Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
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
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”
—Gandhi
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
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
There is a long article in the Washington Post this morning by Bjorn Lomborg:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR200710...
I wouldn't have even mentioned it were it not for the story that HO did where he compared global warming denailism and peak oil denialism.
The article itself sound like just a distillation of the arguments that he made in the book..
I suppose the most important -- perhaps the only -- reason to pay attention to Lomborg is that he is an articulate and immaculately groomed exponent of a very influential line of thought: "everything in the world has a price. Everything is measurable, tradeable, fungible and above all, everything is for sale."
Of course, that is just a peculiar human conceit -- but taught to us from the cradle -- "replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" -- in the version I learned, but I imagine the Chinese have their own scripture.
I just finished reading an account of a voyage of the Glomar Explorer which recounts the discovery that the Mediterranean Sea dried up about 6 million years ago and the whole region turned into a 3000 ft below sea level desert salt flat.
It isn't that Lomborg is wrong, so much as that he is essentially irrelevant.
In theory Lomborg is right. But it's a really bad theory.
Lomborg isn't giving us a theory -- it isn't testable or falsifiiable. He is asserting what he considers to be "facts" which are self-evident to anyone who sees the world through his eyes.
And a lot of people do -- and they are currently the ones who rule the world. Hence, a completely vapid article, produced as an exemplar of "reason" on the 1st page of the second section of what is arguably the most influential newspaper in the country. Who else gets to spout such drivel in such an important place?
Now that I think of it, you're absolutely right, and my comment about it being a bad theory was unwarranted. It's not a theory, it's a fixed idea.
Lomborg needs to go have a chat with the Arctic ice.
Then maybe he could say a word or two to the Polar Bears.
I've been reading Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers" and he seems to have thought through any argument I've heard associated with Lomborg and others of Lomborg's ilk already.
If one is going to use Lomborg as a source for argument, it might be wise to direct them to Flannery's work. It is only one book, not too long, and is emminently readable for a scientific overview of Global Warming.
Lomborg's writing provides and excellent example of Thomas Homer-Dixon's description of denial. The Skeptical Environmentalist was "Existential denial" (the problem does not exist). Now that the evidence has become overwhelming, he has written Cool It and moved to "consequential denial" (the problem exists but its not really going to affect us or be that bad). Hopefully he won't move on to "fatalistic denial" (There's nothing we can do, we are doomed so I might as well use as much energy as I can get my hands on).
I find it disturbing that the media sucks up to someone like him.. He's been on scads of talk shows promoting his book, even The Daily Show. No actual GW researcher would ever get this much media exposure - I'm sure Richard Alley would have liked to go on a book tour for a while. And Tim Flannery, while he is "person of the year" in Australia, is hardly a household name in the US.
So while the media seems to embrace the problem of GW, they still jump on any opportunity to present the case that, yes, it's a problem, but not really a very big one.
I find it equally disturbing that the media, as well as countless individuals, suck up to Flannery and Gore.
What both these guys are propagating is some kind of idea of a "soft landing", suggesting a shift in the economy towards creating tons of jobs that are supposedly green will solve the problems they talk about, but steering clear of changes to the economic model itself.
And since that model is firmly based on ongoing and never-ending growth, it shouldn't be hard to figure out where it will eventually lead, whether industries and employment are painted with a veneer of green or not.
Both Gore and Flannery actively promote growth models, they just add words like green and sustainable to the repertoire. Well, there is still no such thing as sustainable growth.
Friday, the Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded, and we can only pray it's handed to someone more deserving than Gore.
Hey,no 'negatism' allowed. This country demands happy endings!
The reason Lomborg is on all the talk shows is simply that people like good news. The reason the Lomborg book makes money for TOD is that it gives people an easy way to reconcile cognitive dissonance - soothing relief just a click away from those depressing facts.
The media is easy to manipulate: it makes Pavlov's dog seem nuanced. As it now exists, it's incapable of not carrying certain stories. This avenue is available to anyone with sufficient hubris or salesmanship. There are many who contribute to this forum whose credentials would give them a free pass to sell any sort of bullshit. That so few do is to their credit.
So saying, the media and zeitgeist are what they are, and it could be that Gore is doing the best that he thinks can be done. If you lead with a doomer message, you don't get out of the starting gate.
You make it sound as if its a good thing that people have faith in, and follow, someone who offers no solution whtasoever to their problems, simply becuase the message is too hard to swallow. Got to give you this: At least that paints Gore for what he truly is: A snakeoil salesman, as is Flannery.
In the meantime, though, any chance of finding something that could work recedes ever further into the distance, since these nutcases take up all the media space.. And that is not exactly an innocent little feat. Think they don't know that?
Whups, didn't mean to start a longer thread, just waking up... but:
My guess is that Gore does more good than harm. Mind you, I don't like the guy much but that's for other conservation issues he has mucked up.
As a lifelong activist - and if I do say so a very effective one - I find it daunting to know just what to tell people to do now. That being the case, I don't throw stones at those who are just telling half the story or whitewashing it. (I reserve the right to throw stones at meatweasels like Lomborg). Similarly, I can hope for Alan Drake's success even if I suspect it will be too little too late, and would do much to see him succeed.
