194 comments on DrumBeat: November 24, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
194 comments on DrumBeat: November 24, 2007
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
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
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel.”
—Saudi saying
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- 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
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Does anyone have any theories on why global warming is really more "popular" than peak oil? Meaning, almost everyone has heard of global warming, but outside my sphere of influence in my social circles, not many people have heard of peak oil. Thoughts?
I think Al Gore had a lot to do with it.
We need an Al Gore of PO. What's Bill Clinton doing these days?
Laying low so is wife can win. Which means Billy is out...
Clinton promises solar sunrise, will Ausra deliver?
http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300004242
http://www.ausra.com/
Really cool map! Thanks!
What Peak Oil-- The rich, famous and influential prepare to hear the secret to climate-safe energy
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3191512.ece
Al Gore will probably let us in on the secret for a price.
I'm sure anyone who's willing to invest will be let in on the secret. ;-)
My guess is some kind of nanotech. They said it was "micro-technology."
Jimmy Carter tried and failed as president to wake the world up to Peak Oil, but then gave up. He could have continued after and could have led a Peak Oil movement, but chose the the peace maker route,
Bill Clinton has talked about imminent peak oil. Matt Simmons mentioned that fact in a recent broadcast appearance and I saw Clinton talk about it in a video of a speech at a Southern California University this last spring. It would be political suicide for Hillary to raise it right now, before the MSM acknowledges it, but I am sure they are ready for when it does hit. It probably will be an issue before the 11/08 election.
I've also seen a photograph of Bill carrying a copy of The Party is Over.
http://www.richardheinberg.com/node/170/view
Former US President Bill Clinton was reading about peak oil this summer, specifically, Richard Heinberg's book The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies.
This week in the New Yorker, David Remnick profiles Bill Clinton. Here, with Blake Eskin, Remnick discusses the ex-President’s legacy and Hillary Clinton’s political future. Specific excerpt posted below:
You write that Clinton rejected Gerald Ford as a model for the post-Presidency. But is Clinton at all a man of leisure?
He plays a hell of a lot of golf and he’s a voracious reader. His library’s got a lot of books about policy, a lot of history, a lot of Presidential biography, and a lot of books on religion—that’s a sincere interest. His taste in fiction, although I don’t think it’s limited to this, seems to be of a lower brow: he loves thrillers and police novels and stuff like that. I borrowed a book from him that he had just read—“The Party’s Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies,” by Richard Heinberg, not exactly summer reading—and it was full of underlinings and what looked like the most serious undergraduate’s markings, with lots of exclamation points.
Some time ago, Bill Clinton said that when he was president no one told him about Peak Oil. Sure Bill, and you didn't inhale pot either when you were smokin it at university.
Who before the end of Clinton's second term was talking about peak oil besides Colin Campbell and did any of them have access to Clinton's ear? Did any of the people preparing Clinton's briefing notes know of the idea and, if so, did any of them take it seriously? Not likely.
I suspect that, in this case, Clinton was giving an accurate version of events. He's not running for office now, so why would he lie?
Matt Simmons said in one interview that he told both Bush and Clinton about peak oil.
Energy Sectry. Richardson came back from a Middle East trip in Feb/March 2000 with the discovery that there was essentially no spare oil production capacity. I assume he told his boss, but time was short to do much of anything in the remaining months of Clinton's term.
Simmons got this information and passed it to Bush via cousin. He may also have told Clinton as well. Simmons I think (WAG) connected "short term" problem to longer term Hubbert Depletion.
As far as I can piece together, that is the background history.
Alan
When?
While Clinton was in office. I remember reading about it back in 2005, but can't find the link. It was an interview with Simmons. (It used to be that only a handful of links turned up when you searched on Matt Simmons' name. Now there are tons.)
Here's a mention in a article archived at EB, though it's not the one I remember:
This is all very nebulous, nothing firm. Did Simmons warn Clinton about Peak OIL while he was President? An oil shortage, like the one we had in the late 70s and the other one in the 80s, had nothing to do with peak oil.
If Clinton says he was never warned about PEAK OIL during the time of his presidency, we need far more evidence than has been presented here to say he was lying!
And who in the administration was warned of anything? Was it the President himself or someone else in the administration who neglected, for whatever reason, to tell the President?
I find it rather astonishing that people make such serious accusations on such flimsy evidence.
