Joy Ride to Global Collapse

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

A little long, but the best plainspeak article I've seen on this critical problem. The one I've been looking for as an introduction.

Joy Ride to Global Collapse by Jim Minter

Here's a prediction for you. In the next two decades millions of Americans will begin a serious search for an alternative to the gasoline-powered automobile. It is not going to be a happy search. If you think trying to wean gun owners from their passion for firearms is a hornet's nest, try talking to the great majority of us about reining in our passion for the automobile. Lordy! And yet, most of us agree there is a problem, vaguely phrased as, "There are too many other people out there clogging up the highways and slowing me down." Otherwise our attitude is similar to the rabid firearms bumper sticker: "You'll get my car when you pry my cold, dead fingers from around the steering wheel."

No one is talking to us about giving up cars today - even though there is hard scientific evidence that the freewheeling automotive world we know today will have totally vanished within the lifetime of most of us now living. A few idealists are talking about maybe getting us to constrain our use a little bit. None of them are running for any position of political influence in this country. They would be lucky to get their family's vote. We don't want to hear it.

Auto mania is not confined to Americans. The love affair is international and now grows fastest in the nations of the Second and Third World. Humanity burns 70 million barrels of oil a day. At the present rate of increase, it is projected we'll be burning 100 million in 20 years. But we'll never get there. We are close to that peak of global production which was foreseen almost half a century ago by Dr. M. King Hubbert, the foremost petroleum geologist of his day. (See link at the end of this column.) The descent from that peak only takes a few decades. We know that petroleum is a finite resource. But even as gasoline prices begin to creep upward some time in the not-too-distant future we won't curtail our driving until real supply shortages absolutely force the issue.

Take a look at an ugly future scenario: The sudden, agonizing death of the private automobile is a wall that global society will hit full speed, pedal to the metal when a global petroleum crisis finally catches up with us. We will not accept any solutions that will soften the impact until the real shortage hits us at some time (early) in the next century. If we continue to fail to take any reasonable steps to prepare for it, and it comes upon us thus, the constriction of the petroleum base of our global economy is quite likely to begin a plunging, bucking, gasping downward spiral towards a deep and lasting depression-with-inflation that could virtually end modern times as we now know them.

I will explain the combination of hard science and human hard-headedness which backs the liklihood of this future. But first, let's examine where we are. Even if we believe that we are joyriding toward the abyss, few of us will volunteer to be first to quit driving. I've tried it twice. Once in Tallahassee as Florida's "Energy Czar," and once as a freelance investigative reporter in Washington, D.C. What a royal pain it was to be carless in Florida's sprawled-out, little, old capital city. What a joy it was not to have to fool with parking in our nation's capital. Cabs there were plentiful and cheap. Walking was a pleasure. The excellent subway and bus lines were just a hop from my little flat three blocks from the Library of Congress. But that urban experience is the exception. For most Americans life without a car is unthinkable - even in Washington, D.C. It is too late to talk about rational restraint. As James Howard Kunstler's new book Home from Nowhere makes clear, the entire complex of the American civilization and infrastructure that we have built since World War II is almost unworkable without our massive herd of private autos. We can't get along without them, although Kunstler would clearly like to tame them.

Kunstler's first best seller, The Geography of Nowhere, was described by a Wall Street Journal reviewer as "a sharp polemic." The language of Home from Nowhere is just as crisp and creative as he continues his positive indictment of America's post-World-War-II built environment. I say "positive," because in Home from Nowhere Kunstler tries to focus on curing the blight - what we are already beginning to do in a few places, and what more we can and must do.

I, however, turned immediately to the chapter entitled "Car Crazy." The book's dust jacket says it "offers real hope to a nation yearning to live in authentic places worth caring about." Not only does the car chapter not deliver hope, Kunstler's auto jeremiad is almost as bleak as my post-petroleum scenario. After a splendidly concise and eloquent damning of what American car craziness is doing to our built environment, he concludes his chapter, "We have the knowledge to do the right thing; we lack only the will to do the right thing. The inescapable conclusion is that our behavior is wicked, and that we are liable to pay a heavy price for our wickedness by losing the things we love, including our beautiful country and our democratic republic."

Pretty appalling. Hello! Is anyone home, out there? No. We're out joyriding. "But," you protest, "lose our country? Our form of government?" Perhaps that's not impossible. The sudden death of the automobile in America would produce a major crunch that would dwarf the Great Depression. Kunstler deplores the negative aspects of the car without understanding just how endangered the automobile truly is. He even purports to see signs that we may be wandering away from the automobile. Fat chance! We Americans are not going to abandon our cars. Especially because some guru is telling us they are immoral. We don't care if they are immoral. We won't abandon them even if they cause global warming and melt the polar ice caps putting Florida and New York City under water. Even if we have to wear gas masks because of pollution and the whole nation grinds to gridlock we will still sit in our cars on the freeways, beeping our horns and idling our engines, praying we can creep just a few more yards. We are not going to walk or ride bicycles except for exercise. We are not going to ride buses, streetcars, subways, taxicabs or rickshaws except as entertainment. A personal automobile is the right of every American. It says so in the Constitution.

Ah, would that Kunstler's prophesy of a gradual taming of the automobile were possible. Nothing so gentle as that seems likely to me. The Auto Age is going to hit a rapid deceleration. But it will not be graceful, gradual or planned. Disregard for a moment the thesis that the environment will run out of breathable air before we run out of petroleum. What is unquestionable is that if we keep burning it, one way or another, the human species is eventually going to burn up the planet's vast store of petroleum. The only question is when. Some very good scientists who study the globe's petroleum supplies, but don't work for oil companies, auto companies or nervous governments say that time is closer upon us than we suspect.

The Petroleum Age will begin sputtering into crisis as demand continues to rise and petroleum production peaks (within a decade, according to the best Hubbert projections to which I will link you at the end of this column). We will not yet be at the bottom of the barrel, just turning towards it. Vast windfall profits will be made by some, which will complicate the ability of leaders to explain the reality. And the supply-side religion will tune-up its highly paid chorus. In fits and starts prices will rise and then fall, spiralling upward because of real shortfalls in the distribution system, or in anticipation of shortage, then dropping as over-speculators take a bath, only to rise again and then fall again, but with prices always rising further and falling back slower as supply constricts. And if an "artificial" shortage is politically created in anticipation of hoarding for the real shortage down the road, it could be a recipe for wars. ("How dare they deprive us of their oil!")

