Government behaves in re petroleum and natural gas as a principal rent-taker, with power to punish thrift, would be expected to behave. Vickerman talks as if he didn't understand that the rent taken through consumption taxes greatly exceeds the subsidies, and subsidies to token renewables are window-dressing for this.
DOE's proposed budget for nuclear bombs: $15.6 billion
DOE's proposed budget for renewable energy: $1.2 billion*
War in Iraq: $300 million per DAY
National Renewable Energy Lab: $230 million per YEAR.**
Global budget for oil: about $1.8 trillion
Global budget for narcotics: $1-to-$2.5 trillion
Global budget for defense (war) spending: $1.2 trillion
Global budget for renewable energy: several hundred billion
. . . but hey kiddies, keep on writing your congressmen. Maybe one of their staffers will incorporate what you wrote into a soundbite for the next televised speech. That should be good for some dopamine and maybe a bit of social fitness at the next letter-writing meeting. =) "Woohoo!
While you write letters and discuss "policy", the elite and high level mil-gov are building their families off-grid bunkers and buying property in South America.
That is the culture in which we live and it reveals several facts. One is the fact that terrorism works. It doesn’t fail. It works. Violence usually works. That’s world history. Secondly, it’s a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it’s primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn’t count as terror. Now that’s close to universal.
The U.S. government budget is overwhelmingly focused on violence, oil, and drugs, because they work. They efficiently concentrate power in the hands of a minority, which is the function of government.
Unfortunately, Chomsky, and the entire far left, including my brother the blogger, are unable to discuss overpopulation or resource depletion frankly.
This can be explained by Chomsky's own "propaganda model". The far left perceives the people to be allies, and the state to be the enemy. Therefore, discussion of state crimes is encouraged, and discussion of the people's crimes is taboo.
It is taboo for them to say that modern standards of living and current population depend on state terror and environmental destruction, because that would expose the crimes of the people, who are allies.
This is all that Chomsky has ever had to say about peak oil, and is representative of the far left media in general:
Chomsky: There is, because the major threat is the effect we're having on the environment, and that's mostly through hydrocarbons.
If you thought Madeleine Albright was monstrous for saying that 500,000 dead Iraqi children are "worth it," what do you think about Chomsky saying that 5,000,000,000 deaths have a "silver lining?"
I'm a little confused about your Chomsky quote, when I look at the context, namely:
Chomsky:
"As to when you get a peak for OPEC, that's farther off - decades, but it's certainly real.
There's another side to this, there's a sense in which it's advantageous if the oil peak is earlier. The reason why is it will compel the world, primarily the U.S. here, to move toward something like sustainable energy.
If there's unbounded amounts of hydrocarbons, we're just going to destroy the environment for human life or most biological life, so the earlier the peak is, in some respects - yes, it could be catastrophic, it could also be beneficial."
I get three things from this:
1) Chomsky believes "the peak" for OPEC is "decades off".
2) It seems he has an unspoken premise that "sustainable energy" is possible, and
3) that "peak" will "compel the world, primarily the U.S. here" to move toward this..."sustainable energy".
So, I don't see in this a conclusion that finds a "silver lining" in mega-deaths.
I have different premises, and this isn't an argument I'd make. Still, given that they are his, I don't see a particular rejoicing here. Chomsky does have a kind of edge about him, in general - don't know that I can put my finger on it.
From the last sentence (in the above excerpt) I took away the conclusion that he "gets" that infinite growth is not possible.
re: "Therefore, discussion of state crimes is encouraged, and discussion of the people's crimes is taboo."
My recent experience convinces me, more than ever, that people are simply (and often) quite unaware of the impact of their "lifestyle", which after all, most people are born into, and by this I mean, psychologically, as well as materially.
I'm also more convinced than ever, at least my experience with "young persons" is - they care a lot, they are brave and willing and want to change once they become more aware.
People/we don't know they/we are "criminals", in other words.
And once they know, they/we want to change.
Of course, one (they/we) has to have an emotional basis that makes the experience of becoming aware a tolerable one. And this includes the emotional capacity (imagination) to change (IMHO).
You are right that I had cherry-picked my Chomsky quote a bit. He is not openly advocating mass death per se. One point for you.
But, and I think there's little argument here, he and the rest of the left-wing media wax very euphemistic when it comes to the imminent end of fossil fuels.
They want to phrase it in terms that make the state look bad, and make the people look good, but the truth is not so clear, because it's the people who burn the majority of the fuels, and enjoy doing so.
The left generally refuses to discuss any future discontinuity in modern services for regular folks. of course they never discuss how 5/6 of humanity cann't survive the switchover from fossil to organic farming.
These things are taboo. Mention them at a left-wing party, and you aren't invited to the next one, so it's as if your idea never existed.
The Daily Kos, which is a site that is about as "left wing" as you can get, is in total denial of peak oil, so is Moveon.org.
What I don't think you realise about peak oil is that its a scientific issue, a geological issue, and not a left or right wing issue. But there are ideologues on this issue who try to politicise the issue and the solutions. We also have groups who are alligned with the peak oil issue who are adopting the issue because they think that it will move their agenda along. That includes environmentalists, the global warming sorts, and the limits to growth people.
I'm what you would consider left wing. Bbut i'm a realist, and I don't want to argue politics. OK, thats BS, I do like to argue politics. But, I don't want my personal politics to contaminate working towards a solution. Its just too important.
The left's worst mistake in this is to confuse the truths about the real state of the oil industry. National oil companies, or socialised oil companies control 87% of the production in the world, and virtually all of the remaining places to wildcat. Even in the United States, the best remaining places are all federally controlled lands-the offshore areas and the national forests in the western United States. So when the left is hating on the big oil companies, they're looking at the wrong people.
