Peak oil and it's repercussions.. will it matter who is pres?

[toddzilla]

thoughts?

i know kerry will be better, but will it really matter when the shit starts hitting the fan?

[Fovea]

1. Which would you rather have guiding the energy transportation

policies which influence oil use?
1. A whore to oil interests.
2. An accomplished road bicyclist.

Which of these people will think out of the box when
the economy wakes up to the double whammy of peak oil/Chinese demand?

[theophilus]

2. I think it will definitely matter. Kerry can

turn us to alternative energy and generate millions of jobs in the process of making the conversions. Mr. Bush and his oil men will cover up the problem for as long as possible to squeeze every drop and steal all they can to keep up our "blessed way of life". Big difference!

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. Yes it will.

In the Alternative Energy Field(Where I am involved in getting a new, revolutionary and highly-efficient and productive hydroelectric technology mix off the ground...) it is accepted wisdom that nothing, and I mean N O T H I N G will happen with Chimpy and the repukes in control.

They don't want it, because their patrons don't want it. The Houston Mafia.

[The Great Deceiver]

4. What's your frame of reference for the discussion?

Everything I've read gives anywhere from twenty to one-hundred years before production "peaks" which, if I've got this right, only indicates the time at which production starts it's decline.

The hardest part of it is that there seems to be no conclusive public evidence. The powers that be are suspiciously quiet on the issue. That's the only thing that gives me cause for concern.

In any case, given the various numbers that are out there, the issue of "peak oil" won't confront a U.S. president for several years down the road. That's not to say that a Kerry energy policy won't be worlds better than a Bush policy, in that he'll likely be an advocate for alternative sources and won't be beholden to the corporate interests of his VP and fathers business.

[htuttle]

10. Production has pretty well peaked already

There hasn't been a real new oil discovery for some time. Even the Saudis seem unable to increase their production. Everything is flat out.

The problem is NOT that we are going to run out of oil in the very near future. The problem is that 'daily' production of crude will not increase anymore. It's going to stay level for awhile.

However, demand is NOT leveling off -- it's rising faster than ever. THAT is where the squeeze will come.

It doesn't matter how much oil is left in the ground. What matters is how much they can pull out of the ground everyday versus how much the world wants to burn everyday. When supply stays level, but demand rises -- do the math.

:shrug:

[The Great Deceiver]

11. Right.

I was reading something the other day that were mostly guesstimates of when the "peak" is and whether it's here or not. Some said it was but folks in the industry are prone to push that time further into the future by claiming all sorts of technology in finding new fields. Of course it's interesting that most of the non-alarmists are affiliated with the industry somehow.

Matt Savinar's book is enough to put the fear of God into you regarding this topic.

Here's a great article at the CSM on the topic.

[newyawker99]

12. Hi The Great Deceiver!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[The Great Deceiver]

14. Thanks!

[Nordic]

5. this is where we need some of the greatest leadership EVER

If we don't start a crash program right now, of Manhattan-project magnitude, to make a transition away from fossil fuels .....

All the dire predictions of the "peak oil" warnings will come true.

That is a fact. And that is the bottom line.

[AntiFascist]

16. This is true....

Some of us were calling for a "Manhattan-project" type program when the AIDS epidemic started and look what happened. It is possible to fully exploit Hydrogen, but it will take much more than $1 billion in R&D spending per year. Kerry will not have ex-executives of the oil industry in his administration to thwart his actions and he will start by enacting tax incentives to encourage fuel efficiency. Companies like Fedex, who are making attempts to convert their fleet to hybrids, may benefit.

[pauliedangerously]

6. Not in the short term...

It's too late for that. Kerry has been endorsed by the Apollo Alliance, though, a group that has an ambitious plan to begin building infrastructure geared towards energy self-sufficiency. If enacted, their plan would create several million jobs in the US as well.

Bushco has no motivation to solve the oil problem, because the pending oil shortage is going to mean HUGE bucks for the oil industry.

[aquart]

7. Hugely.

There is so much that could have been done these four years to lessen the impact, but NOTHING was done. Except to go to war for a diminishing resource.

