 | Three Pieces of Peak Oil Media: Simmons/Kilduff and Pickens on CNBC on GAO/Peak Oil and Kunstler on Peak Oil and the Car Culture | The Oil Drum | The Case for Physically Separated Bike Lanes |  |
DrumBeat: March 31, 2007
Posted by Leanan on March 31, 2007 - 9:09am
Topic: Miscellaneous
James Howard Kunstler: Remarks to the Commonwealth Club of California (transcript and audio)
Two years ago in my book, The Long Emergency, I wrote that our nation was sleepwalking into an era of unprecedented hardship and disorder – largely due to the end of reliably cheap and abundant oil. We’re still blindly following that path into a dangerous future, lost in dark raptures of infotainment, diverted by inane preoccupations with sex and celebrity, made frantic by incessant motoring.The coming age of energy scarcity will change everything about how we live in this country. It will ignite more desperate contests between nations for the remaining oil and natural gas around the world. It will alter the fundamental terms of industrial economies. It will ramify and amplify many of the problems presented by climate change. It will require us to behave differently. But we are not paying attention.
Cost, consumption of gas both up - Pump prices not fueling change in driving habits
“Sometimes when the price of something goes up, demand does not go down because it can't go down,” said Charles Langley, who oversees gasoline monitoring for UCAN. “If the price of strawberries goes up, you don't have to buy strawberries, but you can't get to work on a tank of strawberries. No matter what, you need the gas.”
Norway Oil Chief Outlines Industry Challenges
Vold noted that Norway is already facing a challenge in stemming the slide in its global oil exporting rank, despite investment highs of around NOK100 billion a year."I will not refer to Norway as a net oil exporter in third place globally, it's probably fourth or fifth now," Vold said.
Opec doesn’t need to act on oil prices, Qatar says
Opec, producer of 40% of the world’s oil, doesn’t need to take action after crude prices reached a six-month high amid a dispute between Iran and the UK over the detention of 15 British servicemen, Qatar has said.
The peak of world production is only ten to fifteen years away.The peak of U.S. production is in the past.
Reserves have been overstated by as much as 90%.
There are serious implications for our entire way of life.
And the media are still reporting that there will be abundant supplies for another 150 years, 200 years, or more.
I'm talking about oil, right?
Nope.
I'm talking about coal.
Oil-enriched Arab Investors Turning Away from U..S Dollar & U.S. Investments
Three articles from Reuters (below) report that investors from the oil rich Gulf Arab nations are “eager” to diversify away from the U.S. currency. Reuters reports movement to the Euro and Asia “to invest windfall oil revenue, eager to ride the rise of China and India.” On Monday, Reuters reported that the Dubai International Financial Centre Authority said “More Gulf economies will move away from a dollar currency peg and shift foreign exchange reserves away from dollar to other currencies.”
Bolivian Senate Approves Gas Nationalization Contracts
Bolivia's Senate on Friday approved nearly all the energy nationalization contracts signed months ago with foreign oil companies, clearing up errors that had delayed the deals' implementation.
Europe Must Hurry To Secure Energy Supplies
The European Union has said diversifying energy supplies and transit routes is one of its most urgent priorities. However, analysts say the EU needs to act fast if it wants to secure direct access to Central Asian oil and gas -- and warn that Russia is purposely attempting to undermine some of the EU's key initiatives.
Peru Energy Minister: China Oil Co Finds Crude in Northern Jungle
Peru's Energy and Mines Minister Juan Valdivia said late Thursday that a unit of the China National Petroleum Corp. has discovered crude oil in the northern jungle region.
Togo requires financial fund to solve energy crisis
The resolution of Togo's energy crisis requires an investment of approximately 10 billion CFA francs (20 million U.S. dollars), a Togolese energy and mines ministry official said on Friday.
Will the growing of fuel crops result in higher food costs?
If farmers turn their relatively unprofitable wheat fields over to the production of sugar beet, for instance, then there will inevitably be a shortage of wheat leading, ultimately, to higher prices for bread. Some may argue that higher bread prices may be the price that we simply have to pay in order to combat global warming. This problem is perhaps best seen in Mexico where corn and, consequently, bread prices are at a ten year high due to the cheap surplus corn normally "dumped" on the Mexican market by US farmers disappearing as more and more US grown corn is converted into profitable ethanol production.
