Heinberg blasts Greg Palast on Peak Oil

[depakid]

This one was pretty scathing (and deservedly so). Frankly, I was kind of surprised with Palast. He usually has command of his facts:

An Open Letter to Greg Palast
by Richard Heinberg

Dear Greg,

Congratulations on your new book, Armed Madhouse. As with your previous work, I admire your dedication in exposing the machinations of government and corporate miscreants.

However, this time around you’ve also taken a potshot at a target that I happen to know a good deal about and have been closely involved with for a few years—the efforts by a growing number of analysts to forecast the arrival, and prepare the world for the consequences, of Peak Oil. In this instance I think your negative comments about Peak Oil and those of us who study it are not well informed.

Ordinarily I wouldn’t respond to an ill-considered statement by an otherwise admirable author; but unfortunately you go on for several pages on this theme, and I’ve started receiving e-mails from folks who are troubled by what you said. In my many years of fighting to protect our planet from environmental destruction, I have learned how important it is to make sure that our supporters have the most accurate information possible. Time and again, I have seen our opponents seize on internal disagreements as wedges in their drive to weaken and damage the credibility of the environmental movement. I feel the responsibility to help sort out the factual issues in this instance particularly strongly because you have worked so hard to earn your reputation as a truth-teller in these perilous times.

<snip>

In your book, you place your critique of Peak Oil in the context of scathing attacks on the Bush energy plan and the oil companies’ enormous ongoing political influence. These are serious problems and you deal with them skillfully and entertainingly. But, in contrast to these subjects, the Peak Oil discussion is more about science than politics, and when it comes to science, catchy phrases don’t count; only a careful weighing of evidence does. I’m sorry to say that you don’t appear to be fully informed about the terms and history of this debate.


Much more: http://www.energybulletin.net/17914.html

[FloridaPat]

1. Thanks I was wondering about those pages myself.

[Mist]

3. So was I--Palast was confusing and condescending in that chapter and

it bothered me.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. This should be good, when I read that chapter

I figured this would happen...

:popcorn:

[happyslug]

4. I read the pages of Palast attached at the end of the Article.

Palast is thinking and talking like a Economist, that you can NEVER have a shortage, for if you do have a Shortage the price will raise and either new production will kick in (i.e. increase supply) OR demand will drop do to the high price. Either way (and often both at the same time) ends the Shortage.

The problem is Oil is MORE than an economic product, it is the key to our economy. Under Hubbert's analysis no mater how how the price of oil gets, supply will continue to fall. Demand is the greater check on price, people will adapt to using less oil and then no oil given the increase in price.

This brings us to the economic concept to of "in-elastic" Supply and demand. When Supply or demand (and sometimes both) are "in-elastic", any increase in price will NOT increase supply NOR decrease demand. Palast ignores this concept, for it undermines his whole world view that everything is economics. When in comes to the use of oil, in the US demands tend to be in-elastic i.e. no matter how high the price goes people will buy oil. When we reach peak (if we have NOt already done so) Supply will also become in-elastic i.e. No matter how high the increase in price, supply will DECLINE over time.

Both to these concept violate classic economics, but have been observed by Economists for centuries. Palast. like many of his generation, does NOT want to accept the fact that when oil supply peaks and then declines the subsequent price increase will be controlled more by any decline in demand than increase in Supply. Furthermore he does NOT want to accept that HOW Radical we must change our society so we CAN REDUCE OUR DEMAND FOR OIL. The changes will be RADICAl, as Radical as the changes since 1900 when the Car started to become part of our society. This is what most peak oilers are saying, what we have to do as a society to adjust to peak oil, not just the pricing of oil as we convert form light Crude to heavy Crude and then tar-shell based oil.

Palast does NOT want to accept that the ECONOMIC Solution to peak oil is on the DEMAND SIDE, not the Supply side. Palast looks at the people pushing Peak oil and see corporations trying to waiting and willing to exploit peak oil (and they will). As I said before I started this rant, the problem is Palast is looking at the problem from a Economics point of view WITHOUT realizing the solution is on the Demand side as opposed to the Supply Side and to reduce demand serious and extensive changes in our society has to be done.

[Delphinus]

5. Heinberg wrote an excellent article.

Thank you for sharing this.

There was a point he brought up that really struck a chord with me and made me realize it's something I need: a course in critical thinking. Now if I could just find someone who's teaching that!