Either way, most of us will not be able to imagine curtailing our driving until the bitterest end. What makes the decline of the Petroleum Age so relentlessly damaging is that there is no fuel that is going to substitute for it. I know the technological optimists, with a lot of cynical hype from the auto/petroleum industrial axis and a lot of naive wishing by the Greens, vaguely promise a clean, beautiful, driving world on "a mixed fuel economy." It is this promise that keeps us tranquilly driving along burning it up for "a few more years" without feeling at all wicked. Some cabal of scientists in white coats is going unmask the Second Law of Thermodynamics as an oldthink fraud.

It ain't gonna happen. None (let me get way out on the limb and repeat that: NONE) of the promised alternatives will replace petroleum - not even vast stores of natural gas, which is the closest potential substitute, but is also finite. Nor will liquified and "scrubbed-up" coal juice. Nor (again disregarding for the moment the environmental and safety questions) will the scores of new nuclear plants needed to charge up electric cars be economically supportable in a Post-Petroleum Age. Why? That was explained to us by an almost forgotten scientist at the University of Florida over 20 years ago. It is the concept of "net energy." If it takes one barrel of oil to produce every ten barrels of oil, you have nine barrels of oil left to run the rest of society. As oil becomes more difficult to find and transport, the net yield decreases. There is less to run society. Oil costs rise. All other costs that are touched by oil (everything) also rise. Eventually, you creep into recession-with-inflation, which economists said wasn't supposed to happen - until it did happen after the 1973 oil embargo.

This is where economists display their ignorance of physics. Many economists, people who should know better, say at that point people go out and explore for more oil. (We're still finding new oil, but not at the rate we're burning it. And there are a steadily diminishing number of places on the planet where we haven't poked holes.) Or, economists chirp, we'll find other energy sources and drive prices back down. That is what happens for every other commodity, they say, and energy is no different from any other commodity.

Not so. Energy is the great exception to conventional economic theory. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is why. Every time you "use" energy you lose some. You can never get perfect efficiency. So burning energy to get energy is a "losing" process. Burn oil to get electricity and you end up with less energy in the electricity than you began with in the oil. Transmit that electric energy over wires to a home or factory and you lose some. You can't "make" energy; and though you can sometimes "store" it in another form for a while (with loss each time) you only use energy once. So the more complicated a process is.., the more "technologically involved".., the more you lose in the processing. That's the problem with burning electricity which is a "highly refined" energy, to get hydrogen, a "lower" form, from water to then burn in cars. That's also why liquified coal will always be devilishly expensive to burn in autos and trucks.

The great shale oil fiasco of the late '70s is a perfect example of what is wrong with all of the proposed "high-tech sources" of "new" energy. Economists kept saying that when the price of oil rose high enough, extracting the oil from shale deposits would make it an economical commodity. We burned billions of your tax dollars and billions more in private investment money trying to make it work. There are those who still say it will work some day. Don't let them sell you any shale stock.

The problem with shale oil is that it has to be mined and crushed and heated to extract the oil that is there. Mining machinery burns oil. Crushing machinery burns oil. Heating shale burns oil. Hauling and dumping the spent shale burns more energy. And of course, refining that oil into useable product takes more energy. As does transporting it, and transporting all of the workers in the process, etc., etc. In the '70s we discovered that we burned about a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of shale oil. (So-called in situ production methods shared a similar problem.) In other words the "net energy" was zero. So it didn't matter what the price was. If the price rose to a million dollars a barrel, it would still consume a million-dollar barrel of oil to produce a million-dollar barrel of shale oil and there would be no net gain to sell.

Energy is not just another commodity in our modern economic system. Energy is the underlying power that carries the burden and makes our modern economic infrastructure "more productive" (less labor intensive). Petroleum is the dominant energy source for the transportation network that undergirds the global economy, and the planet's most plentiful, most versatile, most transportable and most efficient energy source. In a very real and measurable sense the price of every other energy source we have floats on a "subsidy" of cheap petroleum. In other words every other energy form we use, including all of the "solar" energies are as cheap and usable as they are because they are "underwritten" by cheap oil. (Cheap petroleum and natural gas produce and transport those silicon PV cells. When the oil is gone, the price of "solar" will skyrocket, along with every other "alternative energy source," in direct proportion to the petroleum used in every step of its production and delivery.)

"Gasohol" is another ideal example of an "alternative fuel" that floats on a cheap petroleum subsidy. It takes cheap oil for each step of planting, tending, fertilizing, spraying, harvesting, transporting and processing corn into alcohol. It takes more cheap oil to blend that alcohol into something that will (still imperfectly, compared to gasoline) power your car. Gasohol from corn, sugar, peat, beets, sawdust, tropical rain forest, or any other "biomass" is not going to run our present global auto world, let alone the expanding auto world glowingly predicted by the car industry for the future. Ignore, for a second the fact that such massive use would quickly begin cannibalizing the biomass that supports all life and supplies such basics as food and oxygen. "Biomass" is not a long-term massive source of global energy because many of our current agricultural and forestry practices "mine the soil," and are, in the long run, neither "renewable," nor "sustainable." Ignore the environmental concerns about CO2, ozone, etc. Ignore the shrinking global biomass and arable land that will be needed in ever greater amounts to feed, clothe and house a swelling human population. There isn't enough biomass on earth to run our petroleum economy at its present level if we are insane enough to try it. (And we are.) We would quickly turn the planet into a desert trying to run our current automobile fleet on biomass. And so the real "Catch 22" for alternative fuels is that when the petroleum economy begins to stumble over shortage, all of the "alternative fuels" that are supposed to be waiting in the wings, are going to rise in price dramatically. It is going to be an ugly, cost-pushed, escalating thing that is going to cripple the global economy and impoverish global society.

Cleaned-up coal and natural gas and perhaps even some nuclear will provide our electricity for a period of time. And some niche-market transportation, too. Wind power can be a real electric winner for many places on the planet (not much wind here in Florida and cloud cover makes solar PV a marginally expensive source on much of the planet). But none of these sources, along with their electric cars, will run our present automotive economy at the level of wealth and consumption we enjoy in this glorious sunset of our Petroleum Age. Trans-continental economies that are most strung-out on automobiles and trucks (the United States, Canada, Australia, etc.) are likely to be hardest hit first. So just when we need to make the transition to other fuels we will discover that everything we do is much more expensive and we seem to have less than we anticipated. It will puzzle economists. The economy will slow down but the prices of everything will keep on rising. We will then rediscover the age-old truth: money is not a real thing; it is only an accounting device. Congress can't print oil and they can't repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So after we have ritually fired the then-current crop of politicians and the new ones haven't changed anything, we won't know who to blame. What will be going on?