The right's biggest mistake is to think that because a group is being opposed by the left, that are their natural allies and can therefore do no wrong.
What everbody needs to remember in the United States is that we all love our country. Anybody that is concerned about politics and cares enough to participate wants the best for the people of the United States and the people of the world. Only a fool refuses to recognise that the other side is occasionally right and has good ideas, and that looking at all sides to an issue helps everybody get a better perspective. I believe this is a real, unrecognised value in America. Its why most people split their votes and are happiest when no one group totally dominates our government.
The same is true for the rest of the world. All the decent citizens want everyone to be prosperous, to be happy, to be free and have secure societies. We all disagree about the best method, and so engage in the insanity of war, mostly to promote our crazy ideologies.
So, Bryan, lighten up! Give everyone a fair hearing, and we'll do the same for you.
Bob Ebersole
The mainstream and right-wing media are far less honest than the left-wing. I singled out the left-wing because they are especially prone to congratulate themselves for their lack of bias and taboo. In fact, they have a bias toward the people, and taboos against overshoot and depletion.
Overshoot and depletion are taboo in all media, not because they are technical, but because there is no way to tell them as a story that makes the audience look good, and makes others look bad.
Fundamental to all media - more fundamental than the facts - is the notion of good guys and bad guys.
It's so fundamental that Chomsky, a genius who's spent decades studying media and writing books bout how media works, has his own set of "good guys and bad guys" that is not subject to his own analysis: the people are good and the state is bad.
The problem with telling the "peak oil" story is that every single person on Earth, except maybe the hunter-gatherers, plays a bad guy in this story. You can't tell the story without offending the listener!
And if you tell it to a hunter-gatherer, he'll say "yeah, that's what we told you guys in the first place!"
Oilman--
Kos and MoveOn are supporters of Democrats, and are toward the political center, at best. Bonddad, who is Kos's economic blogger, is pro market capitalists, and would be considered on the Right in Western Europe.
These are hardly "Left Wing" perspectives---
But agreed-- The "Left" in the USA is very anti-scientific (people like Steven Pinker drive them crazy, with the exposure of the fallacy of the Blank Slate)--
That said, the Right is living in a economic fantasy land, in which thermodynamics is Satan, and delusion is a badge of honor--
They love the Suicide Economy, and want nothing to do with reality--
For some "Left Wing" perspectives, check Monthly Review or Daily Bleed---
Or, for a conservative Marxist perspective, check the RCP---
Adorno:
"If voting could change things , it would be illegal"
DOE's proposed budget for nuclear bombs: $15.6 billion
DOE's proposed budget for renewable energy: $1.2 billion*
War in Iraq: $300 million per DAY
National Renewable Energy Lab: $230 million per YEAR.**
Global budget for oil: about $1.8 trillion
Global budget for narcotics: $1-to-$2.5 trillion
Global budget for defense (war) spending: $1.2 trillion
Global budget for renewable energy: several hundred billion
"A study released this year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said if 40 percent of the heat under the United States could be tapped, it would meet demand 56,000 times over. It said an investment of $800 million to $1 billion could produce more than 100 gigawatts of electricity by 2050, equaling the combined output of all 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S."
So, lemme get this straight - Even if overruns triple the estimated costs (likely), it's still less than what we spend on a lousy 10 days worth of operations in Iraq. Plus it has the potential to provide 20% of US electricity? Likely more if we invest more heavily in it. Sounds like a screaming bargain to me.
Granted, there are potential problems, like the earthquake mentioned in CH. However, I'd think one of the big coal states, Wyoming, where the Earth's crust is relatively thin in spots, would be all over it.
Yet, with such massive potential upside, the Los Alamos project ran out of money? Such action (by the DOE?) are not just plain dumb, they border on treasonous.
Correct me if the numbers are off, but I can't believe that something like this is being virtually ignored is colossally stupid.
The 100 GW per year that the MIT people hope to get from geothermal is less than we get right now from nuclear and way less than we get from coal.
Sure, if we can lower the cost of geothermal that would be great. But it would not solve our energy problems.
Our energy problem is an energy storage problem. Oil is not just an energy source. Oil is also a very convenient form of energy storage for transportation purposes. We need much better batteries so we can turn electricity into a useful transportation energy source.
Well, in some European countries (which have much higher population densities than we do) gasoline costs more than twice as much as in the United States. Yet I've read that the percentage of travel by public transport is declining in some (all? European countries. People want to go from where they want to start to where they want to finish. They do not want to take rail that goes only along fixed routes.
Would you rather take rail or take a motorcycle? My guess is that at $10 per gallon gasoline we'll see small diesel hybrid cars and more motorcycles but not a lot more rail.
Check out Peter Schaeffer's numbers on population densities in some European and American cities. He dug out those numbers in the context of a debate about a Paul Krugman NYTimes column about high speed internet connection availability in Europe and America. But the same argument he makes on broadband connections is applicable to mass transit as well.
To increase US population density to European levels to make mass transit a lot more appealing would require massive apartment building construction programs lasting decades and moves by tens or hundreds of millions of people. I'm guessing that's not going to happen. We will shift to lighter and more fuel efficient vehicles (diesel and electric motorcycles in the extreme) before bunching together into high rises.
Of course if regular TOD contributors start reporting they are moving to live next to light or heavy rail stations I'll reconsider my views. Maybe once world oil production starts declining 5% per year that'll happen.
If people do abandon many small towns for densely populated cities then I'm going to find a way to move to one of the ghost towns and live in an enormous mansion (I might have to walk a long way to get there). I'm expecting mdsolar Chris will sell me a roof apparatus to keep my home office powered. Though I might need to hitch up a horse and wagon to go pick it up along a rail line.
It will come installed, no need for the horse and wagon. But, it is not for sale just for rent. The idea is to make solar easy. There will be do it yourself kits coming later for barns and workshops that will be for sale. Might want you rig for that.
