 | 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 |  |
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
“Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race.”
—H. G. Wells, 1904
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- 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
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
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.