An ethanol-fueled boom in prices will prompt American farmers to plant the most corn since the year the Allies invaded Normandy, but surging demand could mean consumers still may pay more for everything from chicken to cough syrup.
Could Nabors Profit Warning Signal Trend?
Nabors Industries on Thursday became the second major U.S. oilfield contractor to signal that weaker drilling activity in North America will be cutting into its profit. And it may not be the last, analysts said.
"I think the suburban model is being driven by selfishness," Brown says. "Everyone feels entitled to their own home, to a front and backyard. This is my SUV and I'm burning as much gas as I want. There's some ignorance, but a lot of selfishness — a lot of selfishness. And this model's not going to be destroyed by writing articles in Atlantic Monthly or doing docs. The model's going to be destroyed when either there's no gas or it's too expensive to drive in from Oakville twice a day, five times a week. It is better downtown," he adds. "It is."
Uncertainty Haunts GAO Peak Oil Report
It is a dark and stormy night...A semi-truck hauling gasoline races along a twisting mountain road shrouded in a thick gauze of fog. The truck's lights penetrate only yards ahead, yet the driver races on, shifting gears and picking up speed. He's got a life to lead and a warm bed ahead.
Yet somewhere out there on Route 666, the bridge across Campbell's Gorge is unfinished, the spans still incomplete. Disaster looms and although the driver has been warned, he is too preoccupied with the road immediately visible in his headlights to care about some remote and distant threat.
Glenmore's plan for new wind turbines generates controversy
After nine years, the Wisconsin Public Service Corp. wind turbines in the Zirbels' fields are still getting mixed reviews, but some of the worst fears expressed at the time have not panned out, Sandi Zirbel said.
ASU offers new Alternative Energy Technologies program
As many across the globe scramble to develop efficient, inexpensive sources of alternative energy, Arizona State University is developing new degree programs to educate students to be future leaders in this arena.
The Climate Group will host a briefing on the economics of climate change featuring Sir Nicholas Stern – head of UK Government Economic Service and former Chief Economist of The World Bank – followed by a discussion with a select group of prominent business leaders and members of the McKinsey Global Institute. The event is the first opportunity for U.S. business leaders to engage in a private briefing with Sir Nicholas, author of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.
Evergreen mill may test hydrogen technology
The proposed project would gasify fine wood residue to create a gas of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which it would burn in place of natural gas. Since the mill is one of the largest users of natural gas in the county, the replacement fuel could reduce costs significantly and shield the operation from fluctuating gas prices.
Plan for big offshore wind farm passes hurdle
BOSTON - A controversial plan to build the first large U.S. offshore wind-power farm won approval from Massachusetts authorities on Friday but still must clear federal regulatory hurdles.
First Reserve earmarks $780 mln for alt energy
First Reserve Corp. positions itself in the mushrooming, world of private equity as an investor in energy firms tied to the massive oil, coal and gas business.But now in its latest fund of $7.8 billion, ranked as the richest energy investment pool to date, the Greenwich, Conn.-based private equity firm set aside $780 million for investments in alternative energy.
Residents encouraged to take part in power discount plan
Southern California Edison is encouraging customers to enroll in its Summer Discount Plan now so that they can be eligible for bill credits during the summer months, June through September, in return for allowing SCE to interrupt their air conditioner during powersupply emergencies.
No Unleaded Gasoline At Calhan Filling Stations
A Loaf & Jug and a smaller locally-owned station are affected. A clerk at the Loaf & Jug says she doesn't know why a tanker hasn't arrived to refill the station's tanks, but that it's part of an apparent gas shortage which has affected other stations. She also says she doesn't know when the station will get more fuel.The manager of the locally-owned station says she ran out because of extra business from customers who couldn't fill up at the Loaf & Jug, but she expects a delivery on Monday.
Alternative Energy’s “Cover” Moment?
This morning, as CNBC devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the corn-crop report, stirring old memories of Trading Places, a couple of anchors astutely wondered if all the unusual attention being paid to this typically mundane report wasn’t a sign of some kind of top in ethanol.It’s something Energy Roundup’s been wondering, too. We suggested in our latest post that the ethanol boom was unlikely to end soon; but, given Energy Roundup’s forecasting record, that means there’s a 50/50 chance that the ethanol boom will end very soon, indeed.