Perhaps as the other responder suggested we can have overhead wires almost everywhere. I tnink by "100 GW per year" FuturePundit meant just 100 GW.
To get much better than, say, Li-ion, batteries will need to take their oxygen from air. If they are much better and the oxygen is already in them, they are bombs. They can retain the zero-local-emission characteristic of today's batteries if they take air oxygen, oxidize something, but don't emit it. They can have combustion-like power-to-weight ratio and durability if their energy release is in fact combustion, not a pair of electrode processes.
If overhead wires could work for cars then I could see their utility. But I'm guessing it makes more sense to just have payable electric plugs in every parking lot and have a few thousand dollars worth of batteries in all cars.
Think of it this way: Precisely because we are driving around in cars much bigger than we need them to be we have a large amount of room for adjustment. This large amount of room for adjustment (and not just in car sizes) plus the march of technology are why I'm optimistic about our ability to adjust to Peak Oil.
Think of it this way: Precisely because we are driving around in cars much bigger than we need them to be we have a large amount of room for adjustment. This large amount of room for adjustment (and not just in car sizes) plus the march of technology are why I'm optimistic about our ability to adjust to Peak Oil.
I agree on this to a point. There is even more room for reduction than that, when you consider that much of our economy is based on 'creating markets' for goods that are unnecessary to a decent quality of life. Most of us could lose the dishwashers, the ice-in-door refrigerators, the multiple TVs, the incandescent lights, the air conditioning, and the 12 trips per day to soccer games / 7-11 / Wal-Mart / Home Depot.
Many could drop the extra job that goes to pay for the jetskis, the Harleys, the landscaping contractor (get a goat), and the car to drive to the extra job.
Most of the justification for our wars are based upon our fear of losing energy 'security', which is necessary only for unnecessary things. The necessary things (food, clothing, shelter, education) can be supported with the coal, oil, gas, and nukes we already have in house, (I'm guessing). Especially if we take all those people that were 'relieved' of their jobs by machines and chemicals on farms and put them back on the land where they are needed to keep an eye on things.
Most of our transportation fuels aren't transporting cargo, they are transporting transport. Not to mention how much is transported in and out of countries just to play the accounting games. (milk shipped to Canada to be turned into cheese and shipped back, etc.)
Auntiegrav, Dishwashers use less water and energy than washing dishes by hand. I'm guessing the same is true for clothes washers versus hand washing.
Air conditioning: without it my productivity as a software developer would go down.
As for getting everyone to drop their desire for consumer goods: Not going to happen. People really like having gadgets to do things for them. Personally, I want more: Robots to clean would be great.
If all you are doing is running around town, a car shaped like a large egg might be just fine. But people go other places than around town and if they buy a car, they want it to meet all their needs.
Somewhere I saw a picture of a smart car (or something like it) with a pickup box that attaches to the back and adds another axle. Could just as well be a van body.
Too true. Very few people realize that all the energy-exporting states (there's roughly ten net exporters) have been sticking together very effectively for many decades, but the energy importing states haven't taken much concerted action in their own common interest.
The result is that citizens of energy-importer states have subsidized things like the Alaska Permanent Fund and the huge endowment fund that makes higher education so inexpensive in Texas, etc.
Every time you pay your gas bill, electric bill, or buy motor fuel, you help to pay royalty fees and severance taxes that are charged against extracted energy from coal, gas and oil that are passed along to the consumer. The state severance taxes help to pay for state government operating expenses, and help politicians in those states to avoid raising local taxes. Why should they? Their state's operating budgets are subsidized by citizens in the energy-importing states, who don't even realize it.
Why can't the energy -importing states get their act together and work for efficiency and conservation that reduces these subsidies to energy-exporting states? I think it's partly because they (or more accurately, their constituents) don't realize they are subsidizing governments in other states.
For example, in Alaska, less than 20% of state operating expenses are paid by taxes levied directly on Alaskan citizens.
Almost every time there is a genuine possibility of energy importing states banding together to do something that makes sense for themselves, the corn ethanol issue gets trotted out as a way to get votes (from energy-importing states!)
needed to defeat serious renewables, efficiency, and conservation efforts.
But this is slowly changing, as energy-importing states enact their own RPS and attempt to follow California's lead on "vehicle CO2 emissions".
I'm not optimistic about what will come from Congress.
Which state will be the first to enact a carbon tax? Or are there some already?
Why can't the energy -importing states get their act together and work for efficiency and conservation that reduces these subsidies to energy-exporting states?
They can't get their act together because they're mostly run by enviromentalist and neo-socialists as we've seen in California.
California is a text-book case in how NOT to run a state.
Look at the damage the enviromentalists have done:
A. LNG terminal was to be opened 11 miles off of Malibu. That's right, clean-burning LNG shipped in from Australia from BP. Sorry, it was an "eye-sore" to the Hollywood celebrities. Killed by the libs.
B. Ban on off-shore oil-drilling. Well how many billions of tax dollars did the State miss out on by not using that resource? Tens of billions.
C. The enviromentialists killed a Nuclear power-plant in the late eighties. Gee, they state could have used that plant during the energy crisis of 2000/2001.
D. Hostility to on-shore drilling. More tax dollars lost to Texas.
E. Enviromentalists have also waged a war against any new highway construction since the 2006 bond initiatives. So more people will sit in more traffic jams wasting gas and oil.
I think it's partly because they (or more accurately, their constituents) don't realize they are subsidizing governments in other states.
No, its mostly because they are stupid.
New Mexico, where I now live, can provide cheap higher education-almost free-because of huge roylaties the state collects from the oil and NG companies.
Stupid is as stupid does and that is what the socialists have wrought on California.