Ron Patterson
Simmons says he did, at least as I recall. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding by a reporter. Someone should ask him. Kunstler did ask him how Bush reacted, but so far as I know, no one has asked him how Clinton reacted.
In any case, it doesn't mean I'm accusing Clinton of lying. He was president of United States. He probably had hundreds, even thousands of people briefing him about various problems while he was in office. Maybe he simply didn't remember.
Remember what Tom Whipple said about politicians. Unless you can give them a solid date, and it's imminent, it's simply not a priority for them. Not because they don't care, but because they have so many other things to worry about.
See my comments below about Clinton and the CIA, if this doesn't clear things up, I don't think I can help you. As for serious allegations about Clinton lying, hmmmmmmmmm most Democrats I know would say he lied/lies often. Maybe read some biographies about Willy Clinton.
Right, Simmons told Clinton about peak oil last spring. But we are talking about during the Clinton administration. What evidence do you, or anyone else have, that Clinton was told about peak oil during the time he was president. That would be very extraordinary because virtually no one was talking about peak oil during the Clinton administration.
Well, there was Colin Campbell, and Jay Hanson, and a couple of others. But I don't think they talked to Clinton.
Ron Patterson
Cjwirth, got a source for that bit of history? To whom did Bill Clinton say that and when? We don't like people to make up crap on this list. When you make such a statement you need to post your source.
I am not saying that Bill did not say that, but you saying that he said it is just not enough.
And what is so strange about no one telling Bill Clinton about that while he was President? Exactly what percentage of people had ever heard of Peak Oil before January of 2001. It was after that date when I first heard about peak oil. I think it was from Jay Hanson when I first heare of peak oil, sometime in the summer of 2001. I would not at all be surprised that no one explained it to Bill before that date.
Ron Patterson
Clinton: not briefed on peak oil
http://www.energybulletin.net/18138.html
That was real hard to find.
/sarcasm
And what, may I ask, is so shocking about that? No one told me about peak oil during the Clinton administration either.
I believe Clinton when he says no one told him about Peak Oil during his administration. Why would anyone doubt that?
Cynicism can sometimes get so bad it just looks ridiculous. And to cynically say that Clinton was lying when he says no one told him about peak oil is cynicism bordering on the absurd.
Ron Patterson
And to cynically say that Clinton was lying when he says no one told him about peak oil is cynicism bordering on the absurd.
Oh yes! You are so right! Because people never lie, and the history of leaders is filled with truth and helpfulness to the ruled.
You have lifted the veil for all!
I heard about it back in the '70s.
It faded into the background, until fall 2005. Then I watched Rita mow a swath across the GoM and remembered Hubbert.
Darwinian, The CIA, DOD, and the National Security establishment exist mainly to make sure the oil flows. If Bill Clinton did not know about Peak Oil then he wasn't President of the USA. Because they have access to Saudi data, the CIA has the best information on Peak Oil. Oil is what Mideast politics is all about.
Bill Clinton: "The third thing I've learned about climate change, this is very important, is I had -- I was reading a book the other day by a guy just bashing the living hell out of me about saying that he was certain the CIA briefed me once a week on how America was running out of oil and I did nothing serious about it. Of course he ignored what we tried to do and got our brains beat out doing.
But that's not true. To the best of my knowledge, I never had a security briefing which said what
some of these very serious but conservative petroleum geologists say, which is they think that either
now or before the decade's out, we'll reach peak oil production globally and with the rise of China
and India and others coming along, unless we can dramatically reduce our oil usage, we will run out
of recoverable oil within 35 to 50 years." (A Conversation with Bill Clinton, Friday July 7, 2006)
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:r12MLN3VKuEJ:www.aspeninstitute.org...
Clinton said "to the best of my knowledge." What nonsense. Of course he knew, the CIA and everybody knew about Peak Oil since 1977 when the National Academy of Science published this report: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11771
The NAS study pegged the peak in the 1990s. They were right on target, but the global economy slowed considerably in the late 1970s and 1980s. If you look at oil production over this period, you will see that they got the peak right, but production was slowed due to recessions. Peak Oil is old stuff.