Why isn't EVERY HOUSE and BUILDING in our sunny states equipped with solar panels? This is a national emergency. It isn't a nice option so give them 20% off or a tax credit to buy it. This is something the government must REQUIRE even if we have to hand them out free to lower income families.

We could have been ready to thumb our noses at Peak Oil and we ain't even close.

[Javaman]

8. The shit is already hitting the fan...

At least Kerry has a plan to ween us off the oil. Moron has nothing

[sangh0]

9. You're right. "There's no difference!"

.

[Dark]

13. Two words: Alternative fuels n/t

[JohnyCanuck]

15. This guy says "not really."

According to Michael Greer, (see snip from his article below) it would be a mistake to look to any mainstream political figure to take the necessary action to handle peak oil. The political costs will be too high.

Could you imagine any mainstream politician who said, "Folks continuing down this path to further economic and industrial globalization is all wrong. The way things are heading we will not have the energy resources to maintain a globalized economy for many more years. We should start preparing now by returning to more local production of industrial and agricultural products, and we should start to divert funds from highway building and maintenance to rebuilding mass transit systems etc.

He'd be hooted off the stage and immediately classified in the media and by opposition politicians in the same category as the believers in a hollow earth. The political opposition in the meantime would grab the opportunity to reassure the populace that our North American style, energy intensive way of life is a birthright and anyone who tries to deny it is some type of eco-freak/commie who will destroy civilization should he be allowed to proceed with his plans.

The best we can do I guess is hope that those in charge don't bring on a nuclear war over energy issues (in that respect we would probably be better off under a Kerry than under a Bush/neo-con administrations) while we try to adapt and change our lifestyles at the local and community level to a less energy intensive and more localized way of living.


From The Coming of Deindustrial Society: A Practical Response by John Michael Greer.

The Failure of Politics

There are specific practical things that can be done, right now, to deal with the hard realities of our situation. The problem is that most of them are counterintuitive, and fly in the face of very deeply rooted attitudes on all sides of the political spectrum.

The first point that has to be grasped is that proposals for system-wide, top-down change - getting the Federal government to do something constructive about the situation, for instance - are a waste of time. That sort of change isn't going to happen. It's not simply a matter of who's currently in power, although admittedly that doesn't help. The core of the problem is that even proposing changes on a scale that would do any good would be political suicide. (my emphasis /jc)


Broadly speaking, our situation is this: our society demands energy inputs on a scale, absolute and per capita, that can't possibly be maintained for more than a little while longer. Sustainable energy sources can only provide a small fraction of the energy we're used to getting from fossil fuels. As fossil fuel supplies dwindle, in other words, everybody will have to get used to living on a small fraction of the energy we've been using as a matter of course.

Of course this is an unpopular thing to say. Quite a few people nowadays are insisting that it's not true, that we can continue our present lavish, energy-wasting lifestyle indefinitely by switching from oil to some other energy source: hydrogen, biodiesel, abiotic oil, fusion power, "free energy" technology, and so on down the list of technological snake oil. Crippling issues of scale, and the massive technical problems involved in switching an oil-based civilization to some other fuel in time to make a difference, stand in the path of such projects, but those get little air time; if we want endless supplies of energy badly enough, the logic seems to be, the universe will give it to us. The problem is that the universe did give it to us - in the form of immense deposits of fossil fuels stored up over hundreds of millions of years of photosynthesis - and we wasted it. Now we're in the position of a lottery winner who's spent millions of dollars in a few short years and is running out of money. The odds of hitting another million-dollar jackpot are minute, and no amount of wishful thinking will enable us to keep up our current lifestyle by getting a job at the local hamburger joint.

www.hubbertpeak.com/whatToDo/DeindustrialAge.htm

[amazona]

17. absolutely it will matter

Look at how two different leaders responded to terrible economic crisis in the past -- Adolf Hitler and FDR. I would rather have someone who has the capacity to be an FDR when people are hurting and in need, than someone who has the capacity to become a Hitler who could set us to killing each other.

Edit-- typo