So far, I've seen no solutions which will allow the earth's current population to be sustained indefinitely, nor do I see that as in any way desirable. So I can either be insincere or make a documentary nobody will watch. Talk about your inconvenient truths...
It's ridiculous to characterise Tim Flannery (and probably Al Gore) as snake oil salesmen and nut cases. Or Bjorn Lomborg for that matter, but that's for a lot of different reasons.
Dr Flannery has a very good track record of writing popular and accessible science on difficult and contentious issues, and he also wrestled long and hard about accepting the "Australian of the Year" award, if there were any chance it would hinder his on-going and harsh criticism of government policies.
You sound like the Old Left, bickering and fighting among themselves, splitting very fine ideological hairs, while the real enemy ignores their sensitive self-righteousness. Flannery and Gore are better than nothing - far better - and their appearing on or in the MSM is no reason to condemn them at all - it is both naive and poor strategy.
ADM,
Have you read their climate books?
As I said, they both promote growth models, and these models are the problem, certainly not the solution. Isn't that enough said? We're better off being led by the blind, just because they're better than nothing, and we're in such dire need of a leader?
If that's the best we can come up with, throw the towel. Their message is a sure way to damnation. That is not an opinion, but a fact. Perpetual growth of any kind leads to only one outcome. Yet, when you read their books, that is their message.
The Old Left, if we can assume we have the same understanding what that means, has, to my knowledge, a sordid history of not being able to look past those same exact growth models.
And we are now supposed to keep on doing that, according to you? Because it's "better than nothing"? When does that misguided notion stop, you think? My idea is that it only will when it's too late. But it is all Flannery and Gore have to offer. Those retarded Live Earth concerts have given the world one loud and clear message: saving the planet can and will be done through consumption.
Only, it will not.
I certainly share the skepticism about Al Gore and other MSM mavens. Even our own local Arctic-explorer hero in MN is indebted to biofuels folks for underwriting some of his work, and so shills for them.
Here's the Will Steger Foundation website:
http://www.globalwarming101.com/
Every writer, lecturer, and media persona has flaws and strengths. Yes, our media and culture is a strong filter which shuts down messages which oppose the dominant forces and premises of our culture.
The problem is essentially about bondage of the imagination. Walter Breuggemann wrote"The Prophetic Imagination" which does an admirable job of breaking down the ways in which cultures can be blind to their own oppressiveness or brutality, how radical prophetic critique from figures such as Moses, Micah, Jesus -- and Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and others can bring about change only with great difficulty.
When we are comfortable, we do not want the boat rocked. When we are not comfortable, we can be manipulated to support the status quo even when that works against us. Fear and anger can be channeled for the benefit of those who maintain the status quo. The seduction of promised or immediate rewards helps as well.
It is pretty hard for people to step outside of our immediate experiences and analyze the way things are, and then to work from that basis. Especially when our culture makes doing that "swimming upstream."
So, yes, I am often disappointed by what Main Stream representation of PO and GW are out there, but not surprised.
Hope may be scarcer than oil in a few years and I am trying to pre-position myself for that.
Recent runs at the Millennium Institute give me greater hope and certitude. I am unsure if they want to wait till their Wednesday 1.5 hours at Houston-ASPO to release the exact #s BUT "Electrification of Transportation" certainly minimizes the post-Peak Oil pain :-)
Best Hopes for avoiding immobilizing Despair,
Alan
Best hopes for more immobilization. I, unfortunately, went to Estes Park, Colorado yesterday for a meeting. Well past the usual tourist season, the main road through town was completely gridlocked, the city fathers not having the wisdom to shut down the traffic before it gets to town. But the town has figured out a way to become immobilized and seems proud of it. All these cars stuck in traffic emitting not just emissions but the smell of money. If only, all those vehicles's engines would at least shut down when stopped, like the Prius. At least, then, there would be some benefit to autotonia.
We have a choice, at least. Go extinct, or change radically. Thus far, my bet is on extinction but yet I process as if there is hope. Either way, the planet benefits eventually.
What you are describing is called a "mild hybrid".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mild_hybrid
this gives new meaning to the term tourist trap.
I think a more precise way of putting it, as if it really makes any difference, is that "you can only sell positive things to people."
People like to hear negative news as well. Our current catastrophe and fear driven media is a testament to this.
However, it is very difficult as such, to _sell_ things like reduction of consumption, powerdown, hardship and a not so positive future outlook.
People might listen to that, they might even emotionally respond for a while, but you can't _sell_ it to them in the sense that they want to start preparing for it and carrying it out.
And why would they? Nobody wants to works towards a less positive future outlook (that's how they see it).
The easier way out is just to discard the even more negative alternative. Problem solved!
This way one doesn't have to look at the data and to really think hard through all the ramifications.
Just believe, damn the data.
And sometimes, funnily enough, it actually works. Even if only for a while.
Why? Polar bear meat isn't exactly a commodity with high volume on the market. The question is simply whats the cost-benifit of climate change mitigation.
The conversation I had in mind was Lomborg vs. a couple of polar bears on one of the remaining ice floes. Give them a couple of days alone, then come back to receive the conclusion.
This villification of Lomborg doesn't make any sense. What's valuable to society? It sure isn't polar bears.