Grading My 2007 Energy Resolutions
Posted by Robert Rapier on December 28, 2007 - 9:43pm
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: book review, composting, conservation, oil prices, peak oil [list all tags]
At the beginning of 2007, as I was preparing to move to Scotland, I made a number of resolutions:
My Energy Resolutions for 2007
I updated the story once in Walking the Talk.
Time to look back and see how I did. (Also, be sure to give me your book recommendations for 2008. It's been a while since we discussed books.)
1). I resolve to get the most fuel-efficient car I can find in Scotland.
While I could have found a more efficient car, I got a Nissan Micra which gets very good fuel efficiency. The cars that were more fuel efficient would not have fared well on my drive to work.
2). I resolve to search for a house that allows me to take public transport or my bike to work.
I consistently considered the public transport options as I looked for a house, but my work location made this difficult. I ended up getting a house not too far from work (4 miles) but there is no public transport available (unless I want to spend an hour and 2 bus changes getting to work). As far as being able to ride my bike to work, 4 miles would be a piece of cake most places. But on the winding, narrow country road I live on, it would have been a death wish. Most parts of Scotland are unfortunately not conducive to getting around by bike.
3). I resolve to place a very high priority on energy efficiency as I search for a new house.
Done. I rented a house with sky lights, a lot of natural lighting throughout, and a lot of southern exposure. During daylight hours, we never have to turn lights on in the house. Our gas and electric usage have both been very low since moving into our house.
4). I resolve to reduce the meat in my diet (it takes much more energy to produce meat than to produce vegetables).
Done. I have almost cut beef completely out of my diet (much to my father's chagrin, since he raises cattle). I eat a fair amount of fish and chicken, but I probably eat three times as many vegetables as I did a year ago.
5). I resolve to support local farmers’ markets.
While I think there are some farmers' markets in the downtown part of Aberdeen, I live in the country. So I never did encounter any farmers' markets this year.
6). I resolve to continue instilling the importance of energy conservation into my family.
This has been a challenge. My daughter proclaims that she is an environmentalist, and then leaves lights, televisions, etc. on all the time and takes 20 minute showers. (She has been learning a lesson while we are on vacation in Oklahoma, because the hot water only lasts 10 minutes). I point out her energy usage, and ask her - tongue in cheek - why she hates the environment so much. It's an uphill battle with kids (or adults, for that matter) who just can't connect the dots of their energy usage to the big picture. But I persevere. I did get into composting this year, and I was able to get the kids involved in that. I think they understand the energy savings from doing this.
7). I resolve to get completely out of debt (easy, since my only debt is a mortgage).
Done. No debt at all.
8). I resolve to talk to at least 1 person a month about Peak Oil and/or the importance of living sustainably.
Done. High oil prices have made it very easy to talk with people about Peak Oil. This is especially true for someone working for an oil company, because oil and gas prices are one of the first things people ask me about. I have had Peak Oil conversations this year in the airport, on a bus, in Walmart, in a restaurant, at work (including one with a member of senior management), and sitting around the Christmas tree.
9). I resolve to preach conservation as something each one of us can do to stretch energy supplies and better prepare for Peak Oil.
Done. This resolution goes hand in hand with the previous resolution. Once people hear about Peak Oil, the first thing they ask is what can be done. I explain that the best thing you personally can do is to get out of debt and tailor your lifestyle toward using less energy. That way, if gas prices go to $5 or $10 a gallon, your budget will be less susceptible to these increases (acknowledging that it is impossible to completely inoculate yourself against escalating prices).
10). Not energy related, but I resolve to read at least 40 books in 2007. I read 48 in 2005 and 34 in 2006.
I fell way short on this one. Between my blog, The Oil Drum, starting a new job, an international relocation, and various other projects, something had to give. It was my reading time. I still managed to read 21, but that was far short of my goal. The five best books I read in 2007 were Cryptonomicon
Final grade? I give myself a B+. I would give myself an A if I had found a location that would allow me to bike to work. I know it's only 4 miles, but I chose to live instead.
For 2008, big changes are in store. More on this during Q1 of 2008.
I would also like to ask readers for book recommendations for 2008. One of my favorite books of 2007 was 1491, and I read it based on a recommendation from someone here at TOD. I like reading history, science fiction, historical fiction, biographies, and of course books on Peak Oil, sustainability, and energy.