And if you believe the old saw that when a trend finally makes it to popular magazine covers, the trend is very over, then things aren’t looking good for alternative energy: Time, Fortune, The Atlantic Monthly and even Sports Illustrated have featured global warming and/or green technology on their covers recently.
And then if oil prices continue to rise then the demand for oil might be tempered but more importantly the high prices would unleash the peak oil theorists most potent enemy; the ingenuity of the human spirit. It is that sprit that is driven by the desire to make profit that will solve peak oil and until that fine day you better be on the safe side and buy oil.
Analysis: Nuclear-powered oil sands
Nuclear companies and those mining Canada's oil sands are poised to team up to separate crude from deep Earth and pump it to the surface.
Oil sands boom adds to worker shortage woes
In labour hungry Alberta, more oil sands production is predicted through to the year 2020, a portent that may compound the province’s construction industry woes.
Declining oil pushes Mexico to rethink taxes
Mexico needs better tax collection -- and fast. Production at Pemex, the state oil monopoly and biggest taxpayer, is falling. Evasion among businesses and individuals is rampant. At a time when Pacific Rim trade rivals such as China are investing in superhighways and research centers to speed economic growth, Mexico is struggling to fund basics such as sewers and police.
From financial services to alternative energy: Former MBNA waterfront complex sold
Simmons is pressing ahead in creating what he calls an "Ocean Energy Institute.""Initially, it will not take much of the building space," he wrote. "Ideally, over time, this center will be the 'Silicon Valley' headquarters for Ocean Energy expertise and [spawn] many growing business activities for what might become the only real way to begin weaning ourselves from what will soon become a clear peaking of global oil and gas."
Sydney dims lights to protest emissions
Australia's largest city dimmed on Saturday night as businesses and homeowners switched off the lights to draw attention to global warming.The normally gleaming white sails of the Sydney Opera House darkened, and so did the iconic harbor bridge and chunks of the city skyline. Security and street lights, as well as those at commercial port operations, stayed on.
Throughout the city of about 4 million people, residents turned off the lights for one hour in an event organized by environmentalists and supported by Sydney city officials, the New South Wales state government and thousands of businesses.
Netherlands To Import More Gas
Declining national gas reserves are forcing the Netherlands to increase its imports. Companies and consumers will pay higher charges, Economic Affairs Minister Maria van der Hoeven has warned in a letter to parliament.
Protests disrupting Ecuador oil flow end
Protests that led the Brazilian state oil company to halt production in the Ecuadorean jungle have ended, Ecuador's Energy Ministry said late Friday....In a statement, the Ministry said losses from the production freeze totaled more than $40 million, a loss of 840,000 barrels of crude.
British oil worker abducted in Nigeria
Gunmen have kidnapped a British oil worker from an offshore oil rig in southern Nigeria, officials said Saturday, the latest abduction in the impoverished region.
Dengue surging in Mexico, Latin America
The deadly hemorrhagic form of dengue fever is increasing dramatically in Mexico, and experts predict a surge throughout Latin America fueled by climate change, migration and faltering mosquito eradication efforts.
UN experts: Europe faces global warming double whammy, but can cope
Global warming will hit Europe hard but unevenly this century, causing drought, reduced harvests and deadly heatwaves in the south but inflicting more floods and severe winter storms farther north, UN experts say in a report to be unveiled next week.In Alpine regions, reduced snow cover imperils a multi-billion-dollar ski industry while rising temperatures could wipe out up to 60 percent of plant and animal species, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns.
Abrupt climate change more common than believed
It came on quickly and then lasted nearly two decades, eventually killing more than one million people and affecting 50 million more. All of this makes the Sahel drought, which first struck West Africa in the late 1960s, the most notorious example of an abrupt climatic shift during the last century.
US/Brazil Biofuel Plans May Destroy Livelihoods, Promote Food Shortages, Warns ActionAid
ActionAid urges governments to take into account that the production of such biofuels has thus far resulted in the concentration of land, resources and income into the hands of the few, the destruction of endangered rainforests, contamination of soil, air and water, and the expulsion of rural populations from their homes.
I love it!
Ethanol fuels huge corn planting
trading places !!!!! lmao. but they (don amichi,and whoever)were trading orange juice or pulp or something werent they ?
A reason to cry wolf ?
