supply the military: shipyards, aircraft manufacturers and so forth appear to be highly dependent on political lobbying activities. I would not call the playing field for the pharmacuetical and insurance industries a free market.

Consumer retailing apppear to be a free market. Walmart, the department store chains, the grocery chains prosper or fail with management talent and efficiency.  

   

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
learning on March 27, 2006 - 2:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I agree that even the US leaves a lot to be desired in achieveing truly free markets. I would like to see us move to freer markets not less free markets.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

101 comments on Tertzakian: A Review by Dave

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version