I can't believe that environmentalists are as powerful as you claim. Can you name one environmentalist in all of history who is a household name? I can't. Without thinking I can name a few oilmen who are household names: Rockefeller, Getty, Hughes.
This is because power flows from oil (& violence & drugs,) not from environmentalism. There's no money in environmentalism.
If they're saying that the LNG terminal was killed by environmentalists, that's just a fig leaf over the truth, which is that America doesn't need the LNG yet, because NG from CA and MX is still relatively cheap. Japan has no choice but to import LNG, because it's an island with no natgas.
If they're saying that the offshore drilling was killed by environmentalists, that's just a fig leaf over the truth, which is that offshore oil is to serve as America's "strategic petroleum reserve" for when things get really, really bad.
As for nuclear power plants, it's unclear whether the conservative designs we implement today are net exporters of energy. Historically, America's nuclear plants have served as a cover for weapons development. It's possible that riskier designs are net exporters of energy. So far, the risk has outweighed the anticipated reward.
As for new highway construction, it's now well understood that highway expansion *creates traffic*. The powers that be may have decided for any number of reasons that they would not like to create more traffic right now.
If they're saying that the LNG terminal was killed by environmentalists, that's just a fig leaf over the truth, which is that America doesn't need the LNG yet, because NG from CA and MX is still relatively cheap. Japan has no choice but to import LNG, because it's an island with no natgas.
If they're saying that the offshore drilling was killed by environmentalists, that's just a fig leaf over the truth, which is that offshore oil is to serve as America's "strategic petroleum reserve" for when things get really, really bad.
As for nuclear power plants, it's unclear whether the conservative designs we implement today are net exporters of energy. Historically, America's nuclear plants have served as a cover for weapons development. It's possible that riskier designs are net exporters of energy. So far, the risk has outweighed the anticipated reward.
And this my friends is why our energy problem will never be resolved. Denial. This man, I'm sure he's well meaning and a great guy, is in denial about the root cause of our energy problem. He is like many, many Americans and westerners. They are blind to the real problem.
In 1982 the Reagan administration proposed the building of 200 NEW nuclear power plants to wean ourselves off of mid-East oil.
Guess who killed that idea? Sure wasn't a fig-leaf. ;->
Please, please, please provide links. I Googled every which combination of "Reagan" "1982" "nuclear" "reactor" without any result that matched what you're talking about.
Please, also be explicit about "the problem". What is the problem? Fear of nuclear power? Who opposes it? Democrats? Liberals? Average Joes? I'm none of those.
I've done a lot of webbing, and I'm still not convinced that conventional nuclear reactors are an energy source. If you consider all the energy it takes to explore, discover, and mine uranium, there may not actually be an energy profit in conventional reactors.
I don't know what to tell you about your failure to find anyting on Reagan's proposal. 1982 was well before the internet and something as mild as a proposal. His proposal was dead-on-arrival in the enviromentally controlled House.
The "problem" is ludite enviromentalists.
Conventional nuclear reactors are not an energy source?
You misunderstand. Nuclear reactors do produce energy, but only after plenty of conventional fuels were spent exploring, discovering, mining, refining, and enriching the uranium. As the energy cost of producing conventional fuels grows, there will come a day when the conventional fuel energy spent creating nuclear fuel is more than the nuclear energy it produces.
This does not mean that nuclear energy is useless. But it does mean that it may not be an energy source. It may act more like a kind of "battery" where, effectively, fossil fuels have been converted to a form that requires no combustion.
Which is why nuclear reactors are so nifty in submarines. Because submarines are underwater.
Upon what do you base this assertion from bmcnett? All of the reading I have done on this subject indicates that whilst the energy requirements for manufacturing reactor fuel (and the construction of nuclear powerplants of course) are substantial, the energy returns are orders of magnitude greater than the input.
I am always on the look out for info that challenges my current understanding however, so if you have some sources you can point me towards I would appreciate it.
Please don't forget that I was talking about conventional reactors. Fast-breeder reactors are awesome energy sources. Even M. King Hubbert said so, in his famous 1956 paper that introduced the world to peak oil.
For explaining why conventional reactors suck, I defer to Depletion Scotland!
The problem with fast-breeder reactors - the reason why we don't have any - is that they happen to produce weapons-grade plutonium, and for this and other reasons are quite unsafe to scale up for mass market consumption.
"America is not a young land: it is old and dirty and evil before the settlers, before the Indians. The evil is there waiting." William S. Burroughs
In 1982 the Reagan administration proposed the building of 200 NEW nuclear power plants to wean ourselves off of mid-East oil
HARDLY !
VERY little oil is used to generate electricity, and what is burned is in Hawaii (no nukes planned for Maui AFAIK), Puerto Rico and for rare peaking in extreme cases.
Electricity has a small bit of overlap with oil for home heating, but that is about it.
Reagan DID kill an effective program to get off of oil though. Carter approved plans to build Rapid Rail (subways) in Atlanta, Miami and Baltimore. Reagan kept these from expanding and new ones in new cities. THAT is a way to use electricity to replace oil. In fact we could reduce US Oil use by -10% (-15% for transportation) by using non-R means:
Government behaves in re petroleum and natural gas as a principal rent-taker, with power to punish thrift, would be expected to behave. Vickerman talks as if he didn't understand that the rent taken through consumption taxes greatly exceeds the subsidies, and subsidies to token renewables are window-dressing for this.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html :
oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Here's your federal energy policy:
DOE's proposed budget for nuclear bombs: $15.6 billion
DOE's proposed budget for renewable energy: $1.2 billion*
War in Iraq: $300 million per DAY
National Renewable Energy Lab: $230 million per YEAR.**
Global budget for oil: about $1.8 trillion
Global budget for narcotics: $1-to-$2.5 trillion
Global budget for defense (war) spending: $1.2 trillion
Global budget for renewable energy: several hundred billion
. . . but hey kiddies, keep on writing your congressmen. Maybe one of their staffers will incorporate what you wrote into a soundbite for the next televised speech. That should be good for some dopamine and maybe a bit of social fitness at the next letter-writing meeting. =) "Woohoo!