Now pay attention economists. Here are three dicta that may sound heretical.

First is Minter's Little Observation: Neither capital nor labor can create energy. Growing out of this observation is Minter's Little Law of Energy Subsidy: The shortage of a more efficient energy source in an economy will always make the remaining sources of less efficient energy more expensive and even less efficient. Will humanity belatedly begin to use all energy more efficiently when we finally hear those sucking sounds in the petroleum barrel? Of course. We will have to. But such efficiencies will not make us more prosperous (as they do today). By that time they will only slow the rate at which we get poorer. Why? Heed

Minter's Little Maxim: A society's transition from a more efficient energy source to a less efficient energy source will always and invariably decrease the wealth, flexibility and options available to that society. In other words, just when we most need the wealth and flexibility of cheap petroleum energy to make the transition to a less energy-intensive infrastructure, everything is going to cost much, much more. We will be poorer.

If this is all true, what should we be doing? I do not have many answers. We should at least take off the rose colored alternative fuel glasses that are blinding the Greens and providing a smoke screen for short-sighted governments and industries. Until we do that we can't accurately begin envisioning what a post-petroleum society is really going to look like. Possibly we should stop sinking so much money into long-term expansions of infrastructure to support automobiles. Maybe a few advanced thinkers will begin considering post-petroleum cities with electric-only cars, or without private-passenger cars altogether. You tell me.

One thing that seems obvious is that we need to begin an honest net energy analysis of all of the proposed alternative fuels, and just what their true net is after all of the present petroleum subsidies are worked out of the formula. That is not going to be as easy as it sounds. Petroleum subsidizes everything we make and do. But it is vital if we are to make rational judgements not based upon the partisan polemics of vested interests or true believers. Just what we will do with this knowledge once we get it is another matter. The Western World is run by corporate leaders who think quarter-to-quarter, politicians who think election-to-election, and a public that is hostile to bad news about their lifestyle (especially our beloved cars). The Pacific Rim countries are enslaved to automobile exports (and petroleum poor). The oil exporters are already exaggerating their reserves to get loans and the global financial community is making those loans. Is there anyone out there who isn't heavily vested in a continuation of the existing myopia?

In an earlier column, I said that since we obviously are going to do nothing about transportation until it is way too late, America's only energy policy option is to work for efficiency in our buildings and built environment. Certainly that is the focus of Kunstler's two books. That is the focus of what we have been calling "Sustainable Design." What is crucial for the design professions to realize is that we probably don't have as much time as we think before we will not be as rich as we once were. To me that spells building for quality and endurance. It means an end to "consumable" buildings. It means building for ourselves and posterity. It means the old-fashioned conservative virtues of thrift and investment, not burn-up and squander. To be Biblical, it means using the remaining fat years to prepare for the coming lean years. Without considering the decline of petroleum, Kunstler already thinks we are wicked to be trashing our lives, our cities, and our infrastructure in our mad romance with the automobile. Would he think us diabolic if he understood we are really racing towards a post-petroleum economy that stands to impoverish our posterity?

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 25, 2000

Answers

Thanks Hallyx, great post. I agree with every bit of this, but as Vance Packard said, in his book The Status Seekers, not only are we dependent on the automobile for transportation, a vast majority of Americans, see their car as a status symbol. "Americans in the late fifties were spending more of their total income on the family chariot than they were in financing their homestead...." Status is a big thing in the U.S.

Today it isn't unusual for many households to have two or three vehicles for two people.

If anyone doubts the accuracy of this post, just go to http://dieoff.org/page55.htm.

Our exponentially growing population will only worsen the situation. It would also be a good idea to start talking about overpopulation, but that isn't going to happen. Our elected officials have already learned that, as the post says, we don't want to hear bad news. So as long as the media can keep us entertained with non-stop Elian, school shootings, sports, and the corporations keep us in new cars and other status symbols etc., we'll just worry about it tomorrow, like Scarlett.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 25, 2000.


Thanks Hallyx and Gilda. Both great posts. I am seeing electric cars advertised here and there and some of my son's friends are working with hydrogen fuel cells - others with various types of solar energy. There is hope on the horizon. Those of us who can, should add our clarion calls to assist the demise of the fossil fuel industry, that industry which is currently busily working on the demise of humanity.

-- Pat (-@still.here), April 25, 2000.

To see a series of projections regarding the future of the world using computer simulation, get a copy of The Limits To Growth (1972). They used population, pollution, resouces, etc. Essentially, it is too late to stop a global collapse.

For an alternative view of what society might be like on a sustainable basis, read Ecotopia by Callenbach.

Todd

-- Todd Detzel (detzel@jps.net), April 25, 2000.


Sounds like a weird cross between the AlBore Fan Club and the Club of Rome's political agenda. Mikhail Gorbachev (Green Cross) and Maurice Strong (Under Sec'y Gen'l-UN) are smiling as their Communist/Socialist agendas are further advanced by the Mental Midgets of the environmental brigade. Ayn R. is laughing!

Let's have a lottery to do away with 80% of the Earth's population and force the remainder to live in mudhuts with a single 15 watt light bulb. You'd be lucky to have a bicycle to ride. That's the future if you follow these Enviro-Nuts.

-- STOP (TheEnviroNuts@Now.com), April 25, 2000.


Great Post,Hallyx.

Time to get out the hayburning hot rod.Taz kindly sent me one of the US farming catalogues so I could see what all the old Timebomb regulars were discussing...corn grinders etc.I was very much taken with the lightweight dog carts.We have the dog & now I have the justification to go get a cart !! LOL

-- Chris (griffen@globalnet.co.uk), April 25, 2000.



re: "Joy Ride..." Incredibly pessimistic article, clearly having an agenda. No solutions...just negativity and complaints. The word 'hydrogen' appears only ONCE! (Many 'futurists' see a "coming hydrogen economy"). Curious that even photovoltaics were downplayed as costing too much (once the oil flow starts to trickle).

