Informal Survey of the Political Blogosphere
Posted by Super G on October 13, 2005 - 1:10pm
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: blogosphere, blogs, peak oil, politics [list all tags]
Here at The Oil Drum, we strive to be politically non-partisan. We are primarily concerned with raising awareness of peak oil and advocating those policy steps which we think will bring about a smooth transition to the post-peak world. In these efforts, we have praised and criticized politicians from the left and right.
Almost all of the most highly-trafficked blogs are politically oriented, so its worth paying attention to what the top political blogs have to say about energy issues in general and peak oil in particular. Here, I have surveyed four of the most widely-read blogs that have discussed the concept of peak oil in some level of detail.
- Daily Kos (TTLB ranking: 1, political orientation: left)
- Daily Kos is by far the most widely-read political blog out there. One of the site's diarists, a Parisian "energy banker" named Jerome a Paris writes about energy issues regularly. Many of his diaries are highly recommended, which means they end up on the front page. To get started, you may want to look at his 13-part series "Countdown to 100$ oil" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). Recently, he has looked at formulating a Democratic energy policy that takes into account peak oil (see here and here).
- Political Animal (TTLB ranking: 17, political orientation: left)
- Kevin Drum is a political writer for Washington Monthly, which hosts his blog. In May and June of this year, he wrote a 6-part series introducing his readers to peak oil (1, 2,
3, 4,
5,
coda). He has also wrote an article about peak oil for the June, 2005 issue of Washington Monthly. Drum does a solid job of presenting the key peak oil concepts, and the only material that may be new to this audience is the discussion of policy in Part 5. Overall, he's relatively optimistic:
The coming peak in oil production, which is likely to lead to permanently expensive oil and increasingly frequent oil shocks, isn't the end of civilization as we know it. Honest. But it is likely to be fairly painful.
Peak oil is a serious problem, but the free market really will work the way economists say it does, by reducing demand and spurring innovation as prices rise. If we combine that with some common sense planning for the future, we can go a long way toward making this problem manageable. Both our economy and our national security depend on it.
- Redstate.org (TTLB ranking: 20, political orientation: right)
- Redstate.org didn't have much substantive material, but they've recently launched an Energy section, although I have to say that the inaugural post was pretty disappointing ("This country's energy policy has been held hostage for years by a small band of extreme environmentalists"). A diarist named kowalski recently chimed in with a post called Oil, Oil Everywhere where he characterizes peak oilers as "professional doomsayers and anti-capitalists".
- Outside the Beltway (TTLB ranking: 67+90=26, political orientation: right)
- Outside the Beltway's business editor, Steve Verdon, works in the energy industry and has written about peak oil. He has put together a part-by-part reply to the Kevin Drum series (1, 2, 3,
4). Verdon thinks the market will save us:
There has not been a single case of any commodity going through a complete Hubbert cycle in the sense that we don't switch to something else. There have been peaks in the production of a great many commodities many of which are finite in the same sense that crude oil is finite. Yet the end of the world has not occured. One reason is that as the price goes up for whatever good is being used up, the price of previously uneconomical substitutes becomes relatively cheaper. Also, looking for subsitutes becomes relatively cheaper as well.
He goes on to say:I just want to point out quite clearly I think that the Hubbert curve/peak oil is a valid concept. My complaints are that the hubbert curve is problematic for use in policy making, and that the model is lacking to be a truly predictive model. As for peak oil my view is that "running out" of oil does not have to be a catastrophe.
So, now you know that there are some peak oil-aware political bloggers out there. What other widely-read political bloggers are taking on peak oil? What are they saying?
Sean Paul (left) over at the Agonist did an interview with Matt Simmons back a few months ago. I would dig it up if I have time. He just wrote about a Yergin follower today.
I am surprised that the libertarian blogs (mostly on the right) haven't picked up on peak oil - but perhaps the survivalists have been down on the ability of society to continue for so long that they've all assumed there won't be any oil anyhow.
There are subsets of people at either extreme who allow their preference for a mechanism (market or non-market) to influence their perceptions of possible problems, or their attraction to a particular problem.
The problem for that extreme sort of conservative is that there isn't an easy free-market solution to PO (or GW), so they've got to recognize a problem that has a "foreign" solution.
On the other hand ;-), we could say the left has a lower bar to leap. They might be more willing to believe that industrial society has put us in a tight spot, and so on,
Some problems would surely show the opposite pattern, with conservatives quick to recognize the issue, and liberals more grudging in their response.