Thanks, RR
Incidentally, we discussed books in January of 2007. Here is a link to that discussion:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2165#comment-146617
Natural Capitalism
Cradle to Cradle
Gaia's Garden: A Guide to Home-Scale Permaculture
Biomimicry
Permaculture in a Nutshell
Well, if you like history, and having read 1491, I'd recommend Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick.
Pilgrim life in the New World was just the beginning of our 350+ year pilgrimage to our New World Order denouement with all its attendant human foilbles -- religion, clash of cultures, imperative to expand, resource plunder, tragedy & war. Sounds familiar. ;-)
Philbrick's subtitle: A Story of Courage, Community, and War sums up what is likely to be writ of those of us who make it thru the hydra-headed bottleneck ahead.
Best wishes to us all in 2008.
Yes, Mayflower is very good.
On the history topic I just read "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It's about Lincoln and the cabinet he assembled to guide the ship of state through troubling times. It is a fantastic, if long read, and broadened my understanding of the dynamics of the civil war.
Robert:
Greetings. Thanks for publishing your lists of books read. I did not know that they were out there, and have printed them out for future reference.
I have two small kids (4 and 7) and find that reading books is...difficult. But on a trip to the library, I discovered audiobooks, and have since become addicted to them. I have a half-hour commute (please don't shun me, TODers) and find that it is the most pleasurable time of the day for me due to audiobooks.
Anyway, I noticed that many of the books that you have read and liked are ones that I have read and liked. I also noticed that you liked time travel stories....one of my favorite themes. Can I recommend The Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey Niffenegger, if you have not read it yet. Also, I enjoyed The Tipping Point and Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, though I'm guessing that you have already read them.
Also, due to your SF bent, how about Oryx and Crake by Margaret Atwood. In the History vein, I would recommend Truman by David McCullough, or Founding Brothers by Joseph J. Ellis. Also, if you are a fan of Card, then try Ender's Shadow...the same story of Ender, but told from the point of view of Bean....he actually pulls it off. The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom I found interesting. How about The Traveler by John Twelve Hawks for when you are feeling in a Big Brother is watching mood.
thanks again for posting your lists.
ok. I see that you read The Time Traveler's Wife in '05....
Yes, and it was a great book. One of my all-time favorites.
Robert,
Congratulations on your resolve. I can only hope to be as resolute with my resolutions for the coming year.
Since you enjoyed Neal Stephenson's Cryptomonicon you might check out his Baroque cycle starting with QuickSilver. It takes historical fiction (maybe I would call it speculative historical fiction) to another level of complexity and richness. It revolves around the establishment of markets and banking around the end of the 17th century. It is an amazing work, though not for everyone as it can be a tough slog at times. Readers either love it, or hate it. You will also run into some of the ancestors of characters from the Cryptomonicon. And some amazing characters they are.
Tony
Greetings -
I'm currently reading America's Great Depression by Rothbard. I may not know anything about geology or oil field properties, but I know a little something about economics and finance. What's interesting is that there are so many parallels between the 1920's run up to the depression and what is happening now with our financial system. We've had a big run up in Gold prices as you would expect, although adjusted for inflation we should have seen a much greater increase given the real problems with our currency valuation and real inflation over the past 6 years.
But what we have also had is a greater run up in oil prices. And I fully understand the supply and demand characteristics of a potentially depleting resource. But, let's face it, there haven't been any REAL shortages. And I haven't read any real discussion or news about this potential parallel. There has been a little talk about hedge fund managers 'driving up the price of oil futures' but a four fold increase in 6 years of a commodity which currently TRANSFERS over $3 Trillion dollars of value between countries each year is a big deal.
I'm not smart enough to figure out what all the connections are. But in reading this book and seeing how in the 1920's each Country manipulated their interest rates to control the flow of Money (Gold) between the countries (mainly so as not to completely bankrupt Britain) you can't help but draw parallels to our modern day valuation of oil in USD. Since there really is no 'Gold Standard' any longer your basis for international trade has effectively become the USD as it is the denomination 'backed' by being able to exchange it for oil. That's good news for us as we can easily and cheaply print more USD. Although we all know where that story eventually leads.
So it appears to me that oil has to a great extent become the new gold. If you look at the run up in oil prices in six years in those terms and relate it directly to USD you get a much more realistic model of the real, and likely actual, devaluation of our dollar - Based on our increase in the number of 'dollars printed' including debt, and our real rate of growth and legitimate expansion of true net wealth and value as a country. (You can't expect to print money and export it to China and oil producers without them, eventually, bringing those dollars back and buying our companies - which sends the very wealth we create directly to them in the future.) You didn't think they would bring those trillions of dollars back to the US and buy McMansions, Suburbans and happy meals did you?