The anticipated hydrogen economy WILL put an end to such pessimism. It won't matter whether PV produced electricity electrolyses ordinary water into hydrogen and oxygen or creates high energy in the magnetic 'bottles' of a hydrogen plasma device...this much cleaner (and virtually limitless) source of energy will be the way we overcome the environmental problems of the current oil based economy.

Hopefully this will all happen sooner rather than later. Negativity will get us nowhere...FAST!

-- Hydrogen (Economy-Is@Coming.com), April 25, 2000.


CHRIS!!!

How are ya doing... long time no type...

you need another DOG?????

nice ta see ya....

snoozin'...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), April 25, 2000.


Hey, STOP,

Unless I'm missing something, this article seems equally critical of the "Greens" in pushing their alternative-energy agendas. I in no way took this article to be supportive of the Enviro-Nuts.

Do you dispute that petroleum products are a finite resource?

Jimmy

-- Jimmy Splinters (inthe@dark.com), April 25, 2000.


Jimmy-- No question 'bout it! VERY finite limits. I realize that there are a few whackos out there who believe that oil is 'made' in the mantle by magic somehow rather than Dino Doo-Doo or whatever. (Gosh! What if they're right?)

I just hate to see such monumental negativity over a critical issue that must and can and will be solved in the next few decades. I'm also critically aware that the environmental movement has been thoroughly coopted by the Socialist NWO types. So sad.

--'Stop'

-- Stop (Stop@Stop.com), April 25, 2000.


I'm glad we started this discussion. First of all, hydrogen is not an energy source like coal, oil, wood or sunlight. Hydrogen is an energy carrier that must first be manufactured using an energy source. As anyone familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics will attest, every conversion from one energy source to another entails a loss---mostly bigger losses than most people think.

Energy alternatives---PV, bio-fuel, wind, tidal, hydro, even nuclear---all require a substantial investment in energy to manufacture and maintain. That's one point that Minter was getting at. (I'm glad you saw that, Mr. H, most people seem to miss that point.) And each of these alternatives have one common disadvantage: the energy ratio (what Minter calls "net energy", the point at which it takes more energy to implement the technology than it can return. So far, all alternative "sources" return less energy than it takes to build them. They are viable only as long as we have cheap fossil fuel to underwrite their production---fossil fuels that are rapidly being exhausted. Alternate Energy Critique

Remember, these are not computer programs. These are hard technologies which require infrastructure and energy. People who are not familiar with engineering practices and constraints (economists, for example) tend to be more optimistic than hard-nosed manufacturing engineers.

Good catch, Jimmy. Most environmentalists are not engineers. They have neither the aptitude nor math skills to do an "embodied energy" study on alternates (the total amount of energy that goes into a technology). Of course, those companies involved in alts are only looking on the bright side. Hey! Who knows when there might be a miracle breakthrough? You gonna bet your grandkids' future on miracles?

Hopefully this will all happen sooner rather than later. Negativity will get us nowhere...FAST!

Realism and reasoning is what will get us somewhere. Whether it will be fast enough is anyone's guess. Negativity has historically provided that frisson of fear that motivates societies. Or, if you see it as did Oscar Wilde, "The basis of optimism is sheer terror."

Hallyx

"A pessimist is simply an optimist in full possession of the facts."---Edward Abbey

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 25, 2000.



As the old joke has it, if we'd had computers in 1890 they'd have predicted we'd all be under 30 feet of horseshit by now. As the Club of Rome learned, historical trends are contingent and nonlinear. Minter's basic argument rests on the tacit assumption that an incredibly complex adaptive system is neither complex nor can it adapt, so he makes nice linear projections and is as appalled by the results as the Club of Rome. And just as wrong.

I remember Milne justifying Yet Another Failed Prediction, about the market drop that didn't happen, on the grounds that the FED had changed the interest rate, nullifying Milne's assumptions. Gee, you mean people *respond* to changing circumstances? Amazing.

Just because we can't predict exactly how the system will adapt doesn't mean it won't adapt. And it works both ways. How many of us geek types have had schedules slip because of unexpected problems? But because they're unexpected, they're never built into the schedule. But *something* always slows things down. Predicting the future by linear extrapolation and assuming no surprises never works.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 25, 2000.


Always the level-headed Flint. I really do admire that. But bear in mind that I presented this as an introductory installment. What I'm leading up to is quite a bit more complicated and less easilly ignored.

For those of you who feel you are ahead of the class, a little incentive: Certain parties, more keenly aware of details and dimension of the "oil peak" than I or anyone here, are discussing the details on an eGroups list. If you are interested in an invitation, I can arrange it for you. There is currently a $1000 dollar reward for anyone who can satisfactorilly debunk certain information presented here: Energy Section.

I told them that this was tacky and smelled too much like that Creationist bounty offered on another thread. But, it's all in fun and some seem to think that a financial incentive is a good way to generate some intelligent thoughtful feedback. (Americans, sheesh!)

They are expecting something a little more concrete than Complexity Theory philosophy, Flint. "Something always turns up," is not and acceptable answer. (Something does not always turn up, as you well know.) You up for it? You know how to contact me.

Hallyx

"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with catchup." ---unknown

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 25, 2000.


Hallyx:

I don't dispute that oil reserves are finite. They aren't easy to assess, and Minter is correct that political exigencies tend to bias the assessments. But even so, oil has historically degraded fairly gracefully. There are a LOT of oil wells no longer in production, NOT because they "ran dry" one day, but because the cost of squeezing more oil from them was no longer competetive. The idea that oil will hit some wall someday, from full blast to dry hole nearly overnight, is simply not true. Production costs, essentially how much energy is required to extract more energy, are sure to rise. Most likely within our lifetimes.

The result, despite Minter's casual discard of economics, is that prices will rise. This rise promises to be gradual. Beyond a certain cost, other options will be more readily accepted by the paying public, and exploration for options more worth funding.

Again, I'm not just saying, Oh well, something will turn up. I'm saying I can't predict the future. I can envision more hybrid vehicles, less driving, higher density population centers, many lifestyle changes happening slowly. Downloading movies rather than driving to theaters, more carpooling, more telecommuting, more online shopping, and so on and on. Maybe some Big Engineering like beamed microwave power from big orbital solar collectors. Who knows? Higher prices mean greater rewards for innovators and conservers alike.

