Fearmongering? Lack of positive input?

So, no, we shouldn't attempt to understand the scope of the problems we face so that we can then understand which set of band-aids to attempt to apply?

Surely you are joking.

Let's triage the patient without diagnosing the problem! What would you do if you walked into a hospital near death and was told "Sir, you have blood all over you, here's a band-aid for that itty bitty cut on your forehead." You would likely not recover from your wounds.

If you haven't looked around lately and seen what is going on in the world, that is exactly the approach you are advocating.

We offer up hopeful, large scale solutions around here all of the time. We just embrace them as the panaceas that they are not, neither do we embrace individual and government inaction and complacency. Kinda different from your standard media fare, eh?

The general attitude here is clinical and empirical with a graceful touch of concern for humanity thrown in for flavor. It is not condescending: it is educated. It is critical. It is academic. And it is certainly not for everyone.

I take no joy in the success of this site, nor do I take joy in the massive resource inflation we are witnessing--other than that it may be the one thing that could spur alternative fuel and method development. I really want the community writ large to be wrong about all of this. I beg for it every single day, sir.

That's why we started this site: to learn as much as we could, to assemble as much knowledge as we could, in an empirical caring way, and to try to facilitate conversations about these complex, nasty problems.

The people here have learned the facts, and we don't sugar coat them. Frankly, I am immensely proud of this community and its approach to the real problems we face. There are a lot of smart people here thinking hard about what's coming.

Someone has to talk about it, someone needs to do the hard thinking, and someone needs to worry about the effects, especially on those who have less of a voice in our society--the poor, the indigent, the folks who are going to bear the brunt of this first wave of transition. I can't speak for others, but that's why I do this.

I am in a relatively safe seat to watch all of this go down--at least in the early innings. However, ask those increasingly hungry people in Pakistan how they are feeling right about now about ethanol. Ask the people who won't have heat this winter what they think of the resource premium.

This is a human tragedy already.

Prof: Congrats on a great site. I realize what the first poster said is very unpopular, however I feel he made a good point. TOD is unlikely to fix the planet-possibly the focus could shift more towards opportunity rather than defeatism. Still a great site-just a minor suggestion, not a criticism.

None of us aspire to "fix the planet." No single person, website, or entity for that matter could do so.

However, every single person we educate about our energy situation is another person who has the choice to a) learn, b) prepare according to their own perceptions, and c) educate others.

Do you really think that I keep harping on all of you to spread this site around for my own ego or personal gain? Hell no. It's about facilitating education and conversation for as many as we can.

You see, that's what many do not get: TOD is not about defeatism, instead, TOD is already about opportunity! The opportunity to facilitate as many people as possible making a difference through nontraditional and traditional means.

It needs to happen. The more people learn, the better off we will be. It's that simple.

I would rate Prof. Goose up, but the arrows aren't working.

Prof. Goose 2008!

Oh p*** off those silly arrows, they are just being used here to show agree/disagree, in contravention of their declared purpose! Just reading the posts takes enough time without getting into gradings.

Amen.

The CNBC video is a prime example of the juxtaposition of peoples time horizons and boundaries. Simmons eloquently outlined the bigger picture of that society is facing dramatic institutional and structural change, and then the conversation was brought directly back to short term profits. June highs mean july lows, etc.

The reason there is no international, national, or regional body looking at WIDE boundary SYSTEMS analysis is that there is no money in it. If the markets are designed to produce profits measured in dollars, how will the markets solve problems of the global commons? How can the viewers/guests on CNBC even begin to analyze the depth of this problem beyond how higher oil prices affect their portfolio allocations? There will come a day when a 'paradigm allocation' will leapfrog modern financial portfolio allocation. Thats why the quizzical looks on those guests faces - energy and ecology are not topics ingrained in most traders pattern recognition banks.

I can only hope that our next crop of national leaders surround themselves by wide bounary thinkers - to surround themselves by the current crop of salespeople will lessen our chances dramatically.

And I agree with PG - this is difficult to do - to present facts about the situation as best as possible while remaining positive. What if the situation is worse than even some of the pessimists predict? The sooner we close off avenues that are dead ends, the better we can save high quality resources.

Well done by Matt Simmons.

Agreed. It's very difficult to convey the complexity of the peak-oil issue in a venue like CNBC's "Fast Money", which thrives on 30-second sound bites, whereas comprehending the reality of our energy predicament takes weeks or months of reading and study to sink in. Matt Simmons has been able to penetrate the mass-media "white noise" about as well as anyone...

At least half my research time (which isn't much) is spent here, asking simple questions on a subject that's a little daunting afterall - indeed, it seems a heck of lot more urgent to my kid's immediate future than recent discussions on climate change.

For the most part, I've been delighted with the replies here, which are often in great detail. And I do agree with you, Robin on the rating thing TOD is trialling and would rather see a "snap-to" function somewhere, so I can easily find any responses to my Average Joe questions (some stories generate 400+ comments).

Regards, Matt B
PS. Does anyone think buying a cheap, road-worthy motorbike from China at the moment is a bad thing? (Passed my learner's last week).

Hi Joe,

Just thought I'd say Hi, though it's OT. I'm glad to see you here and asking questions.

My bias on motorized bikes is that of people I've known personally, I've never known a motor-biker who was not involved in a serious crash. But that's just my own observation. Anyway, do be careful.

Giddaye Aniya,

You sound like my mum, my sister, my wife (and her mum and sister), neighbours wives and all the ladies at the local tennis courts!

:+)

I live in an area where backstreets and 40 to 50 km/hr limits abound. To that end, I work from home, so the licence is mainly for local errands. And I'm 42, so should have a bit of sense out there... Besides, if current trends continue, ten years from now cars and trucks may be few and far between (which may not be a bad thing).

Regards, Matt B
PS. Testing for their motorbike license last week (ten in our group) were: Dad and I, two ladies in their early sixties, one lass mid-twenties, another mid-thirties, a fellow my age, another slightly younger and two 18-year-old lads. Guess which two failed the prac test? Hint: Young male testosterone!

Good question Joe. Don't buy Chinese anything by the way. Buy local. It is dangerous to ride motorcycles but it has provided me with a lucrative living for a long time. I am a physician who works in the operating room and the bulk of our organ donors are young male motorcycle riders so if more people buy cycles and motorbikes we will have a lot more hearts and kidneys and livers for the market. Interestingly not that many victims are bicyclists and our real growth business seems to be bullet bikers. Get a bicycle Joe and keep your organs for your own use.

My brother notes that in his town they're unofficially called "donorcycles". Good to keep in mind.

The real danger, of course, is the dang cars that'll kill you. I had an old italian motorcycle in my teen years and by staying away from traffic, never had even a close call. I'm actively looking to buy one in the 125-250cc range just to park in the garage for future use during gasoline scarcity... then I'd look forward to rationing.

The problem with motorcycles is cars.

Greenish, my experiences exactly.

As a young man I owned a motorcycle in a rural area and also never had even a close call. When I moved to the big city, I gave it up because car drivers just didn't pay attention (and this was BEFORE cellphones!).

And I too am shopping for a simple 4-stroke bike to store away till most of the cars are off the streets...

Errol in Miami

Hi Joe,

Caveat - I'm a cyclist not a motorbiker but have lots of friends who also ride motorbikes and scooters in and around London and on race tracks. First i would say get yourself some good gear, when (not if) you come off then jeans just get cut through immediately and so does your skin, don't skimp on a helmet how much is your head worth? Some of my friends have come off at well over 100 mph and just got up because they were wearing good kit and didn't hit anything. Next, look ahead and ride defensively, if a car hits you it will hurt you more and it doesn't matter if it's not your fault it still hurts. Try and watch out for parked cars opening their doors without looking.

Good luck.

Hey joe. I ride a Lifan 200 cc enduro. It's a cheap chinese knockof of a honda bike. They are NOT low maintenance. The chinese bikes are constantly in need of low-level repairs, however, at least in the case of a lifan, the engines and transmissions are good, and the bike gets 80+mpg.

I have wrecked it many times off-road, but never had a problem on-road, nor have almost any of my many friends that ride. Frankly, most of the bike wrecks are horsepower on the brain rather than inherent to motorcycles. Yes, if you drive at 120mph, you gonna die. But how many reasonable car drivers do you know that have never wrecked? How do the motorcycle statistics compare to say... ferraris driven by 22 year olds? I'd be a little hesitant to ride much in dense traffic, having tried that for a while before.