I'm generally more trusting of moderates, who are not typically backing a "standard play" ... which is probably why I evolved to become a moderate myself.
I think this is a myth. There are many political interventions just because "the market" just might not come up with the "correct" ansewer.
If I were to guess maybe you are talking about the right's social policies? I like those x-y graphs that plot economic freedom on one axis and social freedom on another.
What we typically call the "right" is for economic freedom with more social control, and the "left" is for social freedom with more economic control.
... or maybe I'm missing your meaning.
I am reading "The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony" by David Spiro who makes this case.
I guess all I am saying is that both liberals and conservatives say they trust the markets and both seek at times to circumvent them when opportunity presents itself.
Does one have to be politically on the left end of the spectrum to note the glaring hypocrisy here?
I didn't invent it, it's out there.
... and I think it plays into the parties' slow acceptance of some problems.
Socially conservative means government control of reproduction, sex, religion, etc.
Financially conservative means low taxes and/or government spending (delayed tax increases and/or spending cuts).
Socially liberal means no government control of reproduction, sex, religion, etc.
Financially liberal means high taxes and/or government spending (delayed tax increases and/or spending cuts).
The Democrats are relatively uninvolved in this argument between the Republican factions. Most antiMiers stuff is coming from the faction who liked Roberts for his implied solib/ficon stance, and disliked Miers for her implied socon/filib stance.
Don't get me wrong, it will be disruptive. But I am of the opinion that the free money/housing bubble will be of much more consequence over the next 3-5 years than the cost of oil will be. Although oil will exacerbate an already bad situation.
But what concerns me right now more than anything else are the externalities of oil, the external costs: the geopolitical sparring, the wars, the pollution, the abberations that cheap oil creates (like suburbia) etc. . . and yes, I posted the Yergin follower for a specific reason: it's good to challenge the orthodox thinking from time to time because it helps me, at least, to look at a problem from another point of view, another angle as it were. One problem with William Sargant (among many, many others) is that he says nothing about the costs of global warming.
However, I think your optimism is wrong for another reason - that we have not yet found a replacement for oil that will allow the continuation of a consumer-driven, growth economics civilization as it currently exists. No matter what else happens, I just cannot see the "sell-sell-sell" mentality continuing as-is. If we're smart and lucky (both at the same time) we may get an even better world out of all this but it's not going to be Ozzie and Harriett in the suburbs buying disposable razors and being subjected to endless marketing to buy more "stuff". And if we're not both smart and lucky, then old Malthus gets to teach us all a lesson or three.
We are indeed well and truly screwed in the near and mid-term, and perhaps the long term. But I am op the opinion that the closure of the Port of New Orleans and the loss of the 2005 entire harvest of the Mississippi watershed is of much more immediate consequence than $65 barrel oil.
Is that what you consider optimistic?
My current scenario is that of an economic crisis triggered by energy prices this winter, with dropping demand and inflation, thus no let up on the interest rates increases. After an energy price spike, the prices will go down again, but to a level higher than today. The economy will not do well.
To answer your question: I think Agonist readers keenly appreciate the gravity of peak oil. It's one of the topics that is really kind of always a no fail topic. A good example of that is the contrarian post I put up last night by the Yergin fan. It generated some really good comments and very thoguhtful ones. We also have a couple of guys from the oil patch that still work in the oil patch that are converts, mostly cuz they really understand the oil biz.
Anyhow, I think most bloggers that don't have a really nasty political axe to grind, left or right, realize, like Matthew Simmons, a Bush supporter, that peak oil is real, the question is simply when. Because we all know that there is no infinite supply of oil in the world. Or, at least I hope we all know that.
On dKos, there's a big enough group that cares enough about the topic now that my energy diaries get recommended regularly, and thus get some visibility on the site. I've seen the topic ef energy become mentioned a lot more now by others in unrelated posts (for instance, discussions of what a Democratic political programme should include do include some nod to "energy independence" or "alternative energies".
Can you post diaries here as well? I suppose I should crosspost some of my diaries if possible. (Not that there is much new in them for readers here I suppose, I've tried to target the non-initiated more)
Back when I first found this site, they still let you post anonymously. As a sort of joke I was thinking of registering a sock puppet called "Anonymous Oil Drum Reader" just to see how long it would take people to figure it out.
I think you are correct that the audience here is a bit different than the usual at eurotrib or dkos. There are days that the apocaphiles are posting like crazy here - hmm, come to think of it, we have those sorts at dKos too.
Unless you are going hungry someplace overseas, of course. It's a problem for you then.