In conclusion. We now know how and if not why then what the main factors were, in the Great Depression happening. And we need to figure out how this relates to oil today and the current state of our US financial system. It's obvious (to me) there are tremendous parallels and that something has to give. Usually in the start of a depression there is a huge devaluation of the currency (since the 'gold' has a set and real value.) We've already seen that in some sense as described above but we Americans have continued to borrow in unbelievable amounts to try and maintain our standard of living against that devaluation. Which is, by the way, precisely the wrong thing to do.
It's true that oil may again drop substantially in price but only when the credit runs out, and we have to take a (now) major hit to our standard of living. The only other way out is for the 'King' to artificially lower the price of the 'gold'. But in this case, if he did, he couldn't give out enough to satisfy the demand and things would get ugly anyway. So we are pretty much the same place we were in 1929. And unfortunately we are trying to 'fix' it in the same way we did then.
D.
Hi mrderik,
I had a go at looking at the big picture -seeing the connections or as I put it 'joining the dots':
There are too many variables, the ebb and flow of trade, what is most important for countries and how they react, etc, etc. I think one sure sign that the current structure is about to snap would be a move away from pricing oil in US dollars; but is that likely? Otherwise I see oil spiralling up and up as the US attempts to 'blow-off' its debt mountain and buy an increasingly scarce commodity with increasingly worthless paper...
I put the worst part of my "Wiemer Blow-off" period in the early 2020s (see the speculative timeline graphic at the end). After that I speculatively call the New World Currency "The Gold Backed Euro" but who knows...
Nick.
Hi Robert,
They are good resolutions, I have done much the same, except I didn't vacation in Oklahoma - which is, to say the least, a long way from Aberdeen!
So, just to put all your carbon saving actions into perspective, how many flights by air have you and your family made this year - how many air miles in total?
Although you live near to your work, what about your family's travel needs - are they longer than they otherwise would be to enable you to live close to work?
Just to be clear, I'm not criticisng here, I know from personal experience that it is currently very difficult to reduce my carbon footprint in any meaninful and ongoing way and maintain my standard of living/quality of life.
So, just to put all your carbon saving actions into perspective, how many flights by air have you and your family made this year - how many air miles in total?
As long as we are in Scotland, there will be one trip home a year. But we haven't traveled anywhere else. The first time we were in Europe, when we lived in Germany from 1999-2001, we were traveling constantly. This time, we are just enjoying our immediate surroundings.
I have plugged in our entire energy usage into some of those carbon footprint calculators, and even with a flight home each year, we still come in very low because our daily usage is so low. (And those calculators don't take into account the composting, which reduces our green and brown waste to zilch).
You can find figures to make yourself a more detailed calculator here. Your compost is not carbon-negative. Aerobic decomposition produces 0.356kg CO2e per kg of material, and anaerobic (stinky) decomposition, 4kg CO2e per kg. Since if you put it in landfill the decomposition will undoubtedly be anaerobic, you are of course much better-off composting (well) than biffing it in the bin. Nonetheless, it does produce greenhouse gas emissions. The way to balance this is of course to use the compost to help you grow things which will absorb carbon dioxide. For example, by planting a tree every year and caring for it, you will more than balance out any compost emissions you're likely to cause.
I've a spreadsheet with the calculations in metric and US measures, unfortunately I can't upload it to blogger, but can send it anyone interested (email me through the blog).
Your compost is not carbon-negative.
You didn't take into consideration, though, that if I wasn't composting, it would take energy to transfer all of that biomass to the landfill. Granted the compost produces GHG emissions, but as you say it is better than sending it to the landfill (for the aerobic factor as well as the energy savings from transportation).
That 4kg CO2e of emissions per kg composted anaerobically is roughly what you get in landfill, too. However, conditions vary a lot at landfills, from 1 to 12kg CO2e, and the emissions due to the transport are smaller than that; a truck carrying 10 tonnes of rubbish burns about 1lt of petrol every 5km, generating 2.32kg CO2e, and on average travels 50km daily, and thus the 10,000kg of rubbish require 23.3kg of emissions to transport, or 0.00233 kg CO2e per kg.
Let's be pessimistic and assume that the processing at the landfill or large compost adds nine times as much again, giving us 0.0233kg CO2e. This is rather small compared to "1 to 12". Single contributors which fall far within the margin of error of the major contributor can be safely ignored.