I don't include the speech of Rear Admiral Hyman Rickover who identified Peak Oil in 1957: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2724
If all these people knew, so did policy wonk Bill Clinton, but he won't admit it and then face criticism that he did not warn us. I have been warning my students since 1982. If I knew about it, surely Bill Clinton as President of the United States of Steal the World's Oil would know. Finally, the public trashed Jimmy Carter, a student of Rickover, who did try to warn the American public masses are asses. Thus Bill Clinton knew that if he told the public that we're running out, he knew they would say, shut up chump, your job is to get more oil.
But of course, we all know that! The CIA, created in 1949, from the Centeral Intelligence Group that was created by Truman in 1947. Hell even Truman knew about Peak Oil and he created the CIA just to keep the oil flowing. Hell, everybody knows that.
It is indeed a pity that this kind of crap pops up on this list from time to time. Most people who post here are responsible and do not exaggerate or engage in such stupid hyperbole or dream up wierd conspiracy theories.
I say again it is a pity that we must put up with this type of crap from time to time. But I suppose it comes with the territory.
Ron Patterson
This is what I said, not what you said I said, "The CIA, DOD, and the National Security establishment exist mainly to make sure the oil flows." Read the NAS report. Everybody knew about Peak Oil, meaning of course everybody who is keeping the flow of oil going. You might due better to read more and deal with others with more information and less emotion.
Here is your 'wierd conspiracy theory' from Wiki...Ron, you should really do what you urge of others...a simple Google search will turn up tons of hits connecting various US government organizations to continuing the flow of ME oil. This is really a no-brainer and yet you call it 'stupid Hyperbole'...I really question your motives because I believe that you are too intelligent to believe what you are posting here at times. Notice that the CIA operation to assinate this democratically elected Iranian prime minister was run by Kermit Roosevelt Jr...No conspiracy here, move along, move along...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh
Mohammad Mosaddeq (Mossadeq (help·info)) (Persian: محمد مصدق Moḥammad Moṣaddeq, also Mosaddegh or Mossadegh) (19 May 1882 – 5 March 1967) served as the Prime Minister of Iran[1][2] from 1951 to 1953. He was democratically elected to the parliament, and as leader of the nationalists was twice appointed prime minister by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, after a positive vote of inclination by the parliament.[3] Mossadegh was a nationalist and passionately opposed foreign intervention in Iran. He was also the architect of the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, today known as British Petroleum (BP).
He was eventually removed from power on August 19, 1953, by military intervention. The coup d'état was supported and funded by the British and U.S. governments and was led by General Fazlollah Zahedi [4]. The American operation to encourage it was run by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.,[5][6] the grandson of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, and came to be known as Operation Ajax,[5] after its CIA cryptonym, and as the "28 Mordad 1332" coup, after its date on the Iranian calendar.[7] Dr. Mosaddeq was imprisoned for three years and subsequently put under house arrest until his death. He is, in many countries, considered a symbol of anti-imperialism.
Which is not what he complained about. What he complained about was:
Your links show that those government groups are interested in continuing the flow of oil. The original claim was that those groups exist mainly to ensure that flow.
That kind of massive overstatement is pretty textbook hyperbole.
A choice quote from a speech March 28, 2006 at the London Business School,
Clinton on peak oil and global warming: (Energy Bulletin)
Remember that Clinton was prevented from accomplishing much of anything in the last 6 years of his tenure at the White House. I agree, if Hillary wins the nomination, it'll probably come up during the campaign.
The peak oil movement has a late start, but it is gaining speed fast as measured by the futures market. In 2004, the three-year-out contract had 18,000 open interest. Today the same contract has 60,000 open interest. Long term investors are starting realize the trend.
realist, warming has contunued unabated more or less in the lifetime of most people alive today. warming is sensible(in the thermodynamic sense)
we already had a false peak (shortage) in the 80's. imo people are sceptical that we are depleting the earth's resources. most dont seem to understand the problem. many i talk to just say "there is plenty of oil, the major oil companies are hoarding it" or "there is plenty of oil, everywhere i drive i see idle oil wells". many are just convinced, absolutely convinced, that there is a conspiracy to make gas prices high. there seems to be a common belief in the us of a, at least, that we 'merkuns are entitled to cheap energy. something to do with "providence", i think.
The assumption underlying a lot of these long-term contracts is that the counter-party will be around when you want to cash your chips.
That is not the way the market works. There is no risk of this occurring.