There will be time for a vast host of incremental, gradual changes. You will see. When Minter starts chanting "we started too late" and "the oil is broken", I begin to wonder.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 25, 2000.


I have to agree with Flint here, Hallyx. There are LOTS of lifestyle changes that are ALREADY enabling us to rely less on petroleum products. I telecommuted for 3 years. On my next job, I telecommuted again. At my interview yesterday, I was told that telecommuting was AGAIN an option.

We see other changes as well. More folks are shopping via the internet and other "shop from home" alternatives. Hybrid cars are already being advertised on TV.

Here in Texas, the light rails that carry commuters into Dallas are reaching further and further out each year to provide cleaner transportation alternatives. Fort Worth continuously adds apartments both IN the city and at the edge of the city so folks can walk or bicycle to work. Chicago has added entire communities at the South end of the Loop so folks need not commute long distances from the suburbs yet still live in a safe, homey environment.

Did you ever see the movie "The Net"? The heroine worked from home and one of her "online" buddies was concerned because "People don't get out anymore. How will the race survive if people stop getting together IRL to reproduce?"

Will it all combined be enough, or enough in time? I don't know, but it's sure a good start.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 25, 2000.


This rise promises to be gradual.

Gradual or not, its gonna be business NOT as usual for the economy, which as you are aware has other amassing problems.

I can envision more hybrid vehicles, less driving, higher density population centers, many lifestyle changes happening slowly.

Hmmm. Sort of like the "paperless office?"

-- (@ .), April 25, 2000.



Hi, 'a',

Still a bit of a slow learner, eh?

[Gradual or not, its gonna be business NOT as usual for the economy, which as you are aware has other amassing problems.]

To be sure. However, even you should be able to see that by your reasoning, business is *never* as usual. Thousands of aspects of business are undergoing gradual change, some more rapidly than others. The process never stops. Most of these changes have increased productivity, allowing us a high standard of living. Things really have been getting better and better in countless ways, some of those ways permitting you to glean every little problem you can find from a wealth of material never before available to anyone, and then moan about them all on a public forum impossible not long ago. Just think -- all this progress has substantially increased your bellyaching productivity as well!

[I can envision more hybrid vehicles, less driving, higher density population centers, many lifestyle changes happening slowly.

Hmmm. Sort of like the "paperless office?"]

No, more like the networked office. Since you began bitching about how awful the future will be, you've seen the demise of the drafting board, the rise of networking, the development of voice mail systems, the advent of data mining, large reductions in inefficiency, redundency, and errors. Oh, the pain! Or are you still postponing the pain? I imagine you are dismayed that businesses tend to selectively adopt improvements, while selectively rejecting problems and roadblocks. And the result is NOT business as usual, it's always business BETTER than was usual yesterday.

But I guess actual, empirical improvement doesn't count nearly as much as speculative, potential *future* catastrophe and discomfort, right? Well, keep your fingers crossed.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 25, 2000.


celiathaxter@yahoo.com), April 25, 2000.

Envision This

-- Celia Thaxter (celiathaxter@yahoo.com), April 25, 2000.

Thanks, Celia. You've just given me my 10-lb worry: "10 extra pounds won't fit into that red outfit." [Is the hat required?]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 25, 2000.

Hallyx:

Certain parties, more keenly aware of details and dimension of the "oil peak" than I or anyone here, are discussing the details on an eGroups list.

Very interesting statement which I am sure that you can, and will, document. Of course you are referring to whom? eGroups? I know that I always go there for my reliable data.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 25, 2000.


Whatever Flint. That's about what I expected from the engineer that said

"I LIKE beef and I may never even see a rain forest"

as he justified the wanton destruction of the earth's remaining ecosystems.

Idiot.

-- (@ .), April 26, 2000.


Z, Hallyx is referring to a discussion list put together a couple of months ago by Jay Hanson, originator of the dieoff.com site and a firm believer in the Hubbert Curve as devised by oil engineer King Hubbert in the 1950s -- he accurately predicted the peak and decline of US oil production almost twenty years beforehand -- and refined for world oil supplies by Campbell et al in the 1990s. See Scientific American, March 98.

The list is an active discussion area heavily moderated by Hanson to avoid flame wars, chitchat and irrelevancies. (Nor does he suffer fools, either gladly or at all.) Among the most active participants are experts such as Jean Leherrere (sp?) who has a major article in the current issue of Oil and Gas Journal, as well as Howard Odum, of eMergy fame, Clyde Spencer, and Australian Brian J Fleay, who just yesterday posted one of the most intelligent and coherent analyses of short-term oil supplies I've seen in years.

These folks are not off-the-wall conspiracy nuts, Milne wannabes, or Hamasaki lone guns into fantasy fulfullment -- they are among the best in their field, and I remain amazed that I am allowed to participate. I'm not sure Jay is accepting new members -- he noted a few days ago that the participant list was getting a little long and asked for opinions on closing it. But for whatever it's worth I can vouch that Hallyx is not pulling this stuff out of his/her hat.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), April 26, 2000.


"...it's full of stars..."

Wonders may never cease, I'm in full agreement with Our Man Flint on this one. Does this mean we're all DOOMED?

Unlike Y2K (Time for yet another Dead Horse Kicking session - it's a brand new day!) which was a seemingly 'fixed' (pun intended) event in time (unless you have read and understood Hamasaki's latest DC Weather Reports) the "OIL CRISIS" being dredged up out of the primordial ooze is a prolonged event that we can - and no doubt will - continue to debate for decades to come. (Apologies to the Decker Unit for that "Odd Mint" of a run on sentence).

Unfortunately there's a great deal more going on here than simple engineering, physics, etc...it's that little thing called enviro- politics. The likes of Gorbachev - who has never renounced Communism or it's methods of enslaving populations - and Maurice Strong - have figured out that coopting the environmental brigade will advance their own political agendas (hint: they aren't much in favor of the current system in the USA).

Flint is correct in sniffing out that strong odor of mendacity in the enviro-politicians oil complaints. Something really stinks is their entire manifesto - there's a no-so-hidden agenda.

Back to the Dead Horse: It's been stated that Y2K is the Death Knell for General Preparedness (Peggy Stewart--whoever she is?). If so, I hereby nominate our very own Decker Unit to be chief clapper of the Preparedness Death Knell Bell. Any seconds? (Take your time).