Matt:

It's a bad thing if it's a two-stroke: loud and smelly, two-strokes are highly polluting!

Also, be sure to seek out and and take a training class before becoming a regular rider, even (especially) if it means taking a class intended for "real" motorcycles. Two-wheeled motorized vehicles have some counter-intuitive characteristics, which mean that your years of driving cars and bicycles are likely to cause you to do exactly the wrong things! Motorcycle training classes are easy and enjoyable and will give you a new set of motor-skills that are likely to save your life...

Larry

PS. Does anyone think buying a cheap, road-worthy motorbike from China at the moment is a bad thing? (Passed my learner's last week).

In general I'd say yes it's a bad thing.

Spend a little bit more for a Honda, Yamaha, or Suzuki (we could add Vespa and Aprila to the list if you are considering a scooter) even if it means buying a used bike rather than new, and you won't have to worry about build quality, reliability, or parts availability issues and the bike will hold it's resale value much better, plus if it already has a scratch or two you won't cry so much the first time you drop it, which most new riders do sometime in the first year or so. There are buckets full of low mileage nearly new bikes out there, the best value and you'll have lots of choice.

Things not to "try at home", shows a lot about what wearing all the gear will let you walk away from...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8oGW8c2vTA&feature=related
and just plain fun too :-)

Congrats and enjoy the ride!
Ride safe!

Thanks John (and to all others above). I very much appreciate the advice.

Perhaps I'll regret it, but...

Bought the Chinese bike this morning; 150cc, $2,490(Aus) ride away. The thinking; twelve months of 40, 50, 60km/hr backstreets, off-peak, for local errands only, upgrade to a brand-name bike after that. Petrol saved by this time next year (versus not using the Aussie-built VY); 220 litres, or around $340(Aus) - based on a mere 2000km.

I promise to be careful.

Regards, Matt B
Now, I'm off to arrange those bunches of flowers I just picked up for the wife...

Buying a Motorcycle? Thats a great idea... Indian and Chinese Motorbikes are strong, ruff-&-tuff, and snappy. An average 200cc bike will easily give a 150+ miles per gallon. I suggest "Pulsar DTSi 200"

GauharJK,

150+ mpg is a bit much I think. A 200 cc bike would do somewhere between 50-75 mpg.

Still much better than the average car, but not that good.

btw, a normal car that does better than 50 mpg can be bought now. No hybrid, just an ordinary ICE.

This one does somewhere between 50mpg and 60mpg. The secret is: It weights only 720 kg and has a 1 liter 3 cylinder engine.

Thats very interesting... :) Cars are very important for the way of life to continue in some way. My parents are getting old, and they may not be able to drive a two-wheeler in a decade.

Generally, my 125cc bike (Bajaj XCD 125) gives a mileage of about 85 kilometers per liter, so I believe a 200cc bike would give arund 60 kmpl.

What arrows? Oh, THOSE arrows... I filter them out. Firefox + AdBlockPlus + AdBlockPlus Element Hider. Then add this element hiding rule that some other kind TODder created:

theoildrum.com#DIV(class=extra_voting_forms karma_3_big)

Voila! No more annoying (and mostly useless) arrows!

Karma, got an error message from this site earlier "karma error", now I see this word again. Interesting word to find floating round in TOD subspace.

It's the new form of education. The teachers let their pupils present ideas, then they vote on their classmates ideas. The most popular ideas - I mean the best ideas - win. Democracy and the market system have worked so well in organising society, it's logical to apply it to learning as well.

If "None of us here aspire to "fix the planet"", why then the question: ask someone in Pakistan what he thinks about ethanol? TOD does indeed try to fix the planet and is notorious for global think. Just check out the daily items on Drum Beat. Most are foreign related.

The truth is that some things that mitigate Peak Oil like ethanol benefit one country more than another. The idea that Americans should make economic and energy choices based on the dire situations in the Third World is every day fare at TOD.

Third world countries like Haiti, Pakistan and Bangladesh got themselves into the situation they are in without American help. Now Americans are suppose to make unsound economic and energy choices to bail them out according to many who post on TOD.

The result will be that we all descend to the lower economic level that these third world countries have already achieved. This will not sell except in those countries who reap the largess of American stupidity. They have nothing to pay for grain. They make little effort to control their ever rising populations. They have no better plans to deal with Peak Oil than we do. And if they could they would gladly slip into the U.S. and increase our own population stress which is happening even now in the case of Mexico.

X: Good point. However, your argument is "Fix the USA". IMO the USA isn't going to be fixed, probably a % of Americans will come through this thing okay. I don't think there is room for 300 million in the lifeboats-I could be wrong.

Sir or Madam: your credibility crashes to zero when you make claims like "countries like Haiti, Pakistan and Bangladesh got themselves into the situation they are in without American help." Before you ever post anything more about other countries around the world and the history of American involvement with them, please read (a lot) of books. Start with researching our involvement in Haiti over the past century or so. I think you'll wish you could take that post back.

Actually, when the US fully occupied Haiti for almost 20 years in the early part of the 20th century and ran the place it improved. Since then our involvement has been much more limited, too limited to turn the place around.

As for countries getting themselves into sad shape without US assistance: That is far more often the case than it isn't.

I bet none of the people giving me negative ratings on my comments about Haiti have read about just how well the 1915-1934 period in Haiti compares to what came afterward.

Poster "x" report to room 101 immediately for politically correct reeducation.

Exactly. The USA is singelehandledly responsible for every instance of shiftlessness, sloth, stupidity, savagery, and cruelty that ever occurred on Planet Earth - since millennia before it was even formed.

100% agree.
The group think on this site can mock the Catholic Pope, make evangelicals out to be flat earth rednecks and label Israeli's as racist. BUT don't point out that Haitians, Indians, Arabs etc have f*cked their countries up with massive birth rates and now threaten to increase the overpopulation in the US, Europe etc otherwise you will be labelled racist.
Pointing out flaws in other cultures/countries isn't always racist but realist.

Please don't count Pakistan in third world countries. We have a very large agricultural base, live in the most naturally fertile deltas, been home to the oldest civilization (mehrgarh) in world that predate egypt and sumeria. We have large reserves of natural gas and coal (200 billion tons out of 1000 billion tons total coal reserves in world).

Our 60 million arable acres SUSTAINABLY produce enough food for 300 million people, we are large exporters of rice, mango etc in food items, textiles and sports goods in industrial products and softwares and customer care in services.

Our govt put no taxes on working class, it only tax the big businesses. We have health and education free.

We have the fourth largest army in world. We are a nuclear power. We make almost all of advanced weapons of today's warfare in our own factories, rifles, tanks, air crafts, sea crafts etc.

We have excellent relations with china for whom we are the only friend. We also ofcourse have more than friendly and actually brotherly relations with highly rich and surplus in wealth nations of middle east, iran etc.

Usa "help" done only one thing to our economy...damage.

Wisdom, are there problems with food supplies in Pakistan.

Nope, as I said Pakistan produce enough food for 300 million people. Our population is about 160 million. So we grow almost double than what we need.

Looking at particular food items, we have a high surplus of rice which we still export in a world where leading exporters vietnam, thailand etc had cut their exports to almost nothing and india another major exporter cut exports 80 to 90 percent. We grow enough wheat to satisfy more than 90% of our wheat needs, in better crops it exceed 100% so we become exporters of wheat for short periods of time. About mango we are the biggest exporter.

We do import large amount of tea from kenya. Our own tea production is zero and since we were formerly part of british empire we have a great consumption of tea. We also import tobacco, a little of coffee etc.

Dear WisdomfromPakistan,

As a native of what is sometimes called a third world country, namely Brazil, I think I understand your reaction and desire to point out all of the great and good things about ones native history and culture.

I have also been a citizen of the United States for over 40 years and will be the first one to admit that this country has a lot things to explain on the global stage and that, is to put it very mildly. However I am also of the opinion that one must very carefully examine the minute splinters in ones own eyes before making blanket statements about the motes in the eyes of others.

Respectfully,

Fernando Magyar

Fernando, Could you please e-mail me re: Brazil? I'm very interested in your native country. Just link my name to get email info. Thanks.