Peak Oil is a event that will cause economic hardship if left unattended. Once the oil resources start running down we can expect the price of oil to continue to increase. In and of itself this is cause for concern but can it be a bigger problem then we realize. I recently argued that as oil becomes more scarce and WestTexas bidding war moves to competition between the more advanced and wealthier countries not only will the price increase but political reasons will be used to decide who gets the oil. Already we are seeing KSA cut shipments to asia while maintain them to the USA and Europe.
As I thought about the problem I wondered what on earth is move valuable than oil ? What could be used as a carrot in these increasingly desperate political maneuverings required to ensure oil supply for our economies ?
It turns out that obviously their exists one thing worth more than oil.
Nuclear Weapons.
The problem with the bidding war is that most of the nations that have wealth and want oil also have a variety of sophisticated nuclear weapons and many of the oil producing countries are interested in getting them. Those that may not initially be interested will probably change their minds is they have neighbors that acquire them.
At some point we have a good chance that a nation will decide that to continue its economy it will release say some small tactical nukes to one of the oil producing countries in exchange for oil. Once pandora's box is open we have no idea where it will end.
Desperate times can mean desperate measures and I'm sure if this happens the release of a little nuke could be rationalized and a way to stabilize the region. Or ensure the oil producer is not attacked by another strong nation.
I could readily see the US be the one to start it by providing nuclear weapons to KSA. Any nation with nuclear weapons is capable of making this decision.
So now to those who accuse people of crying wolf my answer is their is a wolf associated with peak oil its nuclear proliferation and I do not want to see it happen. Better to be proactive than allow things to get to the point that anyone is tempted to take the easy way out.
What on earth do you mean by proactive - bomb Iran?? There are already some 300 nuclear weapons in the Middle East, built by US ally Israel. Does anyone suppose that Israeli introduction of nuclear weapons will not lead to others following. It's normal that an arms race has more than one participant. After the 1956 attack on Egypt, France provided the Israeli reacton and the UK supplied the heavy water moderator
Furthermore the issue is trivial. Global warming through unconstrained consumption of fossil fuels threatens to destroy all live on planet earth this century. Which nation has the largest per capita production of carbon dioxide? Why not be proactive nearer home.
Professor Newt Gingrich recommends that Blair be more proactive:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03312007/news/worldnews/iran_flaunts_its_war...
Isn't it great to see how senior republicans are still able to think outside the box...?
One of the symptoms of sociopathology is that they cannot forsee the consequences of their actions.
Actually, many Americans might have to go back to walking as well. What a concept. God knows Gingrich doesn't walk anywhere.
I think its too late to avert global warming.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
The Barents Sea is already almost melted already this year.
I'm not saying we should not change and change fast because of this I'm just saying we have probably done far more damage then people realize.
The nuclear proliferation problem is one that we can prevent by simply using less oil and defusing the situation.
Generally we have looked at peak oil as a economic problem but once you consider the possibility of nuclear proliferation it becomes even more pressing that we should address it. This is not to belittle the global warming issue we seem to be ignoring, simply stating we may have not fully considered the possible impact of peak oil in a nuclear world.
Of course it is too late to avert global warming since it has been occurring for at least 100 years. The question is not whether we can avert global warming, the question is whether or not we can avert a near or total catastrophe. James Hansen says we need ten years and I believe he said that about a year ago. Nine years and counting.
Thus far, all we have to show for our efforts are a few hybrids, an ethanol program that is driving up food prices, and a few pathetic attempts by our congress to do some paltry research on alternatives, including hydrogen and better batteries.
Nine years goes all too quickly. Nine years ago I was ranting about global warming and almost nothing has occurred since then to give me much hope. Kyoto. A pathetic attempt to address global warming, especially without the Unites States and the Europeans will have trouble even meeting those goals.
Clmate Action day is this April 14th. Be sure to walk in your local march, if there is one. If there isn't one, organize a march.
Not against marches, but I feel strongly that the primary message must be that what can seem like a perfect storm threatening us on this planet is something that will in large part have to be weathered rather than averted, whatever form it may take. Who are we marching against really?? Does one march against a storm? Is there nothing to do but to shake our fists at the sky?
There are things we should be doing and should be politically pushing for without a doubt...but I would simply like to suggest that the most valuable contribution anyone can be making (inclusive, not exclusive of everything else) is to prepare internally to face the future - and to face our own fears first. Otherwise we just add velocity to the wind!
sure I'm preaching to the choir in large part :)
& myself fer sure!