-- JustTheUsual (IrreverentLook@Morons.com), April 26, 2000.


Thank you, Cash, Here's that article by Brian Fleay to which you referred. Because of the rather long, though mostly thoughtful, posts to this thread, it's taking a long time to load. If this formats correctly, I think I'll use it to begin a Part 2 version. (Pointless, shallow quasi-political rants do nothing to help thread length, JTU.) This is a rather lengthy post, but only ostriches will find it boring. I have a few more trenchant and terse articles for the new thread. Hallyx --------------------------------------------------- (For those with little time or patience, I've pasted the "Conclusions" first ~~ H) CONCLUSIONS Only a substantial fall in the IEA's expected world oil consumption can reduce the risk of a supply shortfall later this year or early next year. Supply shortfalls are inevitable after 2000 to at least 2003 due to the lack of appropriate investment in the Persian Gulf countries. If the political obstacles to this investment are prolonged then the supply shortfalls will last longer. Predictions beyond that are speculative. Consequently the peaking of non-Persian Gulf oil production during 2000-01 will merge with the previously anticipated 2006-08 world peak into one decade long complex peaking event. War or extreme violence that damages oil wells for extended periods, as happened in Kuwait in 1991, is a constant threat hanging over the world. -------------------------------------------------- CHEAP OIL --- THE CRUNCH HAS ARRIVED!! By Brian J Fleay 25 April 2000 SUMMARY Production of cheap oil outside the Persian Gulf is peaking in 2000 through 2001. The focus of supply is therefore shifting to the Persian Gulf producers who have 60% of the world's remaining oil but only produce 30% of supply. These countries should be investing US$100 billion by 2005 to meet modest demand growth from 2001 through to 2005, a 50% capacity increase.