But even if it were 10kg CO2e, or 1,000kg CO2e, avoiding extra emissions does not make your compost carbon negative, which was my point.
In areas where there's a "green waste" collection programme, they'll have emissions due to transporting it, but will compost it more efficiently, making sure it's always aerobic and not anaerobic, so that on balance the council can compost with less emissions than can you.
But most areas don't have green waste programmes, and in any case you'll want compost to contribute to your own plants which are carbon-negative. So composting at home is usually a reduction of your personal emissions, no doubt about that. But it's not zero carbon, nor negative carbon. And your original statement that "those [carbon] calculators don't take into account the composting, which reduces our green and brown waste to zilch" strongly implied that your green and brown waste were carbon neutral, or even carbon negative. They're not.
'Very Low' is a comparative term - is that 'very low' compared to Scotsmen who holiday in Oaklahoma, or Americans in general, or Zimbabweans, or the world average, or ? ... who are you comparing to?
You didn't have any business mileage this year?
That's why I give the absolute figures for people to use. Comparisons are nice, but there's a time when you want the real numbers.
And Zimbabwe's an unfair comparison. A state under a brutal dictator suffering famine and on the brink of complete collapse... Well, they're going nowhere good, whatever their carbon emissons are.
Real numbers, in the real world, are actually very hard to come by - that's why there is so much discussion about peak oil or dangerous climate change for examples ... there's not enough precise information to make sensible even short term decisions in a complex world!
Bollocks. You can calculate how much CO2 pops off when you burn a litre of petrol - that's a chemical equation you can do with fifth form chemistry. You can go look up how much coal your local electricity generator burned and how much electricity it produced from that, giving you coal/kWh, and then use your chemistry again to get CO2/kWh. And so on.
Get all those figures from day-to-day household consumption. Then go to your Bureau of Statistics and see what the average electricity, petrol, etc consumption is. Now you know how much CO2 you're directly responsible for and can control compared to the average person in the country or the world.
That done, you can then reduce it. But even without those calculations, you can reduce it. Using less electricity obviously produces less emissions than using more, taking the train produces less emissions than driving a car, eating less meat produces less emissions than eating more, and so on.
Whether peak oil has passed, is five or fifty years away, whether we need a 10% or 100% reduction to avoid catastrophic climate change - doesn't matter to me in my daily life. I can go ahead and make those reductions anyway, and I can write to my MP and tell him to help me with that by supporting renewable energy and the like.
I don't need exact numbers to know I shouldn't take a dump on my neighbour's lawn or burn off plastic rubbish in my backyard, and I don't need exact numbers to know I should reduce my consumption of fossil fuels and derivatives, and reduce my pollution.
Waiting for the perfect numbers is another excuse for inaction. What, you think Joe Blow eating burgers and driving his SUV would stop if only he had the right numbers shown to him? Would Dubya suddenly get his oil company family to invest in wind turbines if he had the right numbers? Bah. Excuses.
Whoa, I agree with you totally, I can do the very simple sums (unlike most of the world's population it seems!)- but without some sort of accurate figures you won't convince anybody of peak oil or AGW.
Actually, I was refering to the fact that RR, just for one example, doesn't give actual figures, just comforting words like 'low' - I guarantee his total FF energy use is not low at all compared to the rest of of the world.
BTW, if you think writing to your MP will do any good then do it, but, bear in mind he/she is looking to be re-elected so will only tell people about good things that might happen in the future - that doesn't sound like FF depletion or AGW to me so I doubt that they will take adequate action.
By writing to my MP I may not get them to do what I want; by not writing to my MP I definitely won't get them to do what I want.
I'll take possible failure over definite failure any day. I can't complain they're not listening to me if I'm not speaking to them.
Again I agree.
I go to committee meetings on Peak oil and Climate Change in the Houses of Parliament and visit or correspond with various MPs - but I doubt that will change anything they do or think. It does however have a huge effect on what I do and think!
You should not assume that MPs can actually do something about peak oil and climate change while at the same time growing the economy - and actually, they may do what you want even if you don't speak with them. Speaking with them or writing to them is not communicating - that has to be two way. As far as I can tell 'the lights are on but nobody is home!'
Sweden has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 9% on 1990 levels (Kyoto let them grow them by 4%) and at the same time grown the economy by 44%.
I'm puzzled as to why building 1,000MW of coal-fired or nuclear power plants is supposed to help us grow our economy, but building 3,000MW of wind turbines and solar thermal is supposed to be a great and onerous burden which will destroy us all. Nor do I really understand why using less energy to do the same work - for example, take us from home to our jobs - is supposed to be bad - effiency is bad for the economy?