Robert
many thnx to the heroic efforts behind TOD!
GREAT COMMENT!
I watch the Cryosphere Today site too. It looks like this year's maximum extent of sea ice was reached February 12th or 13th. That would put us into a cycle with 5 months of freeze-up and 7 months of thaw instead of 6 and 6.
The data are noisy and someone else can interpret it some other way. I have no particular expertise and I'd defer to anyone with an expert interpretation. The raw data on its face is terrifying.
I post a link to it periodically on the oil drum its a fantastic site.
I noticed the same thing myself. This time around though their is a lot more open water earlier in the arctic so I'm wondering if the rate of change won't increase a lot this year. Its amazing watching it melt just about in front of your eyes. Makes it a lot easier to realize that big changes can and will happen.
There is only one good way to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle: nuclear disarmament, starting at the top -- i.e. FIRST the US, Russia, China, and so on down the line, including Israel. With on-site inspections. Then you can reasonably ask wannabes to sign on -- and who can doubt they would? But why should they renounce nukes when they are threatened with invasion and destabilization, and possibley even getting nuked themselves?
The US is currently the ONLY power that is currently threatening the pre-emptive use of nukes against non-nuclear powers ("nothing is off the table").
The road we're on now, however, is almost certain to see the use of nukes, and it is almost certain that the US will directly or indirectly be behind unleashing them. Israel, for example, would not dare use them without foreknowledge of the US reaction.
I do not know much suffering and disaster it will take to get us to start thinking like a species that wants to survive.
Understand that the consensus opinion is that peak oil is still several years away and further if this was true then the bidding war would being in earnest several years after that.
And we are already rattling the nuclear saber.
I happen to think we are close or passed peak but the problem is not this but the fact that the US and Iran are already willing to bring nuclear arms into the battle for oil.
Peak Oil itself can easily be the fuse that pushes countries to both eagerly seek nuclear weapons and cause countries to consider using or providing nuclear weapons in exchange for oil.
Its this mix of the real prize nuclear weapons with oil that is the wolf. In my opinion changing the way we live is far better than even allowing the chance that nuclear weapons and oil will become intertwined.
Hi m,
I'm glad to see you giving some thought to the intersection of nuclear weapons and "peak oil". A couple of comments:
1) re: "It turns out that obviously their exists one thing worth more than oil. Nuclear Weapons."
I'd like to offer another version of this, with what I see as an important qualifying thought:
"There is one thing worth more..." *within the framework of the amount of destructive capacity one or more groups (or individuals within a group) can bring to another group.*
In the case of oil, the destructive means is by sudden withdrawal, absent mitigation, and with the attendent threats to safety and health that would ensue. In the case of nuclear weapons (or weapons of any kind), the destruction is immediate physical violence and death, and its aftermath.
So, the "worth" is within a particular framework, namely one where there is a set of arrangements in place, which makes either threats - or the actual use of destructive means - *to be seen as* (emphasis) having some constructive ends.
Would you agreee w. my thoughts here so far?
My suggestion (If I may offer one): I'd encourage you to do some looking into the history of nuclear (and non-nuclear) weapons use (manufacture, dealers, funding by gov't.s to subsidize, etc.) and proliferation/non-proliferation. I think Chalmers Johnson has written on this, as have others. This might provide a context for a way to explore this further. There's a real good "classic" (1998) 29 min video called "Welfare for Weapons Dealers", put out by www.cdi.org.
I'd very much caution against your conclusion of a strategy to prevent proliferation, without first examining the issue and history a little more in depth. Perhaps you have - I don't mean to presume, just to offer my comments and suggestions.
There are a lot of people who have given much of their lives (life's work) to thinking about this, and trying to work in a positive way. Some of them are at www.fas.org, www.idds.org, www.ucs.org, www.cdi.org. I'd suggest getting a hold of some people and seeing what they have to say, i.e., beginning a dialog. Randall Forsberg, for example, has a lot of relevant experience, (IMHO). (My guess is you would be surprised.)
I make this suggestion because I'd like to see some communication between people who know about "peak oil" (and energy issues) and people who know about nuclear weapons (and weapons in general). It seems to be to be an important conversation to have.