However, this level of investment has not commenced and is unlikely to do so until next year at the earliest for a variety of reasons, mainly political. Therefore a supply shortfall is imminent, possibly beginning later this year and with no prospect of substantial relief until around 2003 at the earliest. Australia's oil self-sufficiency is about to deteriorate rapidly with a tenfold increase in imports to 2010 from around A$1 billion last year, for "business-as-usual" demand. Business will not be "as-usual" and priorities for oil use will be necessary. First priority must be for agriculture - food production, second priority for essential land freight transport. Private urban car travel is the least justifiable use and must bear the brunt of oil's decline. Conversion of buses and diesel powered freight vehicles to natural gas should commence immediately. The Transport Depts. Travelsmart program should get top priority in the 2000-01 urban transport budget. Travelsmart is a face-to-face marketing program that aims to shift short car journey's to walking, cycling and public transport. The building of roads like the $450 million Graham Farmer Freeway based on 20 year traffic forecasts that ignore fuel supplies must cease. It is truly the Folly Freeway. THE PRICE SLUMP OF 1998-99 During 1998 falling Asian oil consumption, a mild northern hemisphere winter, supply increases by OPEC and increases in Iraq's UN oil-for-food quota led to both a slump in oil consumption growth and an expansion of production. Consequently oil prices fell to US$10 a barrel in February 1999, equalling in real terms the lowest prices ever. Fuel prices fell and OPEC countries faced severe financial crises that threatened political unrest. Oil companies everywhere had to cut back exploration and development work and shed experienced staff, further weakening their capacity to sustain existing production and to explore for oil. In many fields production costs exceeded the price of oil and wells were shut down, some in the US never to be turned on again. Development work to counter sagging output from ageing oil fields was cut back. Running fast just to stand still became running backwards!! To counter this financial disaster OPEC in March 1999 further reduced its production "quotas" and oil prices immediately began to rise. Most analysts predicted OPEC quota discipline would not hold, as in the past, saying we faced three years of low prices. However, the more perceptive analysts predicted the opposite, being well aware of the tight supply position and the spectre of production decline in the world outside the Persian Gulf. WHY WERE ANALYSTS WRONG ON OIL PRICES? Firstly, OPEC quota discipline held at around 90% through 1999. Prices rose and were over US$20 a barrel by August. Secondly, from mid-1999 Asian economies recovered more quickly than everyone expected, and with it their oil consumption. Oil was the principal fuel powering the "Asian Tigers" economic growth. A booming US economy also fuelled higher consumption and these impacts resonated around the world. Oil consumption rose by 1.6% in 1999 to 75.2 million barrels per day (Mbbls/d), gathering pace as the year progressed. By October consumption was exceeding supply, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). OECD stock draw-down reached 300 million barrels by end February, or 2 Mbbls/d, even though OPEC quota compliance fell to 75% by February. OECD stocks of crude and refined product are at critical levels and the supply system is becoming vulnerable to minor disturbances. Oil prices reached US$30 by early March (IEA 2000). Thirdly, non-Persian Gulf oil is peaking!! There is a growing consensus that oil production outside the Persian Gulf will peak in 2000 through 2001, now openly discussed in industry journals (Campbell 2000, Salameh 2000, Petroleum Gazette 1999). Therefore the focus of future supply is shifting to the Persian Gulf producers who have 60% of the world's remaining oil, but currently only provide 30% of supply. North Sea oil production will peak this year and Norway, the world's second biggest exporter after Saudi Arabia, will go into steep decline from 2001 (Skrebowski 2000). Mexico's largest oil field, offshore Cantarell, has a gigantic $1 billion nitrogen injection project being commissioned in April to re-pressurise the field to slow down decline. A continuing 12 year $9 billion investment program is needed to keep the pressure up (Petroleum Review 1999). The enforced investment cut backs of 1998-99 are now showing up as faster production declines in North America (Oil & Gas Journal 1999). Venezuelan production is falling sharply for the same reason (Skrebowski 2000). YEAR 2000 SUPPLY-DEMAND BALANCE Non-OPEC oil is peaking now at just over 45 Mbbls/d. The IEA (2000) forecasts world consumption of just under 77 Mbbls/d in 2000, an increase of 2.2% on 1999, with consumption in successive four quarters of 76.8, 75.3, 76.7 and 78.9 Mbbls/d respectively. That means OPEC producers, plus stock changes, have to supply an average of 32 Mbbls/d for the year and 33 Mbbls/d in the fourth quarter! Their output in 4Q 1999 was 29 Mbbls/d. But OPEC production to June this year is likely to be about 30.2 Mbbls/d so that 3Q and 4Q production must average 35 Mbbls/d, including about one Mbbls/d to rebuild crude and product stocks to meet northern winter demand! The March OPEC quota increase with 100% compliance lifts production to about 32 Mbbls/d, only 0.5 Mbbls/d above February levels (IEA 2000). Can OPEC produce these quantities which must come almost entirely from the Persian Gulf? The IEA (2000) thinks that sustained OPEC capacity could be 35 Mbbls/d whereas a UK research team, Salomon Smith Barney, think 33 Mbbls/d is a more realistic short term figure with half of the unused capacity in Saudi Arabia. They base their lower estimates partly on the reduced development activity from 1998 arising from low prices, as discussed above. Saudi Arabia has increased new wells drilled each year from around 70 ten years ago to 320 in 1998, suggesting a need to invest heavily in infill drilling just to maintain capacity. The world's largest oil field, Ghawar (100 billion barrels on discovery or 5% of the world's oil) is experiencing increasing problems with water intrusion. Iran is having difficulty maintaining production in ageing oil fields and Iraqi production is fragile and subject to the political leverage exercised by Saddam Hussein (Skrebowski 2000). Both Iran and Iraq need heavy investment to repair war damaged infrastructure and overcome a backlog of field re-development work, currently blocked by US/UN sanctions. No one will know the current sustainable production capacity of the Persian Gulf producers until it is actually put to the test. The IEA states in its April Market Report that by the end of 2000, " .supply will be insufficient unless substantial crude oil production is forthcoming .but will be increasingly vulnerable to unplanned refinery outages". Skrebowski says, "There are of course too many variables for capacity calculations to be done with great confidence .however .the international oil industry is dangerously short of immediate capacity and there is very little margin for error if current firm prices and tight supply are not to tip over into a supply crisis". We can expect oil prices to begin rising again after the June OPEC meeting to review quotas and as the 2Q annual low demand period recedes, possibly exceeding prices reached earlier this year. POST 2000 SUPPLY SHORTFALL Leading oil supply analysts like Campbell (1997) and Campbell & Laherrere (1998) have for many years predicted that non-Persian Gulf oil would peak around 2000 and Persian Gulf production about 2011-13, preceded by the world peak between 2006-08. The peaking of the former is no longer in dispute. These predictions have always assumed that the needed investment in Persian Gulf exploration and oil field development would occur in time on the scale required. What is the true position? Ismail (1994) discussed the prospects for the Persian Gulf producers to meet anticipated production to 2005. He said investment, updated to current prices, would require about US$8,000 for each barrel per day of new capacity. Iraq has the lowest development costs. The status of these oil fields and the levels of investment in recent years is uncertain. Iraq and Iran need to restore oil infrastructure damaged in the 1980's Iran-Iraq War and the 1991 Gulf War. UN sanctions on Iraq have also taken their toll on maintenance and ongoing development work. But to meet modest consumption growth to 2005 (1.5% per year) and compensate for decline elsewhere some 11.5 Mbbls/d of new Persian Gulf capacity is needed requiring investment of around US$100 billion. That's a 50% increase in capacity!! The bulk of this work is required to sustain production from ageing oil fields where there is now a substantial backlog of work. This scale of investment should be well underway NOW, but has yet to commence. Once the barriers to investment are removed it will take two to four years for this to translate into new oil production. So it will be 2003-05 at the earliest before world oil production beyond 2000 maximum levels is possible!! The scale of investment required is now beyond the internal financial and technical resources of these countries. This may not have been the case if sustained investment had begun five years ago. BARRIERS TO PERSIAN GULF OIL INVESTMENT What are the main obstacles to Persian Gulf oil investment? Firstly, there is insufficient awareness in Persian Gulf countries of the realities of oil depletion in the rest of the world which together with inconsistencies in the statistics for production and reserves and their interpretation, creates a false optimism and lack of awareness of how tight supply is becoming (Campbell 2000). Secondly, low oil prices since 1985 have inhibited investment as has the large excess of supply over consumption since the early 1980's, mostly in the Persian Gulf. Rapidly growing populations and low oil prices have substantially reduced these countries per capita export income and who now have to import