While you write letters and discuss "policy", the elite and high level mil-gov are building their families off-grid bunkers and buying property in South America.
*Source: http://www.alternet.org/story/51368/?page=3
**Source: my memory, easily confirmed via a google search
Chomsky explains:
Terrorism Works – Terrorism is not the Weapon of the Weak
That is the culture in which we live and it reveals several facts. One is the fact that terrorism works. It doesn’t fail. It works. Violence usually works. That’s world history. Secondly, it’s a very serious analytic error to say, as is commonly done, that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. Like other means of violence, it’s primarily a weapon of the strong, overwhelmingly, in fact. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems and their terror doesn’t count as terror. Now that’s close to universal.
The U.S. government budget is overwhelmingly focused on violence, oil, and drugs, because they work. They efficiently concentrate power in the hands of a minority, which is the function of government.
Unfortunately, Chomsky, and the entire far left, including my brother the blogger, are unable to discuss overpopulation or resource depletion frankly.
This can be explained by Chomsky's own "propaganda model". The far left perceives the people to be allies, and the state to be the enemy. Therefore, discussion of state crimes is encouraged, and discussion of the people's crimes is taboo.
It is taboo for them to say that modern standards of living and current population depend on state terror and environmental destruction, because that would expose the crimes of the people, who are allies.
This is all that Chomsky has ever had to say about peak oil, and is representative of the far left media in general:
Host Steve Scher: So you see a silver lining?
Chomsky: There is, because the major threat is the effect we're having on the environment, and that's mostly through hydrocarbons.
If you thought Madeleine Albright was monstrous for saying that 500,000 dead Iraqi children are "worth it," what do you think about Chomsky saying that 5,000,000,000 deaths have a "silver lining?"
Bryan
Hi Bryan,
I'm a little confused about your Chomsky quote, when I look at the context, namely:
Chomsky:
"As to when you get a peak for OPEC, that's farther off - decades, but it's certainly real.
There's another side to this, there's a sense in which it's advantageous if the oil peak is earlier. The reason why is it will compel the world, primarily the U.S. here, to move toward something like sustainable energy.
If there's unbounded amounts of hydrocarbons, we're just going to destroy the environment for human life or most biological life, so the earlier the peak is, in some respects - yes, it could be catastrophic, it could also be beneficial."
I get three things from this:
1) Chomsky believes "the peak" for OPEC is "decades off".
2) It seems he has an unspoken premise that "sustainable energy" is possible, and
3) that "peak" will "compel the world, primarily the U.S. here" to move toward this..."sustainable energy".
So, I don't see in this a conclusion that finds a "silver lining" in mega-deaths.
I have different premises, and this isn't an argument I'd make. Still, given that they are his, I don't see a particular rejoicing here. Chomsky does have a kind of edge about him, in general - don't know that I can put my finger on it.
From the last sentence (in the above excerpt) I took away the conclusion that he "gets" that infinite growth is not possible.
re: "Therefore, discussion of state crimes is encouraged, and discussion of the people's crimes is taboo."
My recent experience convinces me, more than ever, that people are simply (and often) quite unaware of the impact of their "lifestyle", which after all, most people are born into, and by this I mean, psychologically, as well as materially.
I'm also more convinced than ever, at least my experience with "young persons" is - they care a lot, they are brave and willing and want to change once they become more aware.
People/we don't know they/we are "criminals", in other words.
And once they know, they/we want to change.
Of course, one (they/we) has to have an emotional basis that makes the experience of becoming aware a tolerable one. And this includes the emotional capacity (imagination) to change (IMHO).
Aniya,
You are right that I had cherry-picked my Chomsky quote a bit. He is not openly advocating mass death per se. One point for you.
But, and I think there's little argument here, he and the rest of the left-wing media wax very euphemistic when it comes to the imminent end of fossil fuels.
They want to phrase it in terms that make the state look bad, and make the people look good, but the truth is not so clear, because it's the people who burn the majority of the fuels, and enjoy doing so.
The left generally refuses to discuss any future discontinuity in modern services for regular folks. of course they never discuss how 5/6 of humanity cann't survive the switchover from fossil to organic farming.
These things are taboo. Mention them at a left-wing party, and you aren't invited to the next one, so it's as if your idea never existed.
Bryan
Bryan:
The Daily Kos, which is a site that is about as "left wing" as you can get, is in total denial of peak oil, so is Moveon.org.
What I don't think you realise about peak oil is that its a scientific issue, a geological issue, and not a left or right wing issue. But there are ideologues on this issue who try to politicise the issue and the solutions. We also have groups who are alligned with the peak oil issue who are adopting the issue because they think that it will move their agenda along. That includes environmentalists, the global warming sorts, and the limits to growth people.
I'm what you would consider left wing. Bbut i'm a realist, and I don't want to argue politics. OK, thats BS, I do like to argue politics. But, I don't want my personal politics to contaminate working towards a solution. Its just too important.
The left's worst mistake in this is to confuse the truths about the real state of the oil industry. National oil companies, or socialised oil companies control 87% of the production in the world, and virtually all of the remaining places to wildcat. Even in the United States, the best remaining places are all federally controlled lands-the offshore areas and the national forests in the western United States. So when the left is hating on the big oil companies, they're looking at the wrong people.
The right's biggest mistake is to think that because a group is being opposed by the left, that are their natural allies and can therefore do no wrong.