Contracts on NYMEX are settled every single night after the market closes - any risk from the counter party is eliminated by the exchange mechanisms - that is what 'margin' is all about.
I'm wondering if we should put together something like a "Ten basic facts about Oil Futures" primer for folks on TOD. I understand where peoples assumptions come from, but so often they're wrong - and the oil futures market is an area of significant and relevant debate around here.
maybe we discussed that enough already somewhere here:
http://www.google.com/custom?domains=theoildrum.com&q=oil+futures&sitese...
Hi Jay
re: "I'm wondering if we should put together..."
I vote "yes". Thanks.
Naw, all the above opinions are good but that is not really the reason peak oil has not caught on like global warming has. It all has to do with science.
We have perhaps a thousand scientists or more telling the news media, and anyone else that will listen, that global warming is real and that it is caused by human activity. And of course we have two or three scientist saying it is real but not caused by human activity. It makes for a lively debate and the news media is just eating it up.
Now how many scientists are telling us about peak oil? None that I know of. True, we have a few geologists that are trying to warn us but they are largely discredited by oil company executives telling us there is nothing to worry about. But there is no large scale advertising program, such as global warming has, that is trying to warn us about peak oil.
When science jumps on the bandwagon of peak oil as they have done with global warming, you would see much more peak oil awareness. But that is not likely to happen because the data that predicts is just not convincing enough, especially when it must compete with data from think tanks like CERA. The data that finally convinces everyone will be the data they see in their rear view mirror. But even that data will not be noticed until we are well below peak production.
I once thought that when we reached 1.5 million barrels per day below peak that this would be the trigger. How wrong I was! We reached 1.7 bp/d below peak this past month. So now we just must sit and wait. But I believe it will happen during 2008. A sudden slide in either Russian or Saudi production would do it. A slide in both would make it happen with dramatic suddenness. Or, if non-OPEC production, which has been on a four year plateau, suddenly turns downward.......
Ron Patterson
I wonder. In the end, climate change is not really something you can blame on your political opponents. You can argue that there is no climate change, or that it's just natural variation, but you can't say it's the fault of liberals, conservatives, the French, the Arabs, the president, etc.
Peak oil, though...if there is a drop in Saudi and/or Russian production, peak oil deniers will have plenty of people to blame. They're already warming up. They're blaming big oil, the NOCs, the environmentalists, etc. I have a feeling few will be blaming geology.
Homo saps respond to visual stimuli very well. A photo of Alaskan power poles leaning by a paved road that is buckling, a shot of a Polar Bear swimming, swimming, swimming, with no ice floe respite in sight, photos of houses sinking into the permafrost...These images overwhelm those of homo saps sitting in autos in gas lines (unless the viewer is also the sitter), photos of 'Reg Unleaded $3.40 gal', or a big board tally showing crude nearing $100 per barrel.
Its the 'Bambi Effect'...Besides, on a very deep level homo saps know (or think) that they are responsible for the mother seals that cannot find ice floes to give birth to their cute, white, baby seals...because the H Saps are driving their gas hogs...and the Saps have guilt even if it is on a subconscious level.
I pressed a denier once...pressed her very hard about population control, GW, PO...and was explaining that homo saps should spend their energy in a cooperative effort to find and colonize other worlds (enen though I consider this impossible at this time, it might be better than continual war). She became so angry with me that she turned scarlet and shouted 'Why, so we can f**k up some more planets?'...So, it has been my experience that Saps are aware of the 'problems' but do not wish to discuss them or even think about them...especially PO.
"and was explaining that homo saps should spend their energy in a cooperative effort to find and colonize other worlds (even though I consider this impossible at this time"
Impossible? Not at all! We've just being going at it the wrong way.
Here's the right way: First, we develop the time machine. Then, we travel back in time far enough to get around the distance problem, since, as we know, the universe has been expanding for a while now. Once we've got all the other inhabitable worlds close enough, well, we just hop on over, and then return to the present. Or maybe stay in the past.
Of course, we may have to wait for sufficient demand, which as we know, overcomes all obstacles, small and large.
Leanan :
Well, us Greens sure as hell can!