Hi Kaishu,
The whole population of Sweden is only 9 million, population density 20 per sq km, allowing 50% of electricity from hydro - a 'flea bite' on 6,700 million world population. The UK has a population of 60 million, 239 per sq kilometre, and will easily miss the Kyoto targets but is a different economy all together due to the availability of natural resources.
Don't assume that the required coal fired or nuclear plants can be built or operated - without enough primary power and 'net export' of required fuels and required credit the economy can't grow.
Any wind turbines or solar thermal don't run 24 hours a day so they are not 'instead of' they are an 'as well as' investment.
BTW, I like your blogspot.
You didn't have any business mileage this year?
I avoid business travel like the plague. I didn't have to take any commercial flights this year for my job, but I do have to take occasional (100 mile or so) helicopter flights to the gas platforms in the North Sea.
As far as "low", when I use the term I am always referring to my peer group. My peer group at the moment is UK citizens. And my usage is about half of the average (even considering a flight home each year). And there are many, many things that those carbon calculators don't consider. For instance, my parents have burned their trash for my entire life. Over the holidays, I am building my Mom a composter. People have written to me and said that my writing had influenced their energy usage. So when you sum it all up, I am very low relative to the developed world (but not low compared to a 16th centure Native American).
Books;
Blood and Thunder -Historical About the settlement/Indian wars in the American west. Interesting.
The man who listens to horses- by Monte Roberts. Biographical-Monte Roberts discovers "horse society". Not the commercial horse whisperer BS. Fascinating and I don't even like horses all that much. Having witnessed the described behavior(s) in deer while hunting them, I was shocked to say the least.
"The tracker" "Search" by Tom Brown. Biographical story of a man who was taught by an Apache scout. If ever there was a book to read these two are top on my list.
Enjoy!
D
Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank
- Spindifferent
Discover Your Inner Economist by Tyler Cowen. Disclosure: I'm briefly mentioned in it.
A Farewell To Alms by Gregory Clark. Would provide a useful contrast to Jared Diamond.
Lord Of Light by Roger Zelazny. I see you are a science fiction fan. If you haven't read Zelazny this is a great place to start.
Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. About the nature-nurture debate.
From Dawn To Decadence by Jacques Barzun is another take on the 'Peak Everything' theory. This is a book that has many passages of read-aloud brilliance.
The Last American Man by Elizabeth Gilbert was a great read and I found it inspirational. Others found it not so interesting.
These would make worthy and interesting additions to any reading list.
Hi Robert,
Thanks for sharing! and congratulations. I'm glad you made the choice "to live".
One teeny little suggestion re: vegetables - (given to me by a man without teeth whose warning I did not heed)...He said "Eating too many raw vegetables can be hard on the teeth." I guess that's why they invented peanut butter, almond butter and mechanical food choppers, etc. (leaving out electric blenders, etc.) Just thought I'd mention this.
And one question, I'm not sure how to phrase...as someone who works in the oil industry, have you given any thought to any kind of action that people in the industry - (and/or geologists/ and/or any others with differing kinds of relevant expertise) - might do in the way of encouraging/formulating a national or international energy policy? (i.e., actions that might help?) (If this makes sense.)
Aniya,
I am going to answer that question very directly on February 1, 2008. I don't mean to be cryptic, but you will understand at that time why I had to be.
Robert, Those are all good resolutions and I've certainly done some of them and am trying to do others of them. But the one idea that comes up consistently among "recommenders" and "advice givers" here and elsewhere that I don't really understand is the "get out of debt" recommendation.
In general high interest debt of course is bad for you as a consumer. But low interest debt is, it seems to me, still highly beneficial. Owing $200K on a market valued $400K house in Portland Oregon produces enormous advantages for me... a good neighborhood, good school, and since our interest is low we are leveraging our original investment into much greater theoretical gains (although since we are not selling, they are highly theoretical indeed.) These are all the conventional arguments for home ownership with mortgage based debt. As long as the economy doesn't tank completely, this is working for me and my family. Getting out of this debt would mean a lowered standard of living, and uprooting my children's and my lives.
OK, but what about a peak oil crisis? Won't I wish I was out of debt then? Yes, servicing that debt would be difficult if lost my job, but I would then quickly sell and cover all or most of the debt with the sale.
If the government decides to initially try to inflate its way out of a peak oil crisis, well inflation is generally good for debt holders.