What everbody needs to remember in the United States is that we all love our country. Anybody that is concerned about politics and cares enough to participate wants the best for the people of the United States and the people of the world. Only a fool refuses to recognise that the other side is occasionally right and has good ideas, and that looking at all sides to an issue helps everybody get a better perspective. I believe this is a real, unrecognised value in America. Its why most people split their votes and are happiest when no one group totally dominates our government.
The same is true for the rest of the world. All the decent citizens want everyone to be prosperous, to be happy, to be free and have secure societies. We all disagree about the best method, and so engage in the insanity of war, mostly to promote our crazy ideologies.
So, Bryan, lighten up! Give everyone a fair hearing, and we'll do the same for you.
Bob Ebersole
Bob,
The mainstream and right-wing media are far less honest than the left-wing. I singled out the left-wing because they are especially prone to congratulate themselves for their lack of bias and taboo. In fact, they have a bias toward the people, and taboos against overshoot and depletion.
Overshoot and depletion are taboo in all media, not because they are technical, but because there is no way to tell them as a story that makes the audience look good, and makes others look bad.
Fundamental to all media - more fundamental than the facts - is the notion of good guys and bad guys.
It's so fundamental that Chomsky, a genius who's spent decades studying media and writing books bout how media works, has his own set of "good guys and bad guys" that is not subject to his own analysis: the people are good and the state is bad.
The problem with telling the "peak oil" story is that every single person on Earth, except maybe the hunter-gatherers, plays a bad guy in this story. You can't tell the story without offending the listener!
And if you tell it to a hunter-gatherer, he'll say "yeah, that's what we told you guys in the first place!"
:)
Bryan
Ahh ... thoughtful, really thoughtful, comments on a dead thread.
I recommend reading Paul Bloom of Yale, recently in Science and The Atlantic Monthly. He writes of children, and how they learn. Chomsky might listen.
Oilman--
Kos and MoveOn are supporters of Democrats, and are toward the political center, at best. Bonddad, who is Kos's economic blogger, is pro market capitalists, and would be considered on the Right in Western Europe.
These are hardly "Left Wing" perspectives---
But agreed-- The "Left" in the USA is very anti-scientific (people like Steven Pinker drive them crazy, with the exposure of the fallacy of the Blank Slate)--
That said, the Right is living in a economic fantasy land, in which thermodynamics is Satan, and delusion is a badge of honor--
They love the Suicide Economy, and want nothing to do with reality--
For some "Left Wing" perspectives, check Monthly Review or Daily Bleed---
Or, for a conservative Marxist perspective, check the RCP---
Adorno:
"If voting could change things , it would be illegal"
HI there, Chimp,
Thanks for the list - the contrasts are stark.
(BTW, where did you get the numbers for global oil, narc, and war? I believe them, just curious.)
War: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/11/1807/
Narcotics: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=91 (estimated at 2-to-5% of global GDP which equates to about $1-to-2 trillion)
(Fitts says the US alone has over $500 billion in drug money flowing in, that was about 5 years ago. It's probably way more now.)
Oil: 30 billion barrels per year x $60 perbarrel = $1.8 trillion per year
That's not to mention the $2 trillion that the Pentagon has "lost."
Matt,
Thanks for the list. Its sickening to see the crazy waste in the world, and helps put it all in perspective.
Bob Ebersole
Right on the head.
Read this article: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8QQAG2O1.htm
"A study released this year by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology said if 40 percent of the heat under the United States could be tapped, it would meet demand 56,000 times over. It said an investment of $800 million to $1 billion could produce more than 100 gigawatts of electricity by 2050, equaling the combined output of all 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S."
So, lemme get this straight - Even if overruns triple the estimated costs (likely), it's still less than what we spend on a lousy 10 days worth of operations in Iraq. Plus it has the potential to provide 20% of US electricity? Likely more if we invest more heavily in it. Sounds like a screaming bargain to me.
Granted, there are potential problems, like the earthquake mentioned in CH. However, I'd think one of the big coal states, Wyoming, where the Earth's crust is relatively thin in spots, would be all over it.
Yet, with such massive potential upside, the Los Alamos project ran out of money? Such action (by the DOE?) are not just plain dumb, they border on treasonous.
Correct me if the numbers are off, but I can't believe that something like this is being virtually ignored is colossally stupid.
The 100 GW per year that the MIT people hope to get from geothermal is less than we get right now from nuclear and way less than we get from coal.
Sure, if we can lower the cost of geothermal that would be great. But it would not solve our energy problems.
Our energy problem is an energy storage problem. Oil is not just an energy source. Oil is also a very convenient form of energy storage for transportation purposes. We need much better batteries so we can turn electricity into a useful transportation energy source.
We need much better batteries so we can turn electricity into a useful transportation energy source
Not Really
Well, in some European countries (which have much higher population densities than we do) gasoline costs more than twice as much as in the United States. Yet I've read that the percentage of travel by public transport is declining in some (all? European countries. People want to go from where they want to start to where they want to finish. They do not want to take rail that goes only along fixed routes.
Would you rather take rail or take a motorcycle? My guess is that at $10 per gallon gasoline we'll see small diesel hybrid cars and more motorcycles but not a lot more rail.
Check out Peter Schaeffer's numbers on population densities in some European and American cities. He dug out those numbers in the context of a debate about a Paul Krugman NYTimes column about high speed internet connection availability in Europe and America. But the same argument he makes on broadband connections is applicable to mass transit as well.
To increase US population density to European levels to make mass transit a lot more appealing would require massive apartment building construction programs lasting decades and moves by tens or hundreds of millions of people. I'm guessing that's not going to happen. We will shift to lighter and more fuel efficient vehicles (diesel and electric motorcycles in the extreme) before bunching together into high rises.
Of course if regular TOD contributors start reporting they are moving to live next to light or heavy rail stations I'll reconsider my views. Maybe once world oil production starts declining 5% per year that'll happen.