Both because the this issue (as you raise it here) is linked to many others regarding weapons. A conversation could inform both parties of the other's knowledge and views. The concerns overlap.
The importance of seeing what others have researched, done and thought as part of the process of thinking things through...that's part of my suggestion.
2) I'm also curious about what you mean by "proactive"?
A most excellent, thoughtful response. I too will check out some of those websites since this subject just gives me the heebie-jeebies so bad that it makes my guts churn and makes me want to barf.
A big hug to you Aniya.
By proactive I mean recognizing that the stress a country could undergo because of oil shortages could lead to a more pragmatic view of nuclear weapons and proliferation of more advanced conventional arms in general as you mention.
When your facing economic devastation from oil issues and you have nuclear weapons it suddenly becomes a lot more reasonable to consider selling or deploying them in oil rich countries in exchange for exclusive agreements. Short term its a win win situation. You get the oil your need competing nations don't and since they have less oil their economies crumble faster leading to demand destruction and thus more oil for the winner. Now of course you have almost assured at least a regional nuclear war are a proxy one between your client state and one of the "loser" nations.
So the proactive part is to recognize that we probably cannot afford to enter the stressed economic condition that would result from peak oil and for that matter other issues facing us such as global warming low food/water resources etc since we posses nuclear weapons.
I'm not sure if this has been researched but thinking about nuclear armed nations facing the equivalent of the great depression does not bode well for our future. We probably cannot allow our economies to hit the wall.
You can run through the scenarios but I just can't see non-proliferation possible in these cases. We actually face something like this in Pakistan where if they lost control of their government we would have not choice but to intervene. When the governments at risk are the rich nuclear armed western and Asian nations and they are in fierce competition over the remaining resources the problem become intractable. Also you cannot dismiss Russia that has both oil and nuclear weapons. If anything we are probably facing a far higher chance for nuclear war than has ever existed. The chance it might be contained to a small regional nuclear war is about the only difference but this is in my opinion a faint hope chances for escalation or multiple regional wars are high.
The sell of more advanced weapons systems to the oil rich nations would be a lead up condition but this has of course already happened.
Hi again, m,
Actually, when I re-read, I'm not so sure I understand everything you are saying.
To take it a little slow:
re: "We probably cannot allow our economies to hit the wall."
What do you mean? Do we have a choice? If so, what is the choice and can you please describe it?
"...cannot allow..." before doing what? Is this the sense you mean?
I'm still a little confused, I realize. Thanks.
As far as the rest of your comment I simply don't know. All I can say is that deteriorating economic conditions and proliferation of nuclear and advanced conventional weapons systems seem to be strongly linked. This means we would be prudent to not run a oil based economy all the way down so to speak. So people concerned about nuclear weapon proliferation should take a serious look at the peak oil issue and in general the interaction of resource depletion/economic strife and nuclear weapons.
Up till now I felt that peak oil would represent a economic problem of varying severity depending on how you choose to handle it. But once you throw nuclear weapons into the mix it in my opinion becomes a topic that should be addressed sooner than later.
Hi m,
Thanks for responding. This really reinforces my idea of how important it is (for me, anyway) to really try to understand what someone is saying, as my first take on what you said changed. Thanks again for going further.
re: "So people concerned about nuclear weapon proliferation should take a serious look at the peak oil issue and in general the interaction of resource depletion/economic strife and nuclear weapons."
I agree that this is an important goal. I'd say, critical, in fact.
What I was trying to suggest:
My take on the situation is that there are some educated and dedicated people who are concerned about weapons in general, including proliferation.
My take on "peak oil" is pretty much parallel, in terms of individuals trying to understand and act.
It seems to me that it's up to the "peak oil" community to take the first step. Because we're the ones who know. Other people, doing important and excellent work on many fronts, including prevention of nuclear war, don't know about "peak oil" per se. Or have many of the same conceptions, misconceptions, or emotional issues with it that everyone else has (including, speaking for myself, on-going "cognitive dissonance" I somehow live with.)
This idea about imagining states bartering nukes in a peak oil equation is absolutely mind boggling.
"Um, I'm sorry, 2 nukes and free Disney World passes won't do the trick. The EU is offering us 4, plus free lifetime meals at the Jules Verne restaurant whenever we're in Paris. Can you do better?"