Could it be that global warming is readily accepted because it is simply a nice, classifiable problem that can be looked at as something that at first glance can be solved with the proper actions? Meaning that it is readily digestible or "fit for consumption" by the masses. Whereas peak oil, on the other hand, when it's meaning is truly internalized, suggests an inherent flaw in the capitalist perpetual growth system, a problem so endemic to modern industrialized society, that it is simply insoluble to the common person. Something sort of like the quote, "It's impossible to convice a person of something when his salary depends on him not understanding it." or the like. An analogy might be criticising a persons actions. The person could modify behavior and respond to this criticism. However, a critique indicating that his belief system is inherently flawed would be another thing entirely.
Trends are usually extremely advanced before there is a general awareness of them. Climate Change, as a consequence of CO2 emissions was first raised as a problem in the 1920's or 30's. Margaret Thatcher recognised Climate Change as a serious threat in the 80's and alerted the nation to it. Yet, for many , Climate Change has only just come to their attention. Presumably because it is in their face daily and everyone can see it happening.
Oil prices have been rising steadily for years, but only now, after rising from $10 to $100, have people started to take notice. The general populace are really slow at awakening to long established trends and are usually caught completely by surprise when they finally do break into public awareness. Politicians are even slower and governments usually react to trends when they've run their course or its too late.
Hey, I thought geologists were/are real scientists. PO takes much more explanation than GW, and nobody wants to hear that it's all over soon...You know, that bad word -- die off. People shake in their boots thinking about PO, me too....geeeeeeeeeez And then there are many "scientists" going around for years and now too telling everyone not to worry, as solar energy will save the day.
The day is now pretty close and I don't see that I am being saved. Yes, I know the high solar rollers will say that it could have been different if we had developed a solar economy starting in the 1970s. Well, as someone who knows a little about the real world, not the world of illusion, that is baloney.
It could have been.
Compare funding at NREL with the corporate welfare directed at the fossil fuel industries. The ratio is what, three or four orders of magnitude?
| The problem will solve itself.
| But not in a nice way.
Neither do I see that you're dying off.
There is no present need for massive energy inputs from non-fossil sources - the fossil ones are still cheap and abundant. Even at $100/bbl, oil just isn't that big of an expense to most nations which are capable of massive solar/wind buildouts.
So one reason you haven't seen enormous amounts of solar/wind is that there hasn't been much (immediate) need. As fossil fuel prices and climate change awareness have both increased, though, we've seen very rapid growth in the installation of renewable energy sources, to the extent that that demand is driving the construction of new factories to increase the production capacity of solar/wind.
Will those be able to ramp up in time to take over from fossil sources as oil, then natural gas, then finally coal peak and decline? Neither of us knows, but what I do know is that applying a standard model for the rate of uptake of a technology suggests that solar and especially wind will be providing a substantial portion of world energy use in the near future, and that the much greater efficiency with which electricity is used (i.e., its much higher exergy per btu) suggests that they may indeed be able to replace the energy lost by declining fossil production.
Seriously, run the numbers yourself - you'll be surprised at quite how non-gloomy the results are. A good place to start is the Ayres paper GliderGuider linked (for exergy/the much greater efficiency of electricity), and the (cited) technology-uptake modelling I did for wind generation (in comments to his prior article). Heck, there's even cites in there that'll correct your misconceptions about the efficiency of electricity transmission and storage.
So if you're not just clinging onto a doom-based belief because you find it weirdly comforting, go check out the numbers - they're much more optimistic than you appear to believe. Doesn't mean the future will be easy, of course, or that dieoff is impossible - human nature makes that a permanent possibility - but it does mean that there are solutions to peak oil using currently-existing technology that are well within our manufacturing capabilities and require little enough social upheaval that they're not only unlikely to meet wide-spread resistance, they're already being adopted.
Pitt, check out Stoneleigh & ilargi's Finance Round-Up; the capital markets are siezing-up. It appears that investors are getting risk aversive; IMO it will become very difficult to finance anything unconventional going forward. Oil and gas are mature technologies and may continue to be able to get financing, new technologies much less so.
PLAN, PLANt, PLANet
Errol in Miami
I checked out the numbers in my head since there is really no way to do it precisely (too many variables). Here is what I get: the EROI for solar is less than 1 when you consider all energy inputs, not just the energy in direct manufacture. Even if it is above 1, the pay back time is prohibitive. Do you really want me to go to the trouble of listing all of the energy inputs, you can do it yourself and you are smart enough to come to the same conclusion.