If people do abandon many small towns for densely populated cities then I'm going to find a way to move to one of the ghost towns and live in an enormous mansion (I might have to walk a long way to get there). I'm expecting mdsolar Chris will sell me a roof apparatus to keep my home office powered. Though I might need to hitch up a horse and wagon to go pick it up along a rail line.
It will come installed, no need for the horse and wagon. But, it is not for sale just for rent. The idea is to make solar easy. There will be do it yourself kits coming later for barns and workshops that will be for sale. Might want you rig for that.
Chris
Perhaps as the other responder suggested we can have overhead wires almost everywhere. I tnink by "100 GW per year" FuturePundit meant just 100 GW.
To get much better than, say, Li-ion, batteries will need to take their oxygen from air. If they are much better and the oxygen is already in them, they are bombs. They can retain the zero-local-emission characteristic of today's batteries if they take air oxygen, oxidize something, but don't emit it. They can have combustion-like power-to-weight ratio and durability if their energy release is in fact combustion, not a pair of electrode processes.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html :
oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
If overhead wires could work for cars then I could see their utility. But I'm guessing it makes more sense to just have payable electric plugs in every parking lot and have a few thousand dollars worth of batteries in all cars.
Why do more than a very few need cars larger than
And Urban Rail of all types in towns as small as 50,000 people ?
Not much Suburbia & Exurbia though,
Best Hopes,
Alan
Think of it this way: Precisely because we are driving around in cars much bigger than we need them to be we have a large amount of room for adjustment. This large amount of room for adjustment (and not just in car sizes) plus the march of technology are why I'm optimistic about our ability to adjust to Peak Oil.
I agree on this to a point. There is even more room for reduction than that, when you consider that much of our economy is based on 'creating markets' for goods that are unnecessary to a decent quality of life. Most of us could lose the dishwashers, the ice-in-door refrigerators, the multiple TVs, the incandescent lights, the air conditioning, and the 12 trips per day to soccer games / 7-11 / Wal-Mart / Home Depot.
Many could drop the extra job that goes to pay for the jetskis, the Harleys, the landscaping contractor (get a goat), and the car to drive to the extra job.
Most of the justification for our wars are based upon our fear of losing energy 'security', which is necessary only for unnecessary things. The necessary things (food, clothing, shelter, education) can be supported with the coal, oil, gas, and nukes we already have in house, (I'm guessing). Especially if we take all those people that were 'relieved' of their jobs by machines and chemicals on farms and put them back on the land where they are needed to keep an eye on things.
Most of our transportation fuels aren't transporting cargo, they are transporting transport. Not to mention how much is transported in and out of countries just to play the accounting games. (milk shipped to Canada to be turned into cheese and shipped back, etc.)
"If you want Change, keep it in your pocket."
Auntiegrav, Dishwashers use less water and energy than washing dishes by hand. I'm guessing the same is true for clothes washers versus hand washing.
Air conditioning: without it my productivity as a software developer would go down.
As for getting everyone to drop their desire for consumer goods: Not going to happen. People really like having gadgets to do things for them. Personally, I want more: Robots to clean would be great.
If all you are doing is running around town, a car shaped like a large egg might be just fine. But people go other places than around town and if they buy a car, they want it to meet all their needs.
Take the train in most cases (see several other nations) or do not go in the not-to-distant future.
Alan
Somewhere I saw a picture of a smart car (or something like it) with a pickup box that attaches to the back and adds another axle. Could just as well be a van body.
GRL:
Too true. Very few people realize that all the energy-exporting states (there's roughly ten net exporters) have been sticking together very effectively for many decades, but the energy importing states haven't taken much concerted action in their own common interest.
The result is that citizens of energy-importer states have subsidized things like the Alaska Permanent Fund and the huge endowment fund that makes higher education so inexpensive in Texas, etc.
Every time you pay your gas bill, electric bill, or buy motor fuel, you help to pay royalty fees and severance taxes that are charged against extracted energy from coal, gas and oil that are passed along to the consumer. The state severance taxes help to pay for state government operating expenses, and help politicians in those states to avoid raising local taxes. Why should they? Their state's operating budgets are subsidized by citizens in the energy-importing states, who don't even realize it.
Why can't the energy -importing states get their act together and work for efficiency and conservation that reduces these subsidies to energy-exporting states? I think it's partly because they (or more accurately, their constituents) don't realize they are subsidizing governments in other states.
For example, in Alaska, less than 20% of state operating expenses are paid by taxes levied directly on Alaskan citizens.
Almost every time there is a genuine possibility of energy importing states banding together to do something that makes sense for themselves, the corn ethanol issue gets trotted out as a way to get votes (from energy-importing states!)
needed to defeat serious renewables, efficiency, and conservation efforts.
But this is slowly changing, as energy-importing states enact their own RPS and attempt to follow California's lead on "vehicle CO2 emissions".
I'm not optimistic about what will come from Congress.
Which state will be the first to enact a carbon tax? Or are there some already?
Les Lambert
Bend OR
Why can't the energy -importing states get their act together and work for efficiency and conservation that reduces these subsidies to energy-exporting states?
They can't get their act together because they're mostly run by enviromentalist and neo-socialists as we've seen in California.
California is a text-book case in how NOT to run a state.
Look at the damage the enviromentalists have done:
A. LNG terminal was to be opened 11 miles off of Malibu. That's right, clean-burning LNG shipped in from Australia from BP. Sorry, it was an "eye-sore" to the Hollywood celebrities. Killed by the libs.
B. Ban on off-shore oil-drilling. Well how many billions of tax dollars did the State miss out on by not using that resource? Tens of billions.
C. The enviromentialists killed a Nuclear power-plant in the late eighties. Gee, they state could have used that plant during the energy crisis of 2000/2001.