Don

dropped you a line

Wisdom, I know you love your country and I'm certain it has many good points but your statement that it isn't 3rd world is unsupportable.
According to the US Dept of Ag your country is a net food importer. Your Federal Bureau of Statistics has overall imports at $40 Billion and exports of $19 billion (and a record trade deficit). Pakistans food imports are up 51% in the past year.
The UN Human Development Index has Pakistan at 136 (and falling) and Burma rates higher (132).
Your countries strong suit is remittances from expat workers (2 million in the Gulf) and growing demand from the gulf for your fresh produce.
Bottom line is your country wouldn't be my choice for moving to after the crash.

NEAL: Just in case you didnt know....America IMPORTS
more food then it EXPORTS.
I would enjoy providing the evidence from official
sources that have dot gov web addresses and proudly
show the presidential seal....if only you would say
"It cant be true".
Importation of more food then exporting does not a
third world nation make.

Nephilim, I think you need to read what Wisdomfrompakistan wrote before you criticize what I wrote. HE said it wasn't 3rd world in part because of its strong agricultural production (enough to feed 300 million was quoted). I was correcting what he claimed.
And how do you justify the US as a net food importer? (tonnage, value ?). Maybe the value of coffee,chocolate, bananas etc exceeds the value of wheat, corn and other produce but in calorific or nutrient value it would be safe to say the US is the worlds largest net food exporter.

Neal: Iam surprised you tried to argue America doesnt have a severe trade deficit in agriculture.
It was once true that America was the "Food basket of
the world" but sadly hasnt been for nearly a decade.
I live in America and offer you the first of many
dot gov official sites as evidence...
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
Please feel free to open site using the drop down menu
and cursor to "United States"
Then view that America imports nearly TWICE as much
food as it exports.
Weather by tonnage or calorie America imports twice as
much as it exports....weather by dollar,drachma,lira,
pound,rouble,peso,raw diamond,cut diamonds or boogers
America imports nearly twice as much food as it exports.
Please feel free to challenge this fact again and again and again...I have dot gov websites and
wallstreet journal articles that could choke an
obese Chicago pig butcher.
And heres the pic of the obese Chicago pig butcher
http://mikey.i.ph/albums/images/obese_fat_guy.jpg

wisdomfromPakistarn,We have some folks here with a euro-centric world view.As my best friend in college was a Pakistani,I know better.Many don't.

America being the most profligate energy user in the world has exported it's values to the poorer countries of the world. It is no wonder that the desire to emulate the American way of life is now causing chaos for all. Remember that it is the third world that is now providing the energy for America. WTSHTF as it will for many Americans it will be the third world people that know how to grow crops without oil that may save your ass. You do not seem to understand the perilous situation you are in. Listen to Jim Kunstler and Matt Simmons they know the American way of life that is not negotiable according to Bush is a dream.

While I am a recipient of the advances in medicine and technology spawned by the brains within America it is now time to have these brains tackle the energy question. The bankers of America have given us the credit crunch with their manipulation of money basically for individual wealth creation. Time now to spend the funds on solutions to this crisis. Forget the blame game, too late now anyway.

All of us at TOD should be lobbying our Governments with the knowledge we all gain from this site. We have elections here in NZ in 4 months time and to date only the Greens of all the politicians are talking about energy. Our Government has brought back our rail system from private enterprise, This is where our taxes should be invested in all countries including the USA.

Third world countries like Haiti, Pakistan and Bangladesh got themselves into the situation they are in without American help.

Benign or not-so-benign neglect by the developed industrial world, to which the U.S. belongs, did get them into the dire situation they are in. Regardless of whether the U.S. was directly involved, their problems are now our problems...

Prof: agreed on the points you just made. However, I do think the Drumbeats sometimes wander off in very defeatist directions, for example in treating hard-labor back-to-the-15th-century scenarios as inevitable, or in taking a tack - ludicrously ironic for anyone posting something on the Web - perilously close to asserting that all technology can only be useless. (Actually I think that stance often has more to do with politically-correct Marxist-Leninism than with defeatism, but that's for another day.) Nobody's crystal ball is clear enough to back assertions as bald as that, so staff might consider responding once in a blue moon, as Big Gav occasionally does on TOD:ANZ.

Check out the interaction over there a few days ago, involving John15, Big Gav, and others. It worked out rather differently from the archetypal interaction with John15 over 'here' (i.e., usually, on the Drumbeat.) Now I too occasionally get irritated when John15 posts pie-in-the-sky in a manner seeming to suggest that we could scale it up this very afternoon, but it remains that the differences between that interaction and the one typical here probably underline what theokobox might be picking up on. (And I do think the new numerical rating system tends to reinforce, or to "align with", a notion of groupthink.)

theokbox: the username page only shows how long you've been registered - a whole four hours - not how long you've been lurking. Still, don't you think your first post might be a bit early to paint with such a broad brush? It might well be fair comment on one particular article, but "Who wouldn't get doomerish reading the articles on this website" uses "article" in the plural, not the singular, and it manifestly refers to the entire site.

I'd suggest that you and anyone else new please get some perspective from the editorial and tutorial materials - and not attempt to judge the whole site from selected open comment threads.

I suspect a few of the commentators above are examples of the troll species.It is very hard to know how to deal with trolls.Maybe not feeding them would be the first line of defense.
Personally, I find TOD to be a valuable resource,whether I agree with the opinions expressed on it or not.
Best wishes to all with honest intent.

I don't know what site you're reading, PaulS, but it's always seemed to me that half the people posting here are engineers.

And yet somehow it doesn't seem to help as much as it might. Check out the overly maudlin comments concerning Easter Island on today's Drumbeat. Or the recurring meme that once oil plateaus or starts to dip, we'll never again be able to get agricultural goods except from across the street, never mind that even the Romans were shipping them long distances - or that shipping apples from Washington State to other parts of the country at a fuel cost of a penny or two per pound is some kind of disaster.

Education definitely is KEY for why the OilDrum MUST exist! The amount of misinformation and denial out there is vast.

I had an argument today with a intelligent man, passionately self-employed, and politically libertarian by my estimation. I searched for 20 minutes for common ground and found none, just "different facts" that need disputing, which is a beginning at least.

First he said that the market will respond to problems (when the government isn't getting in the way.) Fine, minus corruption of insider information and market manipulation. Then when I bring up peak oil, he says its ALL artificial limits causes by drilling limits and that there's no shortage of oil (in the U.S.) I suggested the U.S. oil reserves would be depleted in a decade of our current consumption even if we could extract it fast enough, AND that what's left can't be extracted/pumped fast enough to meet our current demand.

He never once considered the possibility that the U.S. ought to be TRYING to reduce our consumption. He says the Market could provide for us NOW if we let it, including transitioning us to alternative energy. I noted that that's exactly what the high oil prices now were doing - a less than gentle push away from oil, and he just returned to his belief high prices were artificial and hurt people and denied that the Magic Market requires high prices to encourage us to move to what we need.

It hurts my brain to argue with denialists, but I suppose I'm yet a denialist myself. Besides choosing to "pay down debt" now while I have more income than expenses, I can set myself to live on less money in the future. Besides that, and not owning a car, I may be as bad as anyone. I WANT someone to grab my shoulders and shake some sense into me, tell me this wonderful world around me is an illusion and I need to wake up and take reality seriously. But as long as the world LOOKS normal, as long as most people got jobs, and their credit isn't maxed out yet, we can continue the illusion a while longer.

I had a similar discussion with a friend who is getting his PhD soon, and his great observation was that ONLY people in very stable situations seem to worry about economic collapse or a returning great depression. I pointed out that only people in stable positions are willing to consider things that challenge their stability, which he accepted. But his faith was based on some mysterious information about "signs" and "indicators" NOT pointing towards a depression. I couldn't make any sense of it except to assume he read something somewhere that said such signs existed and were all looking up in the future.

Anyway, I have to wonder HOW MANY FACTS can a mind deny to keep their world sane, so they can get up the next day and do something that assumes a future that can't possibly exist as they wish it. AND if denial is so powerful, what are the "key facts" that can at least STICK around a while to be added to later "key facts" that will push them over?

I'd LIKE to share some of the PeakOil presentations, BUT I see perhaps they need to be written in a weaker voice than that of the converted. For me peak oil is an uncertainty in the near term, a certainty in the long term. I like Congressman Barlett's presentations largely, and his stated bigger mission, for leaving a world his grandchildren can enjoy and appreciate as he has, and of course his attempts to give perspective on the amount of energy in a gallon of gas.

Anyway, I guess my assumption is that the future is a place of less energy, less opportunity whatever we do, individually or collectively. I don't think that makes me a doomer, but I accept it is an assumption that may not be true.