Your thoughts about scientist involvement are interesting and probably explain things to an extent, but I think the difference in a person's (including a news reporter's) receptivity to GW over PO may include bits of a more simple reality:
Global Warming: I suspect that many people just don't see GW as a major threat, even among those who understand the basic physics of GW. If the summers get hotter, for instance, then the AC will just be cranked up a bit more. Warmer winters simply might mean a lower heating bill to offset the higher costs of summer household cooling. If there's a drought, then water can be pumped or trucked in. A crop failure in one location can be offset by importing successful crops from another region. Etc. etc, etc. And those speculative GW-fed superhurricanes only strike the "other guy" like all the unfortunates in New Orleans (this kind of reasoning is probably applied to other GW effects, too).
Peak Oil: Once one grasps the connection between energy-production growth and economic growth, or even more so the deep and far-reaching systemic response like will likely result from PO, one will quickly realize that PO would hit very close to home in a very tangible, and disturbing, way. Hence, many shy away from the cold reality--including many scientists themselves.
Well, that's my $0.02 anyway.
-best,
graywulffe in CVO, OR
Unlike climate change, peak oil has not really impacted people in the same way. Climate change is killing people. A growing drought in the US is scaring citizens. They have to ration water.
The price of gas in my location is at $3.00/per gallon. My driving habits have changed, along with my neighbors. I have cut down my miles-traveled about 1 to 2 thirds. On the weekends, the apartment parking lot, which used to be empty, is full, indicating that the young are partying in their apartments instead of roaming about the city.
This is causing gas inventories to remain stable, somewhat, and causing a headache for the oil people. They are trying everything to get people to travel more but it doesn't seem to be working, at least in the blue-collar segment of our society.
When service oriented businesses start declining, laying people off and disappearing, there will be more clamor for information as to why it is happening.
The price of food is a major consideration to most of us workers. We just don't buy the higher priced items anymore, concentrating instead on the base goods and being creative in our food preparation.
Most of my neighbors don't realize that how they spend their money impacts the economy in a great way. Most of my neighbors don' t realize this fact and attempts to educate them fail. Most are A type personalities, more concerned with their performance within society and less inclined to change their collective environment. We are the herd, upon which the rest of society feeds. Most have little time to educate themselves with the tools of the internet, even though they all have computers
The middle class has more time to make themselves aware but have to deal with the fact that if they reduce their impact on the environment, they will end up in financial ruin and become a regular worker.
My neighbors are more concerned with water rationing than peak oil. As long as they can get to work, they can deal with gas prices by just staying home. Climate change, however is definitely staring us in the eyes, and focusing our attention. Peak oil is a nag in the back of our minds, not too impressive yet.
Collective self-sacrifice is only wrought by impending devastation. That is why more people are concerned with Climate change and not peak oil. But, they can smell something in the wind. When I shop, I see the workers looking hungrily at the shopping carts of the middle class. They sound of crying children in the markets is growing as their parents just say no. They are aware but wrapped up in a blanket of helplessness.
Nice analysis!
Darwinian, You say ***Now how many scientists are telling us about peak oil? None that I know of. True, we have a few geologists that are trying to warn us but they are largely discredited by oil company executives telling us there is nothing to worry about.*** Hmmmmmmmm geologists are scientists and more than a few have been warning us, and there are the Club of Rome/beyond the limits scientists, and the sustainability scientists, and the 300 NAS scientists pf the 1977 report:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=energy+in+transition+1985+-+2010&bt...
and many solar scientists. Why not go through the archives of theoildrum.com and energybulleting.net and research this before you insult people for not doing the work they did. Also, you are out of date, now oil company executives are coming around. Take a look around you before making statements that just show you don't know your stuff. Do a Google search of "Peak Oil" and look how many hits, and think about how many of the writers must be scientists. The people on this site should not need to give you an education, thus wasting their time. You should assume the responsibility of your own education. And when you are wrong, which is often, you should admit and not dig yourself a bigger hole by defending erroneus ideas. The end result of your current path will be that people will ignore you.
Awareness, or the lack thereof, is probably the biggest reason. I am speaking of both personal cognitive awareness as well as the mass media's appreciation for the issue and the resultant reporting.