D. Hostility to on-shore drilling. More tax dollars lost to Texas.
E. Enviromentalists have also waged a war against any new highway construction since the 2006 bond initiatives. So more people will sit in more traffic jams wasting gas and oil.
I think it's partly because they (or more accurately, their constituents) don't realize they are subsidizing governments in other states.
No, its mostly because they are stupid.
New Mexico, where I now live, can provide cheap higher education-almost free-because of huge roylaties the state collects from the oil and NG companies.
Stupid is as stupid does and that is what the socialists have wrought on California.
I can't believe that environmentalists are as powerful as you claim. Can you name one environmentalist in all of history who is a household name? I can't. Without thinking I can name a few oilmen who are household names: Rockefeller, Getty, Hughes.
This is because power flows from oil (& violence & drugs,) not from environmentalism. There's no money in environmentalism.
If they're saying that the LNG terminal was killed by environmentalists, that's just a fig leaf over the truth, which is that America doesn't need the LNG yet, because NG from CA and MX is still relatively cheap. Japan has no choice but to import LNG, because it's an island with no natgas.
If they're saying that the offshore drilling was killed by environmentalists, that's just a fig leaf over the truth, which is that offshore oil is to serve as America's "strategic petroleum reserve" for when things get really, really bad.
As for nuclear power plants, it's unclear whether the conservative designs we implement today are net exporters of energy. Historically, America's nuclear plants have served as a cover for weapons development. It's possible that riskier designs are net exporters of energy. So far, the risk has outweighed the anticipated reward.
As for new highway construction, it's now well understood that highway expansion *creates traffic*. The powers that be may have decided for any number of reasons that they would not like to create more traffic right now.
Bryan
If they're saying that the LNG terminal was killed by environmentalists, that's just a fig leaf over the truth, which is that America doesn't need the LNG yet, because NG from CA and MX is still relatively cheap. Japan has no choice but to import LNG, because it's an island with no natgas.
If they're saying that the offshore drilling was killed by environmentalists, that's just a fig leaf over the truth, which is that offshore oil is to serve as America's "strategic petroleum reserve" for when things get really, really bad.
As for nuclear power plants, it's unclear whether the conservative designs we implement today are net exporters of energy. Historically, America's nuclear plants have served as a cover for weapons development. It's possible that riskier designs are net exporters of energy. So far, the risk has outweighed the anticipated reward.
And this my friends is why our energy problem will never be resolved. Denial. This man, I'm sure he's well meaning and a great guy, is in denial about the root cause of our energy problem. He is like many, many Americans and westerners. They are blind to the real problem.
In 1982 the Reagan administration proposed the building of 200 NEW nuclear power plants to wean ourselves off of mid-East oil.
Guess who killed that idea? Sure wasn't a fig-leaf. ;->
Please, please, please provide links. I Googled every which combination of "Reagan" "1982" "nuclear" "reactor" without any result that matched what you're talking about.
Please, also be explicit about "the problem". What is the problem? Fear of nuclear power? Who opposes it? Democrats? Liberals? Average Joes? I'm none of those.
I've done a lot of webbing, and I'm still not convinced that conventional nuclear reactors are an energy source. If you consider all the energy it takes to explore, discover, and mine uranium, there may not actually be an energy profit in conventional reactors.
Bryan
I don't know what to tell you about your failure to find anyting on Reagan's proposal. 1982 was well before the internet and something as mild as a proposal. His proposal was dead-on-arrival in the enviromentally controlled House.
The "problem" is ludite enviromentalists.
Conventional nuclear reactors are not an energy source?
I guess someone should tell the US Navy that!
You misunderstand. Nuclear reactors do produce energy, but only after plenty of conventional fuels were spent exploring, discovering, mining, refining, and enriching the uranium. As the energy cost of producing conventional fuels grows, there will come a day when the conventional fuel energy spent creating nuclear fuel is more than the nuclear energy it produces.
This does not mean that nuclear energy is useless. But it does mean that it may not be an energy source. It may act more like a kind of "battery" where, effectively, fossil fuels have been converted to a form that requires no combustion.
Which is why nuclear reactors are so nifty in submarines. Because submarines are underwater.
Upon what do you base this assertion from bmcnett? All of the reading I have done on this subject indicates that whilst the energy requirements for manufacturing reactor fuel (and the construction of nuclear powerplants of course) are substantial, the energy returns are orders of magnitude greater than the input.
I am always on the look out for info that challenges my current understanding however, so if you have some sources you can point me towards I would appreciate it.
Regards
--
Luke Silburn
Please don't forget that I was talking about conventional reactors. Fast-breeder reactors are awesome energy sources. Even M. King Hubbert said so, in his famous 1956 paper that introduced the world to peak oil.
For explaining why conventional reactors suck, I defer to Depletion Scotland!
The problem with fast-breeder reactors - the reason why we don't have any - is that they happen to produce weapons-grade plutonium, and for this and other reasons are quite unsafe to scale up for mass market consumption.
"America is not a young land: it is old and dirty and evil before the settlers, before the Indians. The evil is there waiting." William S. Burroughs
In 1982 the Reagan administration proposed the building of 200 NEW nuclear power plants to wean ourselves off of mid-East oil
HARDLY !
VERY little oil is used to generate electricity, and what is burned is in Hawaii (no nukes planned for Maui AFAIK), Puerto Rico and for rare peaking in extreme cases.
Electricity has a small bit of overlap with oil for home heating, but that is about it.
Reagan DID kill an effective program to get off of oil though. Carter approved plans to build Rapid Rail (subways) in Atlanta, Miami and Baltimore. Reagan kept these from expanding and new ones in new cities. THAT is a way to use electricity to replace oil. In fact we could reduce US Oil use by -10% (-15% for transportation) by using non-R means:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
Best Hopes for Electrification of Transportation,
Alan