I find the idea of a world with LESS actually interesting because it gives MEANING to values I hold - that the material world has become UNDERVALUED for our excess, and conservation and care for things a lost virtue. I truly can't stand to see the HUGE garbage bins so many people put out each week. Then I imagine the hours and hours each week people must spend BUYING things to trash so much so fast. it's insane to me, at least as a single person with just my bicycle to carry things.

So, my world view is strengthened by limits, even as I fear them, fear the fighting and hoarding that MUST come when others realize their future may not be as they've assumed. I fear a future of haves and have-nots where gated communities separate people by their individual wealth. If I was a bit more optimistic about my ability to communicate I'd see that also as a great wonderful challenge, but sharing is a BIG DRAG. I'm sure our speedy modern life is largely fueled by the convenience of isolation, and when that isolation means poverty, we'll have to quickly reorganize ourselves into more collective expressions of choice and priority.

And again, that's why I'm still a denialist. I assume a position of privlege, exchanging relative "voluntary simplicity" for resisting searching for more cooperative power. It's a nice world we have for freedom: (1) Earn money (2) Spend it as you please. Oops, and add (3) Borrow as you please.

Our illusion of freedom is our weakness too. We're all part of the problem because we can't imagine a lifestyle that uses 1/10 of the energy we use now, because we can't imagine freedom in that world. And because we can't accept that challenge, we'll go on the destructive path until it crumbles beneath us and becomes impossible to follow any more. That's where I'm really a doomer - I can't see any will for collective action that can make a difference.

I've caught the fatality of the Republican pessimism - whom in the name of personal power - have demonized government as a force for good. There is no common good. There's just money and the RIGHT for those who have it to KEEP it and spend as they choose.

I just don't even know if anything is worth discussing under such an atmosphere.

I'm almost coming to the conclusion that communication is hopeless as long as you are trying to convert someone who doesn't want to be converted. a seriously fucked up idea.

I remember a quote I copied down from "The Brothers Karamazov", by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. It's a philosphical book, expressed through fictional characters. In one section one character talked about isolation and the need for everyone to set an example of "brotherly love" in the world, act selflessly, act outside of our immediate direct interest and benefit. It's a fun place to be, to turn down the voice of ambition, the noise of distraction. It's not really "the answer", not really "heaven", just the other side of life that becomes hidden under a poverty of spirit. I don't believe in collective awakenings, but perhaps there is a critical mass where the world does change directions. Anyway, brotherly-love is still entirely self-interest whatever greater benefit society might find in it.

**********************************
Part Two Book VI: The Russian Monk.
1. Father Zossima and His Visitors. (d) The Mysterious Visitor Paragraph 12 [Page 278-280.]

... "That life is heaven," he said to me suddenly, "that I have long been thinking about." And all at once he added, "In fact, I think of nothing else." He looked at me and smiled. "I am more convinced of it that you are, I will tell you why later on."

I listened to him and thought that he had something that he wanted to tell me.

"Heaven," he went on, "lies hidden within all of us - it lies hidden in me now, and if I will it, it will be revealed to me tomorrow and for all time."

I looked at him. He was speaking with great emotion and looking mysteriously at me, as if he were questioning me.

"And we are all responsible to all for all, apart from our own sins. You were quite right in thinking that. And it is wonderful how you could comprehend it in all its significance at once. And in truth, so soon as men understand that, the Kingdom of Heaven will be for them not a dream, but a living reality."

"And when?" I cried out to him bitterly, "When will that come to pass? Will it ever come to pass? It is not simply a dream?"

"Then you don't believe it." He said, "You preach it and don't believe it yourself. Believe me, this dream, as you call it, will come to pass without doubt. It will come, but not now, for every process has its law. It's a spiritual, psychological process. To transform the world, to recreate it afresh, men must turn into another path psychologically. Until you have become really, in actual fact, a brother to everyone, brotherhood will not come to pass. No sort of scientific teaching, no kind of common interest, will ever teach men to share property and privileges with equal consideration for all. Everyone will think his share too small and they will be always envying, complaining and attacking one another. You ask when it will come to pass; it will come to pass, but first we have to go through a period of isolation."

"What do you mean by isolation?" I asked him.

"Why, the isolation that prevails everywhere, above all in our age - it has not fully developed, it has not reached its limit yet. For everyone strives to keep his individuality, everyone wants to secure the greatest possible fullness of life for himself. But meanwhile all his efforts result not in attaining fullness of life but self-destruction, for instead of self-realization he ends by arriving at complete solitude. All mankind in our age is split up into units. Man keeps apart, each in his own groove; each one hold aloof, hides himself and hides what he has, from the rest. He ends by being repelled by others and repelling them. He heaps up riches by himself and thinks, 'How strong I am now and how secure.' And in his madness he does not understand that the more he heaps up, the more he sinks into self-destructive impotence. For he is accustomed to rely upon himself alone and to cut himself off from the whole; he has trained himself not to believe in the help of others, in men and in humanity, and only trembles for fear he should lose his money and the privileges that he has won for himself. Everywhere in these days men have ceased to understand that the true security is to be found in social solidarity rather than in isolated individual effort. But this terrible individualism must inevitably have an end, and all will suddenly understand how unnaturally they are separated from one another. It will be the spirit of the time and people will marvel that they sat so long in the darkness without seeing the light. And the sign of the Son of Man will be seen in the heavens. ... But, until then, we must keep the banner flying. Sometimes even if he has to do it alone, and his conduct seems crazy, a man must set an example, and so draw men's souls out of their solitude, and spur them to some act of brotherly love, that the great idea may not die."
...
**********************************

Thanks for that post,Tomruen.I haven't read Dostoyevsky for years and I can see that I will have to reread "The Brother Karamazov".Dostoyevsky seemed to be a rather strange mixture of mystic and anarchist,I think.Perhaps not a bad combination.

I'm afraid that I identify more with Ivan than with Zosima, but I certainly appreciate you plugging a great piece of literature.

I know exactly what you speak of, as I am unable to extract myself from an unsustainable lifestyle. I have a suburban house, a good job, and a family. My son is only 5 and I fear for his future. My wife agrees in principle with what I say, but so far is unwilling to make the sacrifices that I think will be required of us to prepare for the years to come. Hell, I don't have a crystal ball, maybe lowering our standard of living is premature. I work as much as I can to earn extra money in a desperate attempt to prepare, despite the time away from my family. Is this denial?

I have settled on trying to educate others, especially my co-workers and neighbors. I have come to the conclusion that solutions must be approached as a community, that we are stronger together. So I am finding myself in a waiting game, waiting for the others to catch up with my level of understanding. You are correct that there is a great deal of misinformation that has to be overcome but all we can do is encourage the others to seek the truth. I always take opportunities as they present themself, and right now there is a great deal of discussion about high oil prices. As the professor said, our goal is to educate. Hopefully at some point in the next few years leadership will take over and a mobilization will occur.

Clint

I, too, an unable to extract myself from an unsustainable lifestyle. Though I am trying. My husband is supportive of my efforts to work toward ELP. Right now we are only working on the L and P. We have purchased 13 acres of very fertile soil just 60 miles from NYC and are growing a s***load of vegetables. We don't have the E down and are merely giving the stuff away (I realize the value of it and won't sell it cheap, I'd rather give it away.) We just purchased a new John Deere tractor with 36 months interest-free financing and figure it's money in the bank. We'll see. Whether the hyper-inflationsists or deflashionists win out. Either way. We're riding green.

LOL you have 13 acres and a new tractor - I guess you and I have different ideas of "unsustainable" !
I have a herb garden - so if things get back at least my mud cakes will be flavoursome.

Orbit500 writes:

LOL you have 13 acres and a new tractor - I guess you and I have different ideas of "unsustainable" !

I note the humor. When flying into Brussels and out of Amsterdam that's exactly what I saw. Hundreds of small farms abutted to the cities and equipped with small tractors.

I've come to blame the media for quite a bit, but it probably isn't as simple as that. I remember when the US was initially talking about going into Iraq and the support for invasion was materializing based on fears of Saddam as a bogeyman. I tried to debate rationally with people. I tried to tell them about other facts not reported in the media. Even after the illegal invasion I still tried to reason with people. I ran out of energy at the end of the last election and finally said que sera sera.

People finally woke up in the last couple of years, but for all the wrong reasons. If they had really examined the facts, we would have impeached a long time ago and there would have been several trials for war crimes. This isn't the reality on the ground though.