The other consideration is that people tend to rally around a cause with greater enthusiasm if they can visualize and observe the effects of the threat, perceive the change to be gradual, and see it as being potentially ameliorative (read: hope). (I believe GW has held up to this criteria to date, although in recent time there has certainly been an acceleration of effect.) There is also considerable uncertainty allied with GW issue in the areas of of cause and effect.
Peak Energy is a different animal - the cause is a geophysical certainty with a known time frame. All you get to argue is the degree of the effect. And the outcome, once you come to a full and honest appraisal of the ramifications, is rather daunting. It is far more difficult to offer up objections and viable solutions to PO than it is for GW.
I have friends, educated individuals (a lawyer, banker, and college professor among them) capable of critical thinking and analysis who will engage me in GW discussions, but will avoid, deflect, or cancel any attempt to address Peak Energy.
Truly amazing.
"Peak Energy is a different animal - the cause is a geophysical certainty with a known time frame. All you get to argue is the degree of the effect. And the outcome, once you come to a full and honest appraisal of the ramifications, is rather daunting. It is far more difficult to offer up objections and viable solutions to PO than it is for GW."
Interesting. The level of difficulty of solutions as a reason for popularity is probably a real factor. I remember reading something a while back on a blog regarding the "order of complexity" of peak oil/peak energy as a problem in relation to other problems that were more logisitical or organizational in nature. I.e. the physical resources and energy to solve the problem just had to be marshaled properly. An example is winning WWII or going to the moon. These problems were essentially a largely "different animals", as you put it, than "solving" peak oil.
Oh yeah, and the "we went to the moon, we can do X" analogy has become so tiresome for me that I'd like to create a new rule of energy crisis argumentation that states that that first person to make a comparison to the Apollo program loses the argument immediately.
Savinar put it succinctly in "Crude Awakening" when he said "well, if he'd (meaning Kennedy) had said, "In ten years our goal is to having people living on Pluto", well, we would obviously had not have achieved that goal." EXactly.
Global warming is much more media friendly. The news media can show pictures of retreating glaciers, dried up fields, damage from floods and hurricanes and blame it all on global warming.
Most of the current alternative energy sources produce electricity rather than power for automobiles. Thus until electric cars become common alternative energy promoters can offer only a solution for global warming. So they include global warming in their promotions rather than peak oil.
More vested interests wanting to keep the money flowing, $50 billion spent on global warming research in the last ten years.
More opportunities for the governments, U.N., newsmedia, lawyers, insurance companies, celebrities, environmentalists and various other busybodies to run others peoples lives. You must do this/can't do that because it will cause global warming so we will create laws, regulations, taxes, or quotas to to keep the evil corporations/unwashed masses in line. Whereas peak oil, you can't burn whats not there regulations or not, spoils the busybodies fun.
Global warming's impact is more emotional. You can feel the weather. People empathize with someone on the news who has lost his house , crop, or family members due to recent weather events. What do those pushing peak oil discuss? Numbers, Hubbert curves/linearizations, formulas, arcane jargon. Anything with potential emotional impact: recessions, social economic collapse etc are somewhere off in the future. Many more people feel rather than think. They aren't interested in having a bunch of numbers thrown at them. The only number related to peak oil that has an impact on the masses is the price of gasoline which can be blamed on the usual suspects.
Just considering the surface, it seems obvious:
GW: UN body with backing of 1000 of the worlds top scientists and 30 years of research. Over 100 years evidence of warming.
PO: handful of scientists, motley crew of internet guys, possibly 2 years since actual peak
Naturally the IPCC are going to get more credibility and publicity.
or were you wondering why weather related crises during the 70s lead to formation of scientific panel to investigate, but oil shocks of the 70s were left to industry and politicians to work out?
I appreciate there is a difference in how these things are handled. GW falls into the province of climate science, so finds a ready pool of credible researchers. PO is generally regarded as a "technical" issue, so is the domain of industry. Economists as we know are really cheerleaders for growth, so they wouldn't look at it. Politicians probably should be aware of it, but only care about getting elected.
Jimmy Carter was a Peak Oiler, but in the 1980 election was rubbed out by cowboy Ronald Reagan who promised a world without limits, as opposed to that wimpy conservation of Jimmy. Obviously other politicians have learned a lesson from ol' Jimmy's honesty with the American public. As the ol' saying goes, the masses are asses.
Jimmy Carter's famous "Sweater Speech"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/filmmore/ps_energy.html
After going over the points he says;
Did anybody ask Carter if he wanted to make an appearance at ASPO?
