I enjoyed this email. Alexander's wavering between "we're screwed" and "we may not be screwed" mentalities is revealing.
"So, whilst we may have enough fuel for our economic progress and development, albeit maybe less than we think..."
Translation: We may not be screwed.
"These are issues for which there are no answers, let alone that the right kind of questions concerning this have been asked.
Translation: We're screwed.
"What is most needed is a change of thinking."
Translation: If we change our thinking, we may not be screwed after all.
Again, I hate to crash the party, but absent of divine intervention, there is no way that we will have enough fossil fuel for economic progress and development - that is the most immediate and overriding ramification of Peak Oil. Almost every aspect of our current civilization is completely dependent on oil. Without oil, our current food production systems will collapse, which is the most important effect of all. Neoclassical economic theory --which maintains that 'prices' and 'market forces' will transcend the first law of thermodynamics and magically conjure up out of thin air the equivalent of 80 million barrels/day worth of oil energy-- is a perverse and fatally-flawed myth that is about to have its Achilles' heel exposed for all to see.
The idea that "hey, peak oil is a big problem, but we still have a few decades of business-as-usual to make changes" is a great delusion for helping you sleep at night, but that's about it.
Regarding global warming, Alexander writes:
"...we are now faced with reports about impending irreversible damage to our global climate."
Actually, this has been staring us in the face for decades, so much so that I was repeatedly taught about global warming and climate change throughout elementary school in the early-mid 1990's. It's almost as if your generation was hoping us kids would fix it. Fortunately, the results of resource deletion will hit us so hard that climate change may not seem so bad in comparison.
I don't fault Alexander for not having the courage to fully accept the reality of Peak Oil, as this is a horrific dilemma that no one should ever have to bear. It would also subject him to 'kill the messenger' reactions from numerous uninformed, denial-addicted individuals, and I can understand not wanting to do that. Still, because of the gravity of this situation, I feel it is necessary to immediately dispel delusions about our situation.
"We keep you informed!"
If this man says that "we may have enough fuel for our economic progress and development", then he is not keeping you informed. In addition to the vast amount of data available, a 2004 study of the mega-projects slated to come online over the next few years proves otherwise.
You can't formulate a successful approach to a problem until you sincerely accept it AND all of it's logical implications.
Because I believe it is worthless to criticize without offering anything of your own, I would encourage everyone to do a google search on 'peak oil' and read everything you can find. I personally recommend lifeaftertheoilcrash.net for an introduction, and then anything by Hubbert, Richard Heinberg, Deffeyes, David Goodstein, Colin Campbell, Dale Allen Pfeiffer, or Jay Hanson.
I'll also continue posting relevant news articles when I find them.
Jesse |