I stopped trying to tell everybody about peak oil years ago for much the same reason. You can't reason with people who lack the curiosity to examine the world around them. It's like a computer model when you plug crap data in, you get crap data out. It's very rarely the fault of the hardware and when it is, that is testable and correctable.

You would have never been able to reach the person because he's not willing, prepared, and perhaps not even capable of accepting the information being freely given. Even now people don't see the truth, with gas on average above $4/gal. Maybe when it hits $12/gal - $15/gal they will begin to understand that none of the explanations previously offered, other than peak oil, are realistic. It's frustrating because our ability to mitigate the potential for collapse are fading away. It's almost like something we saw in the primaries, with Hillary unwilling to give up until she and the supporters she had were left with no other choice but to concede defeat.

People are often not rational and even when they are trying to be, they are limited by the quality of the information they have. It would be nice just to blame it on the media. It's much bigger than that and even bigger than the momentum of society. There are many vested interests who wield great power and want to grow their psychotic stranglehold on society. As much as peak oil deniers have trouble accepting peak oil, many truly-believing peak oilers are unable to see the deeper manipulation going on by the elite. You either see what's going on at the top of the pyramid or you don't.

Prof G: We may not want to "fix the planet" but making the world (or at least society) a better place is why a lot of us go into engineering.

Defeatism and pessimism are just things we all have to deal with. I know I get frustrated when I see countless cars driving by and I wonder where all these people are going. Or what is happening to my neighbors when gas gets REALLY expensive. or some of the STUPID things our society does like corn based ethanol. I can certainly understand Matt Simmons getting down

Now, as for TOD, there is NO better place to find such great information on energy. The analysis and data is just incredible. TOD should be offered as college credit. It certainly helps me more in life than my music appreciation class.

Thanks, MM. We're tryin'. :)

Prof. Goose,
I'm not quite buying the "we're just educating people" stance or at least the usefulness of this assertion to counteract the criticism that TOD shades into the doom and gloom attitude. I very much appreciate some of the work that TOD and peak oilers have done in tracking hydrocarbon usage and production. However there is a certain passivity and even glee with which some on TOD watch the proceedings that I believe is not really taking the ethical high road.

If you presume to know something in a crisis or at least know better, you have an obligation to take some leadership position or at least puzzle out what might be a way out of the crisis. I realize that some discuss solutions here but that is not "just educating people" as you assert.

I believe some in the Peak Oil community are just enjoying watching a train wreck, not really an admirable position, though replete with the pleasures of Schadenfreude.

For instance, the theme running through comments and some posts here that we will inevitably experience some form of population contraction is not NECESSARILY the future. It MAY happen and it is a matter of ethical choices and work by people to decide how they structure their future society. However, those who are attracted to the "trainwreck" narrative feel that it is INEVITABLE. This is just one example of the attraction to a gloom and doom narrative that one finds on these pages.

On my blog (www.greenthoughts.us) I have been advocating a turn to what I call the Renewable Electron Economy as a solution to our climate and energy needs. It is not an easy road to achieve this result but it is a vision of hope that can be achieved with sufficient work and social investment. It not the only vision out there that offers hope but it is one of them.

You assume that there IS a way out of the crisis. Just hypothetically speaking, how would you respond to people if you believed there was not?

I operate from the place that there is no way out of the crisis at this point. Is it true? I don't know and as I point out elsewhere, that's a deceptive question to ask. As a context "no way to avert the collapse" has me taking actions that I wouldn't take if I was operating from "how can we turn this ship around?"

Of course there is nothing stopping people from operating from both contexts at the same time and just switching between them as required. I've judged for myself that the best context for me is the first one; others have to make their own judgement.

The way out of the crisis is to go through it. (See WWII, the Great Depression etc). There will be something on the other side. Not everyone will live to see it.

Given the inherent unfairness of the world it is quite possible that some people will have a relatively easy time of it. Misery is never evenly distributed. I'm not expecting the Swiss to suffer much.

My "personal context" is that there will be countries (and regions) that manage to preserve their technology and culture through the transition to post-carbon energy sources. And there will be plenty who collapse.

I think it is a mistake to think of a "world collapse". Who is this "we" of whom you speak? There are haves and have-nots now, it is likely that in any crisis there will be some who suffer greatly and some who suffer little.

Those who say solar, nuclear and EVs cannot possibly be scaled up in time are right - in the context of saving the American middle class. But they will provide energy and transport for some people.

The French and the Swiss do not have to worry about "scaling up" nuclear power - they did that decades ago.

Between "no crisis" and "total collapse" there is a scenario where civilisation makes a transition to a clean, green post-carbon future - but "civilisation" consists of less than a billion people.

Like I said, misery is never evenly distributed.

I think those countries who have gone most far in modernization will suffer most, those who are still living in mostly pre 1800 standard of living will not suffer much.

Ofcourse the hunting-gathering native tribes of australia, africa etc will not suffer at all. Actually they will benefit with less pollution and more share in hunting once the safari hunters of "advanced" societies stop visiting them.

The country I think will most hit will be Japan as it has too many people in too little land having too little arable land and almost no other natural resources to trade. The country that should be least hit should be canada having too little people at too much arable land and too many natural resources to trade. Also brazil can be in better position.

Middle east would be ruined once its reserves of oil and gas are gone. Most hit in the region would be kuwait and uae. Least hit may be syria, egypt, iran, iraq (minus the effects of war).

China may go under a big revolution once its economy fail due to depleting coal reserves of its country, rising costs of imported fuel and decreasing buying power of its foreign consumers. Then its 900 million farmers would be very angry at having no share in the wealth and all burden of pollution in crop failures. Ditto with india.

Afghanistan will open new opportunities for a lot of pakistanis to settle there once american and british troops have to return because of their falling economies and because of very few remaining survivors in afghanistan after 30 years of war.

Russia I think will not be much affected because of its too big land, too few people, declining population, huge reserves of gas once oil is gone, huge amount of weapons enough to grasp resources of its former states around Caspian Sea and because it can literally make most of europe pay anything to survive the cold months every year using its gas.

Europe would sure be in rags because of too many people, too little land, too much industralization, too much dependence on outside (norway i not think can supply much of european energy demands) especially gas in winter months. Traditionally europe could have support only 6 million people, now it has more than 100 times that many people.

Usa can survive relatively easy because of its too few people, too much land inspite of its being very far in modernization.

Bravo!

Sorry but you are mistaken about both Australia and Egypt (as I've lived in both). There are no hunter-gatherers left in Australia (most became settled generations ago and depend on tourism, mining, agriculture and government welfare).
Egypt has gone from 2 million to 80 million in 200 years and depends on imported grain for about half its needs (bread,stock feed). Biggest money earner is tourism (won't that be nice for the 20% of the population that is involved in tourism WTSHTF).
Both countries have problems, although I love both (Egypt more) I am sure that Australia will be my best option.

You've had an account here for four days.

Look up the prefix "over-" and the word "generalization" right after you get done further impugning my motivations or accusing this site of being unethical or not genuinely motivated.

If you happened to see a break in the tracks coming and could tell the engineer to stop the train, would you not try to do so? Even if you were ten miles away and the engineer was deaf? That's what this site does, and I would like to think that we do it for the right reasons.

As I said in the opening comment, I get very little joy out of this, but I feel like it needs to be done. So do my colleagues. Are there some people here getting their dose of Schadenfreude out of this endeavor? Probably. Can I control that? No. Should that prevent us from our educational mission? No.

PG,

Recall my prior comment about Cornucopians du Jour? Note that our two new friends have been members for time periods measured in hours to days. I suspect that you have one person, or a very small group, signing on under new names and then telling everyone how worthless The Oil Drum is. One might begin to suspect that they perceive the research and discussion on The Oil Drum to be a threat.

I have two all time favorite comments that were directed at me: (1) I am personally destroying the Peak Oil movement (to which I replied that I was willing to hire myself out to destroy other movements) and (2) That I am analogous to Saddam Hussein--I was hoping for a Hitler analogy, but I suppose Hussein will have to do :(

I am personally destroying the Peak Oil movement

shhhh, I thought you asked us not to divulge that and now you go ahead and do it? Geeesh...next you'll give away the secret handshake and the location of the compound....I think we need to elect a new leader.

