<Is Peak Oil Real? A List of Countries Past Peak The Oil Drum Peak Jubilee>
<DrumBeat: July 18, 2009 DrumBeat DrumBeat: July 20, 2009>

67 comments on DrumBeat: July 19, 2009

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

jografy on July 19, 2009 - 9:44am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Re: the ABC documentry refered to above

"The real purpose is, if you drive a car or happen to be alive and live in America today, your life is deeply affected by our addiction to oil," said executive producer Tom Yellin,

It appears from the Tulsa article that the documentry is well researched and helpful in raising awareness.
However I find this growing use of the phrase "addiction to oil" a dangerously misleading way to look at the issue of FF. It implies that somehow it is a superficial condition that we can deal with by "just saying NO" or switching to some other drug. This mind set ignores the fact that the fundamental foundation of modern industrial society is cheap oil and to say no to oil implies fundamental changes in the economic structure of our society. Saying we are addicted to oil is just spinning us away from considering the deeper and more complex aspects of the issue.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Greg in MO on July 19, 2009 - 10:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Good point Jogfray. I hadn't previously considered the implications of the phrase "addicted to oil". You stated it well:

However I find this growing use of the phrase "addiction to oil" a dangerously misleading way to look at the issue of FF. It implies that somehow it is a superficial condition that we can deal with by "just saying NO" or switching to some other drug.

Perhaps a better way of phrasing it would be to say:
We are currently very dependent on oil

That seems to point towards changing our ways to first lessen then later break the dependency...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dspady on July 20, 2009 - 3:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think addiction is the right word. John Spencer, (I think a psychiatrist) compared alcohol dependence, which is a form of addiction, to energy dependence. [Spencer, John: Energy dependence syndrome. Search 1990, 21;8:7-10]

Alcohol Tolerance: The more we drink the more we can drink (within reason).
Energy Tolerance: We have an ever increasing demand for energy consuming equipment.

Take away Alcohol: we develop Withdrawal symptoms.
Take away Energy: we have Social disruption, commercial disorder, personal & domestic inconvenience

Get the alcohol back: Relief and further drinking
Return the energy: Relief when energy supply returns

Alcohol associated with compulsion and craving for more.
Energy: same thing. We have the urge/desire to purchase the new and discard the old manual power

Alcoholism: behavior repertoire is narrowed.
Energy dependence: Human behavior increasingly governed by proximity/availability of supply

Alcoholism: constantly striving to find alcohol
Energy dependence (addiction): Increasing priority to maintain consumption despite consequences

Stop and then restart drinking: relief
Energy: Return to former consumption levels following period of scarcity

-----------------
In humans (and I suppose other animals), addiction refers to a physical dependence and withdrawal leads to physical symptoms. There is no true energy corrolary, but if we consider society as the 'human' in energy addiction, I think that all the nasty events that occur subsequent to energy deprivation would be a good corrolary to the physical dependence seen in addiction.

So, I think addiction is a good word.

Don

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
louGrinzo on July 19, 2009 - 10:46am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Got something better than "addicted to oil" (which I don't like, either) that will fit on a bumper sticker?

This isn't snark, I'm completely serious. You're right about the mismatch between "addicted to oil" and reality, but in order to replace it we need something just as catchy and easily understood (albeit misapplied, in this case).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ptoemmes on July 19, 2009 - 11:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Agree and I think even the need for a catch phrase is an example of the way "complex" topics are reduced to sound bites, catch phrases, and to discussion forums where they cannot be properly, well, discussed (very unlike TOD)

At the risk of going, with apologies, off-thread for a moment one of the most recent examples of this was Denninger having a (somewhat surprise) audienc) on CNBC Kudlow Friday night in a tri-box shout down. I won't post the link out of "respect" to this thread's subject matter.

Having written all of that it is probably worth trying to kick the addiction habit in phrase as it were.

I don't suppose "Burning oil is stupid. Ask me why?" is any better.

Pete

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WebHubbleTelescope on July 19, 2009 - 12:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

This is kind of a humorous piece illustrating why the statistician Nate Silver is such a marketing genius. What is he marketing exactly?

Himself.

He calls it a "A Challenge to Climate Change Skeptics"

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/challenge-to-climate-change-skept...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/18/stats-guru-nate-silver-is_n_239...

The gist of the story is that he is offering to bet money on variations of temperature from the anticipated average. He will pay someone who signs up $25 for each day that the average is 1 degree cooler and that person has to pay him $25 for each day that it is warmer.

Well of course this is a stupid bet, since Silver, who understands normal Gaussian statistics very well, knows that the amount of payoff either way will be marginally small. He says it is a way for people to understand that daily fluctuations do not matter too much. And to assuage the warming deniers that this summer has not been that cool throughout much of the USA, but that everyone just suffers from short-term memories.

It will make himself look good, but will it help anyone else? This is really not serious stuff and does not advance understanding. It is in fact a very safe bet that he took. The probability that he will pay out much over $25 either way is pretty small.

In comments on both those sites I linked to above, I suggested that I was considering depositing $100 into somebody's PayPal account that could find something wrong with one of my oil depletion models. I am no longer considering it. The offer is open. Grab something from my blog at http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com or one of the few posts I have written on TOD and take a go of it.

My latest here is a good start : http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2009/06/dispersive-transport.html

I realize that this won't change anything but it is not a safe bet for me, as I could be shown completely wrong. OTOH, Nate Silver would not try this because he actually doesn't try to advance understanding, but just plays around with conventional statistics, like a puzzle-master would.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on July 19, 2009 - 11:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I agree that the term Addicted is a misnomer, and it also spurs part of the defensiveness that the debate can stumble over..

I think the Simmons refrain (from memory here) of "A Billion Dollars a day goes out of this economy to pay for foreign oil." Probably reaches more ears.

I've also played with 'Gas is Cheap. Go back to sleep.' ..

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
elwoodelmore on July 20, 2009 - 2:54am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

".....the term Addicted is a misnomer...."

ok, how 'bout "drunk on fossil fuels" ?

the difference between a drunk and an alcoholic is that drunks dont have to go to all those damn meetings.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on July 19, 2009 - 11:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Germany, like Japan, has made some progress in reducing their oil consumption, but like Japan we need to look at total energy consumption, especially total fossil fuel consumption. Here is the most recent data that the EIA has for Germany's rate of change in consumption for three fossil fuels plus primary energy consumption:

Petroleum (2000-2008): -1.0%/year

Natural Gas (2000-2007): +1.1%/year

Coal: (2000-2007): +0.6%/year

Primary Energy (2000-2006): +0.3%/year

However, what really stands out is the rate of increase in German net coal imports (+5.5%/year, 2000-2007):

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BrianT on July 19, 2009 - 11:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes-Coal is the future, which dovetails nicely into the Carbon Credit Trading Market. Things are working out nicely for some.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

67 comments on DrumBeat: July 19, 2009

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version