*sigh* It truly makes me long for the good ol' stone age. At least then the future was assured, no matter how short and brutish. It's bad enough we have these things hanging over us as it is, but to imagine how they'll be used as bargaining chips, or worse...
That's not a day worth imagining.
Bam me up, Scotty.
I agree I hate I thought it through to be honest. WT bidding war comments lead me to think of whats worth more than oil.
But once I did I felt its worth getting the meme out to see if people that work on the nuclear threat might here how peak oil can be very destabilizing. In many cases these are respected scientists so hopefully it might cause them to at least look at the peak issue. I had been of the opinion that we would make it through even if we wait till way to late to handle the issue since so much oil use is discretionary I do expect economic hardship but the nuclear gambit could be triggered quite early in the oil bidding war.
memmel et al
Thanks for thinking about these very hard issues
re nuclear arms. We can not assume more recent
history will apply (upslope for energy) to the
downslope.We often apply the cold war thinking
to our projections of the future w/o this recognition.
I had not thought of trading weapons for oil
(long term contracts) so much ,though as I had to
threats of use of weapons to secure energy needs
. I will be giving these issues more thought- I can see regional alliances become crucial.
I have often thought the only way nukes would not
be used on a very significant scale would be for
leadership & organization on a global- New World
Order-scale. Most people bridal at NWO -I never
worry about it because I don't think it has a
chance, especially in an energy declining
environment.
As I said thanks for being real about nukes use as I
think they are our biggest threat.
Good comment. Yes we often fall into cold war thinking.
Russia and China I think suffer the same problem.
But we have a lot better nuclear weapons today than we had 50 years ago. Tactical nukes have been refined and using them does not mean at least initially a all out nuclear war.
Next they are probably the weapon of choice for accelerating demand destruction.
Of course we also have a huge arsenal of conventional arms.
As far as oil goes in such a screwed up world if the major powers are willing to look the other way I think that mercenary forces could be used to secure oil facilities regardless of the populations desire to destroy them.
One reason the US does not do well as a occupying force is we have been so far unwilling to take the steps required to subdue a population I'd suspect this restraint will also be lifted.
The real problem is simply that strategic moves have to be made and they need to be done fairly early on half measures
probably are not good enough as we have seen in Iraq. The easiest way to handle peak oil is to destroy one of the worlds major economies leaving the rest to the victors.
This could be the US/China/Japan etc.
You could quickly see Chinese Japanese relationships deteriorate post peak for example with the Japanese arming Taiwan with nuclear weapons. As far as japan not having nuclear weapons I suspect can change as fast as someone can turn a screwdriver.
I don't think I need to chase all the possible scenarios that would lead to proliferation post peak just their are hundreds of plausible conditions that would lead to regional nuclear wars post peak.
I doubt that "give us oil or we will nuke you" works since following thru on the threath wont preserva a delicate oil extraction infrastructure.
This kind of strong arm politics probably only work for fashist governments that are ready to comitt mass murder stalin style.
I think the most likely reason to get nuclear weapons will continue to be to turn conventional arms race and war into cold war standoffs. Nuclear wepaons are very attractive for countries that have a large risk for being invaded by a large force. Its tempting for crook nations like North Korea and fairly nice but cournerd nations like Israel. A simple historic parallel gives that oil producing nations put under threath will have a motive for getting nuclear weapons and the finances for doing it. More expensive and slower then mining your own oil fields and industry but threathening to get even is a stronger card then promising to commit suicide if you are enslaved.
It can gets real nasty if a nation has a crazy religious goal for extermination another nation or people as the nazis had. This might be the case with Iran since there is both US and Iranian propaganda to support it. Its likely that the goal with this propaganda is for manipulating people but such goals can be turned into reality.
I dont think peak oil will give nuclear weapon arms races unless we get conventional resource wars. Such wars would be a disaster for we who are well off since they destroy enourmous ammounts of goods and qualified man hours that could be put into use building post peak oil infrastructure.
In the Energy Report article by Phil Flynn above, he goes on to say the 'human sprit' will save us.
This is very condescending of PO, but apparently even after appearing on CNBC frequently, he seems to have only a superficial knowledge of PO. No where does he consider the EROEI of new, yet undiscovered, human sprit technologies – or even what looks like marginal or even negative EROEI on the ethanol production and distribution process. Apparently someone in his position could gain hugely by the ethanol boondoggle, so it’s not surprising he's supportive of it.