;-)

Thanks a lot for all your work westexas. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the ELM. Also I especially appreciate contributors who come up with future oil/hydrocarbon production charts like Khebab, this seems to be a very valuable and selfish service. I don't know of any higher quality projections.

Finally thanks very much to Prof. Goose for putting up and maintaining the site, and for taking the time to make comments. Oh, and for the Matt Simmons CNBC piece today, it was great.

I'm shocked by how right Matt Simmons has been. Shocked. Really still in a state of disbelief. What did he say? If there are serious fuel shortages, it will only take a week for the food to run out. I will have to watch it again now.

Host: What do you think is the probably scenario for the next 6 months, and next 6-10 years
Simmons: Unfortunately I think the probable scenario is that we will keep dropping our inventories and feeling good about it. Hoping that that will basically bring about a price collapse assuming that might be demand declining when it's not, and then we will have a shortage. If we have a shortage then we will have a run on the bank so fast your eyes will spin. This is basically when everyone tops up their tank, and we haven't run out of oil but we could literally run out of usable diesel and gasoline and then we would have the Great American Disaster because within a week we would run out of food.

I don't understand the beginning of Mr. Simmons statement. I guess he is saying that the demand destruction that is being reported by the MSM isn't necessarily real and that instead decreased imports could be the result of using inventories?

As you are "impugning" my authority to say what I say by noting that I only recently joined here, I must have hit a nerve somewhere. That's not really much of way to engage with the more serious issue of whether personal predilections are influencing the way information is presented here as well as a general preference here to take a somewhat fatalistic attitude (perhaps not your attitude).

One thing that has kept me from feeling like it was worth my while to actually register on this site is the use by regular presenters here of pseudonyms, like "Prof Goose" rather than your real names. If you are presenting serious information that you stand by, why not sign it? Taking individual responsibility for what one says has something to do with ethics, I believe. You care that much more about something that bears your given and family names. The use of pseudonyms here actually undermines what is generally pretty high quality analysis (though shaded towards the negative...of course). TOD would be better without them.

Your metaphor of the train tracks and the engineer offers a number of different takes. You can alert the engineer in a way in which your credibility is undermined. You can write of the whole situation in a manner that submerges the genuine wish to help by portraying yourself as someone who loves stories of disaster and destruction. Using your real name helps.

Responding to Michael Hoaxter,

I think intelligent people are able to detect intelligence in posts regardless of the handle a poster uses, especially when they follow a poster's writings for several years.

And why would it matter to me that you post under your real name, if that is your real name? What the h3ll does your name mean to me? Absolutely nothing, because you've never posted anything of value here that I've ever seen.

Moe,
The name is Hoexter, with an "e".

My advice to you is to step out of your info-cocoon and read other sites. Other people and I have written worthwhile stuff in that big wide world out there.

How about judging the merits of the particular argument or opinion? If you can do that, you might make a contribution.

Mark Folsom

Staff Biographies


Editors

Prof. Goose is Kyle Saunders, associate professor of political science at Colorado State University. "PG" graces us with a post now and again about energy politics and policy, sociology, and psychology, with a little bit of economics, research methodology, and modeling techniques thrown in for good measure. Behind the scenes, he is the managing editor of the site and attempts to help Super G keep the trains running on time.

*yawn* You hit no nerve I assure you.

And there you go again, claiming to know the formula for "credibility" and "ethics." My real name, as was noted above, is no real mystery once you spend some time here. My credibility really isn't in question, but thanks for your concern!

Even so, it is the quality of an argument that matters most, not the name behind it. Pseudonymity has a long and storied history; on the web even moreso. Times are changing and our model of knowledge is changing.

Sorry, we live in a post-modern world now, my friend: you do not have a license on how to do things "right"...nor do I. So, I'm not going to preach to you how to do things. Instead I'm going to present my information and argument and let people discern the quality of it for themselves.

To this point, our formula seems to work; it has accomplished and continues to accomplish amazing things. Mostly because I am surrounded by absolutely amazing people who do amazingly high quality work.

So, we are not going to change it on your recommendation. Thanks for the tip though.

Well, Kyle, in your style of response, you are confirming the juvenile quality of using pseudonyms which I think does some damage to your stated mission. Yes, my concern is genuine despite your jibes, I do actually think there is good work being done here, by you and by others.

Yes, your credibility outside your little community here would be helped by using your real name. Inside it, you may be a king!!

As for post-modernism, the whole point of TOD is in fact undermining the relativistic world of pomo. You are making statements here about the objective nature of limited supplies of the primary energy on which modernist and post-modernist societies have been based. Post-modernism at least in most of its popularized forms, is endlessly relativistic.

I'm quite sure if you adopted a thoroughly post-modern ethics in your day job, you would get yourself fired pretty quickly.

So the choice is yours, post modern or anti-post-modern ethics whether online or offline.

In order not to be juvenile, should not you address your opponent as Dr. Saunders?

I have to to admit knowing nothing of post-modern or anti-post-modern ethics, but I am certainly grateful for this site and the opportunity to discuss issues with like-minded people. I have been concerned about energy issues for some 30 yrs. I am mystified as to your motives for attacking the professor. You admit this site has done some good, and then attack his ethics.

Can any of us really do without the society in which we live? We have to work in the context of our times. Apologies for interjecting in this discussion, but I believe this format allows it. What I can tell you is that I think Prof. G. has done more to raise awareness than you or I. That makes me me want to do more. What about you? Is it your reaction to attack those who are are trying to accomplish something?

Reality is what it is despite the categorizations that are applied to different lines of thinking. I am a realist and I believe in the professor and this site. Criticism is welcome as long as it serves the search for the Truth, but this kind of criticism seems too personal to be relevant.

Just my take on this....

Clint

What you call juvenile, I call engaging social intellectualism!

("Web 2.0" Use teh Google... http://google.com )

I assure you I am no king. We are peers among peers here at TOD. I am no better or worse than anyone on staff, readers, or anyone else--and I have much to learn from everyone here.

And, as for getting fired, the title says Associate Professor. Unless I pull a Ward Churchill or do something really stupid, well, I can adopt some post-modern ethics if I so choose. :)

As for post-modernism, the whole point of TOD is in fact undermining the relativistic world of pomo. You are making statements here about the objective nature of limited supplies of the primary energy on which modernist and post-modernist societies have been based. Post-modernism at least in most of its popularized forms, is endlessly relativistic.

Dear Mr. Hoexter,

LURK MOAR

I can recall my first post here, thinking of all these intelligent, but overly pessimistic people. Wanting to help them be less doomerish. I'm still a lot less doomerish than is typical here. Clearly many of us can see societal and technological paths which would minimize the pain of transition to a post petroleum world. Where the doomerism comes in is in seeing how foolish people in the collective continue to be. So our pessimism comes from seeing people and politics making things much worse by their boneheaded stupidity. Part of the doomerism comes from observing this dynamic, and part is the human reaction of frustration, kinda the 'this is what those idiots are going to bring onto themselves -but heck they deserve what they are going to get'.

Huh?

We all know the real name, the Magic Decoder is here for any and all to see, as someone pointed out upthread. It reveals most of the staff names. And handles or pseudonyms are about as common throughout the Web as nitrogen molecules are in the atmosphere. So what is your problem?

Memo: even the much-maligned John15 usually manages to stick to one basic issue per subthread as opposed to changing the subject at every turn. If you did so, it would be a helluva lot easier to follow whatever you're trying to say.

I think you raise good points, but you are up against the groupthink. Helpfully, posts that represent the groupthink are now identified by the Groupthink Rating.

I find it ironic that the guys on TOD believe they are so much smarter than every one else, but then wonder why the likes of Michael Lynch regularly get invited to talk on the media, but press release from an anonymous group on the internet get thrown in the bin. You wonder who has the greater grip on reality.

TOD is a very Web 2.0 experiment, but is unlikely to be effective. Joe Sixpack is not reading the interweb.

This is a point i have failed to express but wanted too for sometime.

Boris
London

Some of us are (reading, that is). Some of us are very concerned for their children's future.

Regards, Matt B

Giddaye Michael,

Some of the pseudonyms do give a hint to the writer's personality (like mine). Which is OK, I guess. And though I do understand the arguements for anonimity, part of the reason MS media personalities and Big Business heads get their opinion heard is because they do put their names to their comments - to this end, I agree with you.

Perhaps for TOD comments, an accompanying join-date and an historical number of registered comments along side the pseudonym might help; eg...

