<Economides: $100/bbl oil and $20/McF NG before the year is out...The Oil DrumBush: Short Term Conservation Needed>

166 comments on Peak Oil and Community Solutions Conference (Friday)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Peaknik on September 26, 2005 - 10:42am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Very interesting and insightful commentary, Stuart. I think that the point you raise is a very interesting one.

I run a Spanish speaking website about PO and energy resources, so I get asked all the time about the possible solutions. I've met the people from Community Solutions and Richard Heinberg and I think they are sincere and well meaning, and in a way, I think they do what they can to bring solutions to the problem. In our forums, we got responses all across the spectrum you mention. From people that plan to run for the mountains, to people that is young and is preparing professionally for a new energy paradigm (we have also our share of cornucopians, but discussions with them is quite boring).

Faced with the choice of a simpler way, even knowing that it won't suffice to feed 8 billion people in a few decades, I believe a lot of people would choose that path. Egoism or shortsightedness? I don't know, but it's the way the mind works, faced with a global scale problem that is going to burn your mind trying to solve it, there's always the well tested exit of "taking care of yourself and your kin" (even if that's not going to last much).

I've been thinking for a long time (well, just 5 years, but very intensive thinking!) about this issue, and if I have learned something is that there are no magic solutions, even if we could have the guarantee that the decision making would be confined to "rational parameters" (heck, we wouldn't even agree on what means that!).

Anyway, I think being informed is never a bad thing, so I agree with you, people must know that going back to small communities is not going to be enough. You mentioned how the PO movement cuts across many mindsets, I would add that we need more "crossthinking", perhaps sometime thinking that comes as a bit self contradictory. An example: I am against building new nuclear reactors, but I am against early decommissioning of working plants (as ecologists want). I also recognize that (save for a total collapse), markets should be an important drive in the quest for solutions but I won't buy the cornucopianism that just fails to recognize that energy resources are not just like another commodity.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on September 26, 2005 - 10:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The slogan is "Think globally, but act locally." My perception is that the "act locally" part is getting far more attention than the "think globally" part amongst eco-sustainability folks. It's quite possible, however, that I'm just ignorant and haven't found the right resources yet (in which case hopefully some better informed ODer will point them out). The most quantitative work I'm aware of on how much food can be produced by intensive human agriculture is by John Jeavons of Ecology Action in his various books. But I'm not aware of it being scaled to any kind of global estimate.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
waxwing on September 26, 2005 - 12:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Another slogan is "Think brutally, act carefully." If you are afraid to adopt this as your maxim, you are not a white nationalist ecofascist.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
cephlon on September 26, 2005 - 5:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I would be happy to find even 10 people around me that thought the same way as I did about peak-oil, or even thought about it at all. At this point I  can't even begin to think globally about this, as I can barely start to figure out what I personally should be doing. I can't change the direction of the city of Chicago, but I can get myself out of the city of Chicago and prepare as I see fit. I am not the captain of this ship so I feel no obligation to go down with it (although I may have no choice).

What I am trying to say is I don't think this problem is solvable on a global scale, but ONLY on a local scale. Perhaps if we try to solve the issues locally the global aspect will take care of itself (doubt it).

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Davidh on September 26, 2005 - 7:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
YES! Exactly what I'm saying. While we may have some idealized desire to save the entire world, we cannot and probably should not--even if one ignores the cost to oneself. However, a careful understanding of the consequences of acting locally should be taken into account. (for example, burning local coal deposits has a global effect... as does overpopulating... and artifically supporting populations beyond the carrying capacity). But to think that we can or should act globally is erroneous, even as I right this things may have passed a societal tipping point that will inexorably lead to some ecological tipping points, but I like to operate "as if" my local choices will make a difference, even if only to my mental stability and spiritual growth.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on September 26, 2005 - 7:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Each to his own, but for myself I'm interested in analyzing and advocating strategies that will actually work. Whether you "think local" types like it or not, we are all in this together. A major die-off will be a complete disorderly crapshoot, and no strategy is guaranteed to get you through it. So we all have a strong interest in finding strategies that work for (almost) all of us.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
cephlon on September 29, 2005 - 1:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I wouldn't really describe myself as a think local type, more as a do what is practical type. And right now, while less then 1% of 1% of the population is even considering the issues presented on the oil drum, it doesn't seem practical to think in a global way. While you're out there in the street screaming its the end of civilization as we know, people arn't going to listen to you. They want their McDonalds and Survivor. They will listen when the crap starts to hit the fan, but by then you are already in the middle of the crap shoot. I hope to god I am wrong, but this is my gut feeling at the moment.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Davidh on September 26, 2005 - 2:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"If we're all in the same boat, then it's going to sink"

I don't think that supporting 6.2 billion, let alone, 10 billion people is a reality without technological miracles. And since an age of contraction and decreasing energy such miracles will be less likely to occur I think we are better off preparing for a shrinking population.

Why are so many people so determined to preserve populations? Could it be that die-off may be the one thing that saves our planet for future generations?

But then one gets to the question, would I be so ready to accept this solution if I was the one dieing-off? I'm not so sure if I would. In that case, being white and from America, am I not saying that my life has more value than someone from China, India or Africa?

I would argue that since I had no choice as to where I live and where other's live I am simply advocating the natural remedies to overshoot, and sooner than complete overshoot might perscribe. Can I ever be totally absolved from the fact that my continued life is based on the ending of other's lives? Not at all. But if that fact is held in reverance, and one never advocates for violence to others because "I am better," then I think there is something noble about trying to find a way that works (at least for a lot longer than techno-society). I cannot control what the entire world does, and even if I could, would I want to feed everyone? Probably not, because overshoot (imposed by nature/2nd law of thermodynamics) will become a reality eventually, to one degree or another.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ChrisPhoenix on September 26, 2005 - 5:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Please don't cite thermodynamics as a reason for energy scarcity. We have orders of magnitude more energy coming in from the sun than our total energy usage today. Thermodynamics has nothing to say about sustainability at current levels of resource usage.

Here's a way to put it in perspective: The sun shines with an intensity of about a kilowatt per square meter. Solar cells can collect an average of maybe a kilowatt per ten square meters.

Crops collect about one or two kilowatts per acre.

If we had an effective solar technology, we would not be short of energy. Wind already looks like a good investment, and it's not all that energy-dense. To store solar, use pumped water for the electric grid, and the new charge-in-a-minute batteries for cars (or even just plug-in hybrids).

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MikeCapone on September 26, 2005 - 9:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Don't forget the immense potential of wave-power and high efficiency (big potential savings for heating and cooling buildings) of geothermal heat pumps.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ChrisPhoenix on September 26, 2005 - 6:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
...wait, I just read about algae diesel. If the paper at http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html is correct, then that can produce 66 kW per acre. More than an order of magnitude better than, say, switchgrass.

Still almost an order of magnitude worse than solar cells. But it's sounding halfway reasonable to get energy by growing stuff.

I wonder how fast the algae would grow if supplied with concentrated CO2 in closed tanks? This might be a way of reducing the environmental impact of carbon-heavy fossil fuels. Not as good as sequestration, but at least you'd get to use the carbon twice rather than once.

Chris

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GliderGuider on September 26, 2005 - 9:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Now you're getting it.  How about co-locating a coal-fired electrical plant with an algal biodiesel pond complex?  Use the exhaust from the power plant to feed the the ponds.  You're right that you wouldn't take the carbon out of circulation, but you do get to use it twice.  If we end up using a lot more coal for electricity as I think we will, this could help dampen the environmental impact.

BTW, uou also need to fertilize the algae.  Look below for my pig-farm idea...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.