Peak Oiler's Anxiety: "Are We All Wasting Our Time?"
The rub about doomsday predictions is that one can't tell until it's too late whether he or she was shrewd to take heed, or foolish to be drawn in.So it is with one of today's most active doomsday movements -- that known as Peak Oil.
Peak Oil adherents, as readers of this blog know, believe that at least half the world's fossil fuel has already been found (or soon will be), that production is declining, and that we're going to be forced to adjust to a stark new future.
There's plenty of smart analysis to buttress the theory, and the result has been panic in many countries. But last week an England resident calling himself Chris25 penetrated the nub of one of the movement's problems in a compelling remark on one of its key websites, called Peak Oil. (Another great peak oil site is The Oil Drum.) He headlined his post, "What If We Are All Wasting Our Time?"
In it, Chris identified himself as a doomsday believer, said his life had changed completely, but lamented that he didn't know how long in the future his worst fears would materialize. "Man, I wish I'd never heard about peak oil," he wrote.
The result has been a flurry of responses by fellow adherents. The string is worth reading.
Here is Chris25's post in its entirety:
"Oil prices shoot up .... I start to buy bags of grain and run for the hills .... now they've gone down again.
Now I'm not denying peak oil at all, and btw chaps i'm a doomer, but what i'm saying is, what if what we are waiting for is 25 years away?
Peak oil has already changed my life completely. It has now got to the point where everyplace I go, I look at buildings and I look at people and imagine what would be there without cheap oil.
I know that the luxuries I enjoy today will have to come to an end. But I don't know when and how they will go.
Man, I wish i'd never heard about peak oil.
The worse bit is the wait and having no idea how things will pan out. Eats you up inside. Knowing the collapse of modern civilisation could be round the corner, 25 years away or many more years away."
Chris's soul-searching struck a nerve. Here's just one example, from a blogger called Korosten:
"I feel the same way!
We are seriously thinking of completely relocating to a rural area (we have started to look for a job, selling the house etc!), a place where we might not necessarily go w/o peak oil, and starting a big garden etc - that probably means I have to give up my career...
So I keep thinking, will I feel very, very stupid in a few years when PO has not happened yet? Or if it happens, but nothing drastic happens and it was all unnecessary?
But then again, what if I do *nothing* and it does get as bad as I am afraid it will?
I think doing something (for nothing) is not as bad as doing nothing and be totally screwed...
But PO has totally change our life, view of live, values etc - you name it. It's scary in a way.. I feel like "wakinig up" in a matrix..."
The most reasonable analyses, I think, are that we are going to be living almost precisely as we are now for at least another two decades, probably three and perhaps longer. That said, we have found the easy oil, and prices hence are going to stay relatively high. The search for a locomotion version of the Holy Grail -- a non-carbon way to fuel the world -- is wholly reasonable, and necessary. Until then, so is conservation and the push for cleaner fuels.
Perhaps I'll regret my own conclusion. But at least for now I come down on the side of those who think we'll work our way out of the carbon world. For another such view, see Common Sense Forecaster.
Photo: ElektraCute
Rights: Creative Commons
Labels: Caspian, cera, doomsday, oil book, oil plateau, peak oil, Russia, simmons, yergin
8 Comments:
Most of the many exchanges I've had in the peak oil community with survivalists, anarchists, and many others of a pessimistic bent, reveal people who are extremely dissatisfied with the status quo. They felt that way long before peak oil. Similarly with many of the movement's prominent spokesmen. Their disgust and indignation is so strong, I doubt they can objectively investigate how things work. How can they have any hope of understanding factors that mitigate oil depletion?? But the issue is mainstream now and hopefully that will mean cooler heads are brought to bear on all this.
Welcome George. This helps put Chris25's post into even better context. Thanks and best, Steve
Perhaps I'll regret my own conclusion. But at least for now I come down on the side of those who think we'll work our way out of the carbon world.
The human brain easily fools itself into believing there is just "the" one true answer and the unified collective "we".
Wrong on both counts. All possibilities will unfold in the future mostly based on luck and for a fortunate few on wit.
Some of our 6.5 Billion species mates will never feel the effects of Peak Oil. Some will die horrible premature deaths all too soon in a resource war or some other disastrous outcome from PO (i.e. health disaster). Some will feel "clever" for having gotten away & found a sustainable "sweet spot" community. Some will feel dumb in comparison to those who went on with life as normal.