Joe Average / Member 11 months / 63 Comments Made

Further, I wouldn't mind knowing a writer's age (yes I know there's plenty of students with 150 IQ's versus dummies like me - not to mention reluctance from the fairer sex; not to be sexist). Perhaps even an occupation? But hey, how far do we want to go. At the end of the day, I'm here for a few answers and a bit of comfort, because no-one in my immediate circle thinks about the future if we keep BAU; not enough anyway.

Regards, Matt Blain (from Oz)

The use of pseudonyms here actually undermines what is generally pretty high quality analysis (though shaded towards the negative...of course). TOD would be better without them.

Luckily, back in 1787-88, the good people of the State of New York were happy to evaluate just the high quality analysis contained in 85 essays signed by three authors who hid behind the pseudonym PUBLIUS in the Federalist Papers, without worrying unduly about the identity of the author(s). As it turned out, the Constitution was ratified, and Madison went on to become the 4th President, Hamilton the Secretary of the Treasury and Jay the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

So let's just stick to evaluating arguments?

.... PG '08!

On my blog (www.greenthoughts.us) I have been advocating a turn to what I call the Renewable Electron Economy as a solution to our climate and energy needs.

George Carlin: Saving the Planet and the Big Electron!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c

Michael,

Three simple points:

One: This site has presented and argued over solutions. Clearly, you have not bothered to read them.

Two: To imply that population growth has no limit is silly.

Three: To conclude that people grin and gleefully clap over disasters that will touch their lives is inane.

Clearly, you are advancing your site's cause. No problem there. But do it with a bit more class.

Actually I do like my ideas and what I have written at my site, otherwise I wouldn't have written it and put my name on it, nor posted a link here.

I am, though, questioning the master narrative here at this site which does have the tendencies that the original commenter put his finger on. Prof Goose (or Saunders) sidestepped dealing with what might be called a Peak Oil/depressive view of the world with his response.

Looking at the videos, we see the master narrative in action in Heinberg's and Angelantoni's interviews where they pretty much focus on the notion of collapse as being their preferred way of looking at the situation. I just don't see that as necessarily the outcome of our current situation...it might be but it is not the only possibility. Therefore I'm chatting about it with you folks here.

I have not read every post here but I have noted that some are on solutions. However, the preponderance are about the relatively dire situation we find ourselves in. TOD is not to held responsible for the direness of that situation but I believe there is a "story" about the future possibilities for post-oil sources of exosomatic energy that is told here over and over again that is a product of individual and group psychology.

In a polemical manner you've also taken what I've said about population and distorted it. Of course there's a limit to population growth but I don't know if there will be an imminent collapse which is one story told on this site.

Again, none of us has a crystal ball. I read the discussion on this site and use my own judgement as to what may actually occur. Some outcomes are more likely than others, but no one knows for sure what lies ahead. I tend to agree with the posters who say that it will be the Poor who will bear the brunt of what is to come.

The site functions in its own way, I think it has taken on a life of its own. It is really pointless to take on the Doomers, they have to be engaged. When we start to see true leadership they will come around. At least they understand the mess we're in.

Whether the problems manifest themselves now or in the decades to come is irrelevant. As a whole, humankind should acknowledge there are limits to our resources. Let the discussion begin there!

Well for one thing, you're not chatting you're trolling. That is, you're making remarks that are inflammatory. You keep blaming us for focusing on collapse and saying that there are more outcomes, and you talk about solutions but where are they? The only thing I've heard out of you is complaining that we're too negative. You won't convince anyone of anything this way, we respond better to assertions supported by data and facts.

I've been here nearly a year myself but I've known about peak oil since I was taught about the concept by a geology professor in the 1995. I've paid serious attention to it since at least 2001. As Simmons says, there could be a lot more being done at the national level about this energy crisis (peak oil or not) than there is. *THAT* is depressing, along with the lack of concern by the populace and factual errors by the MSM. When you see that, people continuing to ignore what you have known about for a long time, naturally your thoughts start becoming more pessimistic. Finally, a lot of the discussions about the collapse of society should be treated as exactly that, discussions. It's one possibility among many, as you say.

So this is trolling?....wow...

I never thought an honest attempt to engage in discourse with people in a way that is straightforward and fairly accurate would be considered trolling...

I think you are a little sensitive about what are really quite basic observations about the TOD "culture" such as it is. I discuss solutions on my blog. Which you can find a link to above in one of the other comments I made.

Prof. Goose immediately took an unnecessarily ad hominem approach to me in his first response to my (critical) comment, and I responded somewhat in kind, perhaps mistakenly. I don't think I'm a troll so much as you guys are engaging in, as another commenter above, a kind of group-think that is intolerant of some pretty simple reality-based debates. You want to shoot the messenger before listening to the message.

If there is a master narrative, we are all free to ignore it or refute it. Read everything. Take away what is useful. Frankly, I don't give a flying fig what the master narrative is. Maybe your right about the MN. Who cares?

RE: Pessimism, defeatism, doomsaying, schadenfreude, etc

I'm reminded of a friend who recently went to hospital with chest pain.
The attending doctor sent her for an x-ray, and looked at the result:
"Hmm", says he, "this shadow here could be a lesion or a clot or pleuracy .. lets go with pleuracy".
So she was sent home with painkillers.
'Luckily', her husband had been treated for pleuracy no so long ago by the family doctor, and recognised that her symptoms were different.
The doctor arrived at their home and without further ado said "shall I bring her to hospital or will you?" - it was much more serious than pleuracy - it was a blood clot.

..

Now the first doctor could be considered an "optimist".
Taking an initial view that the condition might have been serious could be considered by some people to be taking a pessimistic, or defeatist, view.

Presuming, however, that the attitude, view or hopes that one has, or holds, do in any way affect the actual reality of the condition is a class of thinking known as "magical thinking".

While I will heartily support the frequent value of such a mode of cognition in the realms of psychology, arts, philosophy and economics, it does nevertheless risk being an inappropriate approach for other issues which have somewhat more to do with actual physical reality.

Which is the hard nub of the issue:
perhaps no amount of wishing will make the problem go away;
perhaps no amount of wishing will make the problem less bad than we hope.

These are real, hard risks, and I for one am busy inflating the lifeboat just in case it becomes necessary.

It is also becoming apparent that should it in fact prove necessary, most other people would be completely unprepared.

As it happens, I think I'm being optimistic. If I were being pessimistic, I'd be wondering when oceanic dead-zones would be large enough to generate large amounts of sulphur-loving bacteria populations, eventually outgassing over the land and eradicating 90% of multicellular lifeforms.

well said.

Prof. Goose,

I've been here since you launched this site and I officially joined early on as well. I can say without any hesitation that I've learned more through TOD as the backbone of my autodidact "peak oil research" than the equivalent of a multi-discipline undergraduate degree.

There are hundreds of quasi-lurkers like me among the people you have DEEPLY influenced -- and thousands more you have had a strong impact upon. Know this on the days skeptics shower scorn. Know that - slowly, and in ways that you'll never fully see - your work and the work of all editors here will indeed have an impact on the world. We will never know to what degree this will be so. But without a doubt, TOD has had an impact and the veritable army of people that have gone through "TOD School" will hopefully help the world transition to a better world. You have already achieved more than you know. My gratitude for your work and the work of all editors here runs deep.

- ziggy

TOD is unlikely to fix the planet

TOD is a web site. TOD allows people to post text to each other.

TOD *MIGHT* be able to help others who CAN effect change data to make change(s).

possibly the focus could shift more towards opportunity rather than defeatism.

Opportunity is posted often, based on the observation of the energy levels projected to exist and the population of the planet expected to exist.

But some people are unwilling to accept "powerdown" or see that as an acceptable 'opportunity'.

Another 'opportunity' is global thermonuclear war. The 'opportunity' of plain old war is being done already.

TOD may not be able to "fix" the world, but one individual learning one thing and doing one act could. It has happened before and could happen again. We are trying to increase the probability that the right person/people will get the right information at the right time to make the decision to do something that will somehow help either themselves, their family, their neighborhood, their town, their state, their country, their continent, and the rest of it.

The roots have definitely been planted at TOD and some sprouts have grown...heck...the next benevolent dictator of the world could be reading right now. If he/she is PO aware and gets the world straightened out in time we all might be spared a messy crash.