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
He should be asked. Maybe we can get him to talk not only about his sweater speech but also his famous speech in which we says the US will consider the Mideast's oil to be a US asset to be defended if anyone even looks at it crossways....
I ment to highlight this section, cause kids, that's where we're at.
"If they succeed..."
They DID, now the the burden on us normal folks is going to be "Crushing" .
They made sure he went down, and the party roared for 20 years burning both ends of the candle, Faster/More/Bigger.
Thanks for posting Carter's speech. He called peak oil for "some time in the 1980s". And he had the intelligence resources of a superpower behind him!! Goes to show how difficult the peak oil prediction business is.
This my pet theory:
Global Warming: "Hey kids, don't eat too much cake or you'll suffer from indigestion!!!"
Peak Oil: "Listen, kids, we need to eat less and save it for tomorrow or we won't have any".
Now, as a parent, what would you choose to say? (obviously many of us here would choose the second one, but our patronizing governments and media are the kind of parents that don't want to bring bad news).
Spiritual: "To consume is human; to conserve, divine".
| The problem will solve itself.
| But not in a nice way.
Peak oil is an engineering and economics problem as much as a geophysical one, while everybody loves to talk about the weather.
One of Simmons original arguments for the imminence of P.O. is the aging workforce and physical plant. Discussions over capital expenditures and personnel do not ignite the imagination. Collapsing ice sheets on the other hand makes for good Hollywood. Can you imagine a major theatrical film or TV series built on the premises of too many retirees from an oil company? Now try to imagine a movie based on climate out of control.... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/
Try explaining a logistics curve to your checker at the supermarket... I dare you. Then mention to them about how warm (or cold, or rainy....) it has been lately. See how far each conversation gets....
It is not difficult, really, to understand why the media latched onto one of them (AGW) and not the other (PO). When oil is discussed you have probably and even chance of the discussion turning to how evil the big oil companies are.
Nice discussion, but thus far it's missing one obvious point.
For most, climate change has been measured in degrees, peak oil in dollars. Both really hit the airwaves and print in the 70's.
If the summer temps had dropped to even a half of their 70's value only 10 years ago, it would be ignored today. People expect oil prices, their barometer, to fluctuate. But the summer temps, or winter lows, keep rising.
Hi waffe7
re:"my sphere of influence in my social circles,"
If your social circles include frequent discussion of "peak", you are a fortunate soul :).
re: "why global warming is really more "popular" than peak oil"
Many reasons. Some of them we might be able to address. For eg., if there was a public letter, signed by the esteemed geologists, scientists and others (names may be mentioned :)- this might draw attention.
In any case, my experience leads me to the conclusion that the concept of "peak" is emotionally more disturbing (no place to move to, for eg.) and also - is, in some ways, more difficult to grasp. People usually have problems with one aspect or the other - (or, often, both).
Most people, for eg., never think about where ("useable", useful) energy comes from, and have no idea at all about the enormous amount of power to be derived from say, a cup of gasoline. And no idea about how to substitute for it, or that substitutes might fall short. Magic is easy to take for granted when it surrounds you.
The concept "peak" (and energy in general) - has several pieces that must all fit together. Whereas "warming" - well, simple - it's getting too warm. We just need to buy "green", or somehow "they" will solve it, by cutting emissions or what not.
Etc. BTW, I also know personally of several otherwise *highly* educated people (scientists) who understand "peak" very well and simply choose to ignore it. Which is interesting, as well. (Oh yeah - and kind of depressing, I guess.) My take on their reaction is that they feel helpless. Or something.
I believe climate change is more "popular" than peak oil for a couple of important reasons:
- There is now broadbased scientific concensus that climate change is real, and happening now. (Less broadbased concensus for peak oil and plenty of seemingly credible people saying it is not an imminent problem.)
- Although peak oil could result in some pretty dreadful economic challenges for a few decades or so, climate change could eventually render our planet virtually uninhabitable (for humans anyway) for many thousands of years.
At any rate, we absolutely need to get off of fossil fuels as soon as possible. As someone else here already once said, peak oil may require us to do this, but regardless, climate change suggests that we should do it ASAP.
Thoughts?
Peak oil means a direct threat and few places/ways to 'hide' without sacrafice.
Global warming - Find high land.