by StarmanSkye » Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:42 pm
Newkid:<br>You say:<br>"While a lot of people talk about peak oil and all that, they all tend to jump to the conclusion that if oil production is slowly peaking, then the apocalypse will occur within a few nanoseconds afterwards."<br><br>WHAT???<br><br>All I can say is -- That's not an accurate take on what Peak Oil is about. I don't know anyone who's reasonably informed that makes the above conclusion.<br><br>Since you reference Heinberg, I'm even more stumped about what you're driving at -- especially when you say you aren't interested in debate on the merits of Peak Oil. His article 'George W. Bush and Peak Oil -- Beyond Incompetance' (<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/14102.html)was">www.energybulletin.net/14102.html)was</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> a fairly accurate, well-cited and balanced critique of the Nation's lack of an effective energy policy that competantly addresses let alone even acknowledges the implications of Peak Oil.<br><br>As per the point I *think* you wanted to make: Regardless of what Firedoglake or Rainwater think, their ideas or motivations have no bearing on the evidence that supports the theory of Peak Oil. <br><br>Heinberg's main points, which I essentially concur with, are:<br><br>* Peak Oil is foreseeable.<br>* The consequences are also foreseeable and are likely to be ruinous.<br>* The Bush administration has been repeatedly warned.<br>* Actions could be taken to reduce the impact, but the longer those actions are delayed, the worse the impact will be.<br>* The administration, rather than taking steps to mitigate these looming catastrophic impacts, has instead done things that can only worsen them. <br><br>Do you perchance disagree with any or all of these premises?<br><br>Do you take issue with the following quote, or with the Hirsch Report's thesis?<br><br>-- "Chris Skrebowski, editor of Petroleum Review and author of the study “Oil Field Megaprojects,” notes that “90% of known reserves are in production,” and that “as much as 70% of the world’s producing oil fields are now in decline” with decline rates averaging between four and six percent per year.4<br><br>*<br>--quote--<br>The first paragraph of the Hirsch Report’s Executive Summary states:<br><br>The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.18 <br><br>As the Hirsch Report explains in detail, due to our systemic dependence on oil for transportation, agriculture, and the production of plastics and chemicals, every sector of society will be impacted.<br>--unquote--<br><br>I began educating myself on issues of development, wise-use, conservation, alternative energy/systems, sustainability and resource-depletion in the mid-80s; Nothing I've learned since has persuaded me that Peak Oil isn't a genuine --and very serious-- problem. <br><br>A central issue as I see it is the challenge of political will to organize and mount effective programs to minimize the effect of Peak Oil shortages given sufficient lead-time to plan accordingly -- it always being more efficient and cost-effective to prepare sooner rather than later.<br><br>The Hirsh Report (which Heinberg reports on) examined 3 different scenarios in this regard -- with conclusion I agree with.<br>--quote--<br>The Hirsch Report’s methodology involved the examination of three scenarios:<br><br>* Scenario I assumed that action is not initiated until peaking occurs.<br>* Scenario II assumed that action is initiated 10 years before peaking.<br>* Scenario III assumed action is initiated 20 years before peaking. <br><br>In all three scenarios, the Hirsch study assumed a “crash program” scale of effort (that is, all the resources of government and industry are marshalled to the tasks of creating supplies of alternative fuels and reducing demand through efficiency measures). The study found that, due to the time required to start efforts and the scale of mitigation required, Scenario I will result in at least 20 years of fuel shortfalls. With 10 years of preparation, a 10-year shortfall is likely. And with 20 years of advance mitigation effort, there is “the possibility” of averting fuel shortages altogether. The Report also concludes that “Early mitigation will almost certainly be less expensive than delayed mitigation.”20<br>--unquote--<br><br>It's curious and quite puzzling, but I've noted quite a few critics of Peak Oil often tend towards making the same kind of unwarranted claims, overblown exaggerations and hyperacute distortions that form the basis for their discreditation of Peak Oil -- ie., strawman arguments that don't accurately reflect the issues. In my experience, exaggeration often serves to disguise a value-judgement that confounds rigorous argument. For that sake, I'm aware of the need to examine my own arguments for hidden biases, to make sure they don't infect my reason with unacknowledged assumptions.<br><br>Since 911 and my expanded grasp of deep politics, I've become aware that the premise of Peak Oil underlies much of the US's past 30 years of its Imperialistic Foreign Policy -- now seen most clearly in the way that the US military and its energy policy have become interdependantly linked, in the US's covert petrodollar warfare doctrine (<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=KEE20060210&articleId=1936),">www.globalresearch.ca/ind...eId=1936),</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> and in the US's stake in preserving the dollars' position as the world's reserve currency -- which policy has cleverly managed to subsidize US imperial hegemony through forcing all net-oil consumers to accumulate dollars by which to buy oil --effectively exporting inflation and importing deflation.<br><br>It's hardly an accident that the US mainstream media almost totally censored all reports on the Iran Oil Bourse -- since the issues of Peak Oil, the US's unprecedented debt-liability, the budget-busting Military-defense Industry, the trumped-up War on Terror scam, and the US's Federal Reserve fiat-currency ponzi-scheme, are all so intricately interlinked.<br><br>Starman <p></p><i></i>