At the end of the day, only the survivors will say to themselves, "Look, WE worked our way out of that mess."
Welcome Step Back. You've got some interesting blogs. You are not alone in the first take -- that there will not be a singular resolution. In Zoom, as you know, Vijay Vaitheeswaran and Iain Carson say the same in their context of car innovation. Exxon seems to believe it, too, if one examines their research. And you could be right. I've suggested -- and believe -- that there will be a towering innovation in the coming couple of decades that will help to render carbon-based fuels obsolete.
The profit motive will drive this evolutionary discovery. As for the uneven infliction of pain in the event of a peak oil disaster, whether of the magnitude you suggest or otherwise, that sounds reasonable enough. There are always winners and losers. Thanks for your note. Best Steve
Hi Steve,
Thank you for writing back.
It has always been a fascination of mine as to what exact machinations run through the minds of persons who are not technically trained. Perhaps, as a journalist, you could shed some light on it?
Honestly, no offense is intended on my part, just curiosity about how we all got to be where we are today. I'll take it on pure assumption that as a journalist/ book-writer you are very good with words and expressing emotions; but perhaps you never took courses in organic chemistry or thermodynamics. Would that be correct?
You are hardly alone in writing about the expected "towering innovation" or "clean" carbonless energy future that is sure to come. I see many politicians and business leaders ranting about those great inventions, innovations and human ingenuities that are 101% sure to come because "necessity is the mother of invention" and because the "free competitive markets always come through with solutions" for us (or the 'profit-motive', as you call it).
Do you honestly believe deep deep down in your inner core of consciousness that these are fundamental truths? Do you not worry even to a 1% level that perhaps no great invention will come into port and/or that the free markets will drive our civilizations in the wrong direction, namely, over the cliff as opposed to heading them into the promised safe harbors? Thanks in advance for your response. --Steppy
Hi Steppy, may I suggest that we leave the 1% Doctrine to Cheney. After all, I might ask the same -- do you not suppose that there's a 1% chance that such an invention will happen?
The "will they, won't they" discussion isn't extremely useful for that reason -- one can't say with any certainty either way. As you suggest, conviction drives the debate.
You make me think, however -- why am I so sure? Is it informed partly by growing up watching Walter Cronkite narrate the march to the moon following JFK's prediction that it would happen? Possibly.
The long time on the Caspian also informs. Who cared about the future of Central Asia and the Caucasus? In 1992, when I arrived in Tashkent, no one did. At once the profit motive stepped in (oil and natural gas), and the Clinton administration was all over it -- the region became a "strategic priority." And a pipeline got built.
The potential for tens of billions of dollars is a potent driver. Your neighbors in Silicon Valley are on the case.
On my background, I don't have a technical or science degree. But like many I think the disciplines are fascinating, and read what I can. Currently I'm on "Zoom." Have you read?
Thanks for the note and best, Steve
Hi Steve,
I see you did your journalist's homework by digging in and seeing that I live & work in "Silicon" Valley (and also probably noting from my plural blogs that I'm in the innovation business, so to speak).
Getting to the moon was a remarkable achievement. The shrinking and integration of transistors (invented by Bell Labs 60 years ago this month) was also a remarkable achievement. I can see how the average non-scientific person will jump to the conclusion of; my gosh, if "we" can do that, we can do anything.
In my position here in Silicon Valley, I sometimes cross paths with the notables who were there the day the "integrated circuit" was invented (not the joke by Kilby but rather the real thing by Noyce). They don't stop remarking to me how incredibly lucky they were to choose "silicon" as their base material and how Mother Nature almost never hands out such a lucky synergism of properties to random materials. (Silicon is easily chemically converted into glass --an electrical insulator-- and that glass easily sticks to aluminum; those were the lucky, lucky properties that made "Silicon" Valley what it was in the 1970's.)
In general, Mother Nature is not so kind. Expecting some new amazing chemistry to come along is like expecting the geography geeks out there to discover a whole new continent on this planet. That kind of stuff doesn't happen in reality. Once the whole terrain has been mapped out, there's very little room for something totally brand new. Yes, there is a 1% chance it may happen. But there is also a 99% chance it won't happen (at least not on a just-in-time basis like in the movies).
As for being on "Zoom", sorry I have no idea what you mean. Did you mean this?
On Zoom, I mean this
I'm fascinated with your take on the realities of innovation. When I'm out there next, I'd love to sit down for coffee.
Best Steve
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home