Or, in a worst case situation, a peak oil recession, depression ... lost job, economy collapsing, no buyers for my house, I would need to declare bankruptcy. My credit would be ruined, but so would that of most of the U.S. citizenry. It would be nothing to be ashamed of. (And in the mean time, in each year between now and that unknown date when the crisis really bites, I would have lived well in debt financed housing, in a neighborhood with good schools. Each year in this situation is better for my children's development than following the purportedly responsible advice to get out of debt soon. I'm building intellectual capital in my children's brains with this debt... capacities which may serve them well in the post-peak world.)
So, peak oil or not, where's the downside on $200K of low interest debt? Why is debt so terrible, or getting out of it so important, as a pre-peak oil crisis strategy? I'm not seeing it.
On all of your other arguments, I'm with you, doing many of those things, thinking about others. Happy new year to you and to all.
First, you make a very astute observation:
"inflation is generally good for debt holders."
If the debt is low interest and more importantly FIXED INTEREST RATE, I think you are absolutely correct. You get to enjoy the goods you bought, and repay the creditors in deflated dollars that will buy less anyway.
The problem is, not much debt in America is both low interest and fixed rate. When inflation takes off, there is only one fast way to break the back of excessive growth and weed out the weak corporate players, and that is to jack interest rates hard. That was the way we broke (a)inflation (b) corporate excesses in staffing and (c) high oil consumption in the early 1980's.
But it is very painful. People forget the late 1970's and early 1980's when people simply put the key in the mailbox and walked away from homes. We have not yet seen anything like the late 1970's yet. It is survivable, but it hurts like hell.
The advice to get out of debt is aimed primarily, or should be, at those with either high interest rates, or variable rate debt, or both.
Variable rate debt such as credit card debt is absolutely deadly. Most Americans pay more in interest and financial fees a year than they pay out in gasoline for commuting. As other costs of living increase (fuel, food, medical care, education) the interest rates on variable rate becomes a backbreaker.
There has been much made of the run up in energy prices lately, but if you take the long view (last 20 years) and compare the run up in energy to the run up in costs for college tuition, health care, prescription medicine, and houses, you will see that the energy run up over the longer term has been very modest. We often forget that the base price of energy in the late 1980's and most of the 1990's was low to the point of madness.
The move in oil prices looks HUGE if you count from 1998 forward, but if you look at the last quarter century of inflation (some would say 'deflation of currency' which is the real driver of inflation) you see that oil is a bargain in the long view.
Whether this remains so is yet to be seen.
RC
Just adding to what Roger said, the "get out of debt" advice is not universal. I have gone into debt when it made strategic sense, and will probably do so again. But for the average person with the average debt, probably best to reduce it.
OK, that makes sense to me. But I think the standard advice about "debt" should always be qualified to distinguish between good and bad debt. I would characterize my fixed (and low) interest rate mortgage as being a pretty good deal both under very optimistic peak oil projections and very pessimistic peak oil conditions.
High interest and variable rate debt is a bad deal, of course... but it is a bad deal even if the economy is spectacularly resilient and peak oil never comes. I suppose it is also a bad deal if peak oil hits next year and produces a crisis. Although here again, the circumstances under which high interest debt are particularly bad are somewhat limited. A REALLY bad crisis would actually be a SOLUTION for someone with lots of expensive debt.... the bankruptcy option is there, and the more people use it, the less of a problem it is for the individual who also uses it.
I suppose there is a narrow case of slow growth or recession caused by peak oil where that high interest variable rate debt is particularly bad for its holder... but a real economic crisis would represent a solution for the holder of expensive debt, as much or more than it would represent a problem.
---
Then there is the larger philosophical issue of disentangling our lives from the corporate industrial energy system. If you want to go that route then yes, of course, it is psychologically satisfying to rid yourself of debt. But here too, is it the wise course? If you think civillizational collapse is possible, why not finance with debt a move to a rural setting and begin your farming life... buy yourself several years of practice on the soil ... paid for with the system's borrowed capital.... when it all goes to hell and you default on the loan, there you will be on your land with years of experience farming, and who knows if the debt collector will have the power projection capacity to come and boot you off the land. In any case you will have your knowledge, gained with debt.
As far as I can tell it might be better advice to tell people to prepare for a peak oil crisis by loading up on debt and using the funds to invest in things that will serve them well because peak oil means they may be less likely to need to ever pay it all back.
Peak Oil Readiness Resolution: Take on more debt in the form of low interest loans to finance intellectual capital growth and the acquisition of peak oil useful assets, like land.