However he intuitively suspects something is up, as he looks for much higher energy prices soon. He'll be cheering the price of through $100 and beyond, as the price of oil is moved by market 'spirits' ever higher.
From biologist E.O. Wilson's "The Creation"
"Here is a chimera, a new and very odd species come shambling into our universe, a mix of Stone Age emotion, Medieval self image, and godlike technology. The combination makes the species unresponsive to the forces that count most for its own long term survival."
And:
"What I fear most is the pervasive combination of religious and secular ideology of a kind that sees little or no harm in the destruction of the Creation."
I reflect on contemporary geopolitics related to this:
"The power of the human spirit" is unfortunately locked into just the combination of religious and secular ideologies that Dr. Wilson fears.
The variety of seculr and religious fundamentalisms abounds, but most recently we see the American Fascist false gospel bound to a brutal form of Economic Darwinism and confronting various Islamic fundamentalisms likewise bound to the same secularism.
The "Suicide Economy" is married to religious fundamentalisms whose meta-narratives are used to justify brutal resource wars.
This combination of primitive emotion is shaped by religious and secular economic fundamentalisms and focused on using our godlike technology to brutally kill unimaginable numbers of people in the mass murder crime we call "war."
This combination of characteristics does not seem to be serving us very well in terms of long term survival.
From Homo Sapien ("wise man" or "knowing man") to Homo Psychopathicus?
Will there be a Homo Pacificus?
THEN the baleful fiend its fire belched out,
and bright homes burned. The blaze stood high
all landsfolk frighting. No living thing
would that loathly one leave as aloft it flew.
Wide was the dragon's warring seen,
its fiendish fury far and near,
as the grim destroyer those Geatish people
hated and hounded. To hidden lair,
to its hoard it hastened at hint of dawn.
Folk of the land it had lapped in flame,
with bale and brand. In its barrow it trusted,
its battling and bulwarks: that boast was vain!
I look around the room I am sitting in. Very few of the things in this room are what I would define as needed- a couple of chairs, the table, the wood stove some bowls and spoons. The rest is useful and attractive but not needed- the old masterwork cabinet of my wife's German grandfather, the table settings therein, the books and bookshelves, some artwork.
So the un-needed/needed ratio in this room is maybe 5. In some other rooms it is closer to 20. And of course, some of the rooms are themselves entirely un-needed.
But a better number would be the ratio of un-needed stuff I have bought that cost the world some pain/ the stuff that I need or have but is causing no more pain to keep (the cabinet). I could easily do without the TV, and almost do, but it cost some pain to make and keep it. Books on the shelf over the TV have been there for 40 years and are causing no more pain.
I vividly remember that Bangladeshi woman who invited me to inspect her hut. She had a bowl, a spoon, a stool, a string bed, and a three -stone fire place. That was it. I gave her a un-needed/needed ratio of 0.7. She didn't have enough- for example, I saw no cloth other than what she was wearing.
Of course she was very well integrated into her village community- something she really needed and had.
I am guessing the un-need/need ratio for the US is somewhere around 100. So I have to laugh when I hear people talking about deprivation from less oil. Ha! call that deprivation?
So, you say, what about food? Ain't that needed, and doesn't it take oil? Sure, but you can get it with -brace yourself- human sweat. Yep. Done all the time right in my back yard.
Goddam it, I remember being happy as a kid playing with sticks, mud and bones of dead model T's. So it makes me sick to see my grandkids playing with- or more often, ignoring- bushels of plastic toys from china. Toys that cost the world a lot of pain.
My business is machines- inventions thereof. I look around at what machines are doing and could do, and see a huge difference. Most of these processes- say a table fan or a water pump, not to mention a car- could be at least 5 times more efficient than they are. And nobody cares or is concerned. Reason? energy prices people pay are a fraction of their real cost to the planet. Fix that, make the price equal the cost, and everything else follows. Don't fix it, and we will get what we are getting- junk that kills the future.
Wimbi,
If all your stuff reminds you of people's pain, you are better off giving it all to me. The burden is great, but to help you, I will take it from you.
Well, thanks, Keith, that's real kind of you, but problem is, I can't even give most of this stuff away. I have tried. Anybody want a couple of 7 yr old computers with moribund disk drives? How about a barn full of ancient hay rakes , empty oil