Outside the blogosphere, let's note that there are some strong voices the right: Roscoe Bartlett, our only congressional voice on peak oil, considers himself to be one of the most conservative members of the house. Matt Simmons strongly identifies himself as Republican. Given the current right-dominated political landscape in the US, I'd suggest that voices from the right will be perceived as more credible, hence more important.
Of those that are aware of PO as a problem and publicly talk about it what is the other side of this debate?
And then there is this pronouncement from Malcom Brinded, Executive Director for E&P in Shell.
"The challenges of supplying the expanding
energy needs on which rising living
standards for billions of people depend -
while still preserving our environment -
are increasingly apparent. I believe they
are among the greatest challenges ever
faced by mankind."
"Conventional wisdom is that high
prices stimulate supply and reduce
demand. Yet on the demand side we
have so far seen surprising inelasticity,
with continued strong growth in energy
demand in major emerging economies
like China.
On the supply side - despite increased
activity - the response has been limited,
particularly in non-OPEC supply.
Overall upstream supply has struggled to
match demand growth"
There's a real future problem lurking here: we learn to rely on a mere 4% decline rate, then we find we can't maintain a 4% decline, or even 15%. A real rude awakening could occur.
Bruce from Chicago
When Steve Verdon says (as quoted above)I've got to strongly object. He wants a truly predictive model??? That's weak. In my research of climate change issues, there are huge issues around creating such a model. Most model results converge around 3 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere (550 ppmv). That's the best we can do and it's pretty good. Uncertainties are reduced over time.
For peak oil, we lack the scientific rigor of the climate change community but ASPO (ODAC), Stuart (TOD), Laherrere, Koppellar, et. al. are trying to model the damn thing. Most results point to a peak before or near 2015. I note that the "faith-based" school of thought in which higher price and technology come to the rescue (Lynch, IEA, CERA, Levitt) either 1) do no modelling at all or 2) assume slippery slope economic models based on non-existent advances in technology, future price predictions, demand projections given the future prices, et. al. In other words, it's voodoo or Nostradamus, whichever you prefer. So, don't tell us that the peak oil community is not on to something because we have no truly predictive model. That's a straw man argument if I ever saw one.
My concern however, is with the way government has been growing under both Republican and Democratic regimes; it means a concentration of power and resources never before seen in the world.
Whether you call it socialism or fascism, it really doesn't matter. It's government concentration of power. And, as someone who enjoys their freedoms, I quake at the thought of losing my civil rights to that concentration of power.
See, whether or not those concentrated powers and resources are going to be used for good or for evil or for something in between is not just a question of politics, but also a question of the quality and type of representation that exists in this country. Whose interests are being represented right now? (btw, have you seen the efficacy numbers lately? go to pollingreport.com or the NJ hotline sometime...they are some of the lowest numbers ever...people do not feel like "government" represents "them.")
I have spouted many times about the tragedy of the commons here at TOD. Individuals cannot be counted on, without government coercion or the development of strong norms, to solve collective action dilemmas, until well after it is in their interests to do so.
That in and of itself is a normative and political problem that can only be solved with leadership and foresight.
Those are two qualities I do not see in either of the two parties that are responsible for our government.
Re "whether or not those concentrated powers and resources are going to be used for good or for evil..."
That will be for evil. History teaches us that great concentration power leads inevitably to abuse and extension of that power. Lord Acton's "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". This is absolute power we're talking about here. Only some countervailing historical force can arrest this and turn it around. Cf. the growing wealth inequality in the US and the continuing dominance of longtime vested interests, especially in energy.... Our leaders have ceased to represent us and this has been the case for a long time now. Mass cultures controlled by vested interests (in this case, corporations) are susceptable to propaganda and wide-spread falsehoods, so there is no rebellion by the people yet. This will occur when there is an undeniable and stark opposition between what citizens are being told and what they are actually experiencing in their daily lives.... This is coming about.
Re "Individuals cannot be counted on, without government coercion or the development of strong norms, to solve collective action dilemmas, until well after it is in their interests to do so."
Absolutely correct. TOD threads alluding to what we can do as individuals to alleviate the coming energy crunch strike me as idealistic and naive ie. unrealistic, especially given the growing powerful interests just discussed. We await the day when a political rebellion opens up a new path.
- perhaps this makes PO into good news of sorts: without all those "energy slaves" the elites will need more laborers, thus perhaps a potential for more democracy? Perhaps TPTB would then put more effort into preparing for a threatening flu pandemic?