(top - nonsarconal; bottom - sarconal)

TOD is unlikely to fix the planet

This is completely untrue. Look at the effect that blogs and bloggers like Glenn Greenwald and Fire Dog Lake had in delaying the horrendous, Orwellian FISA updated/Telecom immunity bill. Their efforts, while ultimately unsuccessful, delayed passage of the bill for 8 months (it just passed and would have originally passed in December) and forced the Corporate Media to address the issue. It also created the Strange Bedfellows coalition of right and centrist civil libertarian groups and activist liberals, which is in the process of raising millions of dollars to target those politicians who voted for this terrible legislation.

The corporate media is so devoid of substance and addressing the real issues that people are looking for an alternative source of news. This does translate into action and allows people educated in the issues to spread the word and lobby politicians for change.

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance = doing something to help = helping people accept reality

Thanks for helping _ www.peakaware.com

it may be the one thing that could spur alternative fuel and method development.

And then?

BTW I just ponked you up to 24 to say, that your statement is valued and this is not intended as a criticism but merely questioning the general assumption that once we have clean energy we will have a solution.

I just posted this downthread:

The next leg of what is to come is far more uncertain--the demand destruction effects, the price signal (whether it goes to 80 or 500), policy movement and momentum, the geopolitical response to the king of the hill taking a couple of bullets and wavering, there's a lot at work here--and it's going to take as many informed people as we can manage to get out there trying to help educate and inform if we are going to even come close to a wise ending to this hole we have dug ourselves.

I did say "could spur..." :) I don't assume that we'll even have enough clean energy to matter, CR. After doing this for these years, I don't think we can assume much of anything anymore, or at least we need to change our assumptions fundamentally. That's the painful process we are just beginning.

We can have enough clean energy to matter, because concentrated solar power is cheap and scalable and could be abundant. Of course, BLM has just suspended new permits just when we desperately need to build as fast as we can.

C'est la vie...

Mark Folsom

BLM reversed the decision a few days later.....

We can have enough clean energy to matter

and that will bring an end to our using FF as quickly as we are able? That will halt population growth, that will renew depleted water resources, rebuild the northern cod stocks, end resource wars and pubescent acne as well as middle age spread, let alone allow us to resolve the problem of our western style and massive over consumptive, 'civilization'? Personally I doubt it, and to be a little more real about it, we need more energy like a new hole in the head (solution there?) than we need a complete change in education and especially the values we hold as guys and gals on this, possibly soon to be, 'stone spinning in space'.

And then?

and then what?

Why was John15's most informative posts EVER marked down?

Dear Prof,

Hear, hear! That goes both for your original posting of a fine medley of timely videos, and for your restrained response to the unhelpful posting by the obviously irritated theokobox. I suspect that your article inadvertently stepped on his ideology in some way that made him intensely uncomfortable.

In my humble (yet strongly held) opinion The Oil Drum has been, and remains, precisely on the mark.

These two posts, theokobox versus Prof. Goose, are a example of the gaping chasm between the close-knit peakoil community and the wider public. Ignore it at your peril. The right path forward would be to give all solutions (e.g. electrification of railways, wind, solar, passive houses) a much more prominent place on this site.

CLOSE-KNIT PEAKOIL COMMUNITY. Right you are mate, one big happy family we are, and everybody always has a kind word for everyone else here, and rarely do we disagree. And everybody here loves me :)

There have been enough solar, wind, and electric rail posts on TOD to sink a battleship. Are you sure you got onto the right website mate? Besides, that stuff doesn't yield liquid fuels. And that is what many of us here crave. Me, for example, I like the aged grape juice variety and cactus juice too, reminds me, time for another Hornitos tequila.

Now, about electrification of railways, please tell me how this would be retrofitted across the nation, power delivery across crossings, grid and generating considerations? And do you we need more rail lines, as the current ones are used to max capacity. And how many rails, trains, cars, infrastructure to cover the whole U.S. in order to replace the highways system.

And, where will that electric power going come from? -- more coal, more natural gas, more nuclear, or solar/wind. What will all of this look like, capital cost, design, etc.

Why suggest that somebody else post this stuff. Why don't you get to work and do it. Mate, show us how all of that stuff that is going to save the world. I for one am ready to read your pearls of wisdom.

I don't get it. What does ethanol have to do with the hungry people in Pakistan? Scientifically speaking, of course.

If you have ethanol you can power generators to make electricity to pump ground water which effectively increase water supply five times SUSTAINABLY. You can always put in fertilizers (chemical or organic or both) and if you are strictly recycling its a one time investment. Green revolution has already gave us high yielding seeds thats produce on average 2.5 times than older seeds grains. Climate is already there. What is lacking is the water supply. Once you have five times the water supply you by having two crops instead of one every year can grow five times as much grains, fruits, vegetables, cotton, sugarcane etc. A 20% of your land must be devoted to grow sugarcane to get ethanol to power generators to pump ground water. So at the end of the day you have four times as much crop per acre as you had in 1950s before green revolution and all that SUSTAINABLY. Since you are recycling nutrients there is no run off of nitrogen in fresh water because the nitrogen supply in the soil remains constant year after year. Since there is no use of any fossil fuels in this scheme the whole scheme is fully SUSTAINABLE.

However, ask those increasingly hungry people in Pakistan how they are feeling right about now about ethanol.

Huh?

There are no hungry people in Pakistan except may be a few hundreds of thousands that live in thar desert and those addicted to heroine. Supply of heroine had decreased to almost zero when taliban came in power in afghanistan because they following strictly the islamic laws can't take income from any addicting thing like heroine, hashish, alcohol etc. They remain in power for 5 years on 90% area of afghanistan and though they were extremely poor and in a constant war with northern alliance so badly need money never grow nor used any money that could have come from heroine, hashish etc. When they were defeated in battle after american illegal invasion and northern alliance came in power we again start having a big supply of heroine but those 5 years of taliban govt were enough to cure majority of heroine addicts, times there was almost no supply of heroine.

No hungry people in Pakistan? WTF? Last time I checked the stats there were over 50% of the population below $2/day. With that many in a hand to mouth situation it's no wonder that food riots in Pakistan make the news.

You are such a big frog of a pond who not know anything outside its pond. You have to understand the concept of PPP. Two dollars in pakistan can buy as much stuff as twenty dollars in usa. That is PPP. Many people at farms work for 0.67 dollars (40 rupees) per day and still feed their families (wives, 6 to 8 children). They key is extremely low prices in pakistan as compare to "developed" countries.

Item Price in city Price in village

Flour 40 cents per kg 30 cents per kg
Rice 100 cents per kg 70 cents per kg
Milk 60 cents per liter 47 cents per liter
Shirt 500 cents 300 cents
BusFare 15 cents -
Veg Oil 150 cents 100 cents

When and where did you heard about any food riots in pakistan which is significant (involving atleast 1/10000 population of pakistan, 16 thousand or more people)

I take no joy in the success of this site, nor do I take joy in the massive resource inflation we are witnessing--other than that it may be the one thing that could spur alternative fuel and method development. I really want the community writ large to be wrong about all of this. I beg for it every single day, sir.

This seems like a great example of the condescending attitudes often expressed by Peakoil commentary on most sites dealing with the issue. My paraphrase of the above quote - "Oh the personal pain of my knowledge. How I wish I were wrong."

Give me a break.

There are some basic statistics that indicate that the U.S. at least is in a good fundamental position to deal with our energy issues. I do not suggest that there will not be difficulties. I do suggest however that the situation is not so bleak as to require those promoting agendas to be pained regarding their interpretations of possible events.

1.) Currently the U.S. uses twice the amount of oil per person as France. This indicates large scale waste by Americans. But it also indicates that we can easily reduce our usage by huge amounts.

2.) We produce approximately 8 million barrels of our own oil per day and it looks as if we can maintain that level for a significant period of time.

3.) If we cut our oil usage to level of developed European states, like France, we would then need to import only 2.5 million per day.

4.) If we stopped pissing away our oil resources on pointless warfare we would be in even better shape.

5.) There is every reason to think that while alternative fuels cannot yet replace the energy generated through oil, we can make significant strides with solar and wind - not to mention our significant reserves of coal.

There may be significant challenges coming, but we have adequate resources to maintain a healthy and lean society as we make the required energy transitions and as we develop new resources and behaviors.

A motivated American population, (think WW2) informed by an "objective" energy critique absolutely has the potential to come through these challenges in a healthy and adaptive manner.

Sure the days of conspicuous and wasteful consumption are gone. Who cares? Thank God! it's about time. But there is no reason to conclude that our civilization is imperiled.