food on a substantial scale. After welfare for the elite as well as the masses plus high military outlays, little has been left in budgets for oil investment. Thirdly, are the political constraints. US inspired sanctions, in effect, prohibit external petroleum investment in Iraq and Iran. These are unlikely to be lifted until after US elections and what happens then depends on who is President and the composition of Congress. However, there are signs of change. US Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, has apologised to Iran for its role in deposing Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1954 and for subsequent support of the Shah of Iran (West Australian 2000). Also the scale and speed of outside investment and technical support needed is an extremely sensitive internal political issue for the countries concerned. Their is considerable criticism of the extravagances of the ruling elites compounded by a generation change. Iran's population is over 6o million people and half are under the age of 25. Fourthly, it is not in the long term interests of these countries to blow their oil and gas quickly, but rather to ration it out at high prices, but not at a level that damages the world economy or provokes oil substitution. Unreliable statistics and the volatility of oil prices with small changes in the supply/demand balance aggravates the tricky balancing act required. The fear of creating excess production capacity and a fall in oil prices as happened in 1998 strongly influences these countries responses. The June and September meetings of OPEC oil ministers to re-assess production quotas will be critical as will the outcome of the US elections. Iraq is the wild card with the greatest freedom of action and re-negotiation of the UN's oil-for-food agreement with Iraq is due around May and November. AUSTRALIAN SELF-SUFFICIENCY FACES SHARP DECLINE Australia's oil self -sufficiency is expected to deteriorate rapidly. The figure below shows the Australian Geological Survey Organisation's 1998 most likely estimates of condensate and oil production to 2010 together with oil industry estimates of consumption plus likely net annual imports in both barrels and dollars. Petroleum imports were approximately A$1 billion in 1999 and could reach A$10 billion by 2010 at early March oil prices and exchange rate for business-as-usual consumption. The annual trade deficit is under A$10 billion at present. Business will not be "as usual". THE FOLLY FREEWAY The 7.5 km $450 million Graham Farmer Freeway is the crown jewel in the multi-billion dollar Transform WA road program. It is the State's biggest ever public work. Another $70 is being spent on amplifying the Mitchell Freeway and a further $380 million extending and enlarging the Kwinana Freeway from the Narrows Bridge to Safety Bay road. Transform WA is based on 20 year traffic forecasts that ignore the availability and cost of fuel for vehicles. It is like Western Power building power stations and ignoring the need for fuel to run them. Perth would be much better able to cope with oil depletion if this investment had been directed at reducing car dependence in favour of walking, cycling and public transport, to integrate land use and transport planning. Oil Supply Priorities  First priority must be for agriculture and to combat salinity in the wheatbelt. Food production cannot be compromised.  Second priority for essential freight transport and services.  Last priority to private urban car travel. There are substantial advantages to reducing urban car dependence in its own right, as has been demonstrated by Prof. Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy at Murdoch University's institute of Sustainability and Technology Policy. Immediate Action for 2000/01  Give top funding priority to Travelsmart, the Transport Dept's. marketing program for inner and middle suburbs that aims to shift people from their cars to walking, cycling and public transport for short journeys under 5 km.  Plan extension of Travelsmart to include the outer suburbs and expand its scope.  Start conversion of buses from diesel to gas.  Develop priority programs for conversion of diesel freight vehicles to gas.  Suspend new major road works pending review.  Initiate strategies to end the "carting of coal to Newcastle".  Review the priorities for Australian natural gas use with a focus on long term transport and agricultural uses.  Initiate social adjustment strategies to cope with the decline of cheap oil.  Commence a major review of the Metropolitan Region Plan to reduce car dependence, to integrate land use and transport planning and end fringe urban development.  Initiate public evaluation of feasible alternative transport fuels. Transport Funding The Commonwealth provides the bulk of road funding. The following urgent changes are necessary.  The Commonwealth should provide funds for multi-modal transport, not road funds.  The Commonwealth should not allocate such funds to projects, but rather on the condition that their exists at State level a transparent, community and stakeholder based open process to evaluate multi-modal solutions to transport problems.  The State's to put in place stakeholder based processes that encompass environmental, economic, social, fuel and land use planning issues addressing both direct and indirect impacts of proposed transport projects.  Road agencies should become primarily road construction and maintenance agencies without direct access to Ministers' on transport planning matters. These are some of the immediate reforms needed to prepare for the era "beyond oil". CONCLUSIONS Only a substantial fall in the IEA's expected world oil consumption can reduce the risk of a supply shortfall later this year or early next year. Supply shortfalls are inevitable after 2000 to at least 2003 due to the lack of appropriate investment in the Persian Gulf countries. If the political obstacles to this investment are prolonged then the supply shortfalls will last longer. Predictions beyond that are speculative. Consequently the peaking of non-Persian Gulf oil production during 2000-01 will merge with the previously anticipated 2006-08 world peak into one decade long complex peaking event. War or extreme violence that damages oil wells for extended periods, as happened in Kuwait in 1991, is a constant threat hanging over the world. Australia faces an immediate and growing shortage of crude oil and condensate and a blow out in the balance of payments through escalating oil imports. Priorities for oil consumption will be required. First priority must be for agriculture - food production, second priority for essential land freight transport. Private urban car travel is the least justifiable use and must bear the brunt of oil's decline. Conversion of buses and diesel powered freight vehicles to natural gas should commence immediately. The Transport Depts. Travelsmart program should get top priority in the 2000-01 urban transport budget. Travelsmart is a face-to-face marketing program that aims to shift short car journey's to walking, cycling and public transport. The building of roads like the $450 million Graham Farmer Freeway based on 20 year traffic forecasts that ignore fuel supplies must cease. It is truly the Folly Freeway. REFERENCES Campbell, C.J., 1997. The Coming Oil Crisis, Multi-Science Publishing Coy, UK; Petroconsultants, Geneva. Campbell, C.J. 2000. The Myth of Spare Capacity, Oil & Gas Journal, 20 March. Campbell, C.J. and Laherrere, J.H. 1998. The End of Cheap Oil, Scientific American, March. IEA, International Energy Agency, 2000. Monthly Oil Market Reports, www. iea.org, January, February, March. Ismail, I.A.H. 1994. Capital Limitations, Environmental Movements May Interfere With Expansion Plans , Oil & Gas Journal p. 33, 9 May. Petroleum Gazette 1999. Oil and Gas - The Long View, Australian Institute of Petroleum, No. 4 1999. Petroleum Review, 1999. Mexico Pins Hope on Cantarell Project, p. 12, November, London. Petroleum Review, 2000. North Sea Oil Topping Out, p. 31, February, London. Salameh, M.G. 2000. Can the Oil Price remain High?, Petroleum Review, p. 42 April. Skrebowski, C 2000. How Much Can OPEC Actually Produce?, Petroleum Review, p. 16 April. West Australian, 2000. Iran Demands US Recompense, p. 22, 20 March. The following web sites have useful information:-  wwwistp.murdoch.edu.au - Climaxing Oil: How Will Transport Adapt? by Brian J Fleay.  www.iea.org - International Energy Agency monthly Oil and Gas Market Reports.  www.hubbertpeak.com/ - A US website with information on oil depletion issues.  www.hubbert.mines.edu - Hubbert Center Newsletter, Colorado School of Mines, USA.  www.travelsmart.transport.wa.gov.au

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 26, 2000.


WTF?

Well, I certainly didn't intend for that to happen. Fucking HTML.

I hate computers.

I've spent enough time on this point. All I was trying to do was spread the word for those who'd like to know what's going on in one of the more important areas of our lives.

Y'know, it just ain't worth it. Most of these redneck flaming fundies would rather talk about Elian, abortion, guns, gold and other irrelevancies. There are, at most, a dozen people around here with the wit and wisdom to even identify those problems worthy of long-term (or even medium-term) concern. I no longerhave the time. Que te via bien.

Hallyx

"No tribe do I know, nor brother have with whom I would hunt back to back. Of my poverty, that is the true measure." ---Steve Morningthunder

"We wait, breathlessly, for a Deus ex Machina, realizing only to late that our intelligence is a sword made of feathers and our faith but a gossamer shield for our vanity."

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 26, 2000.


Don't go off in a huff, Hal,

I appreciate the posts. My time is pretty limited and I don't think I'd come across them any other way.

Can I throw an OT subject your way? One of my friend's jokes about some aquaintances who are local heavy hitters as far as conservation issues go. She remarks that they personally use more fossil fuels than most 3rd world countries {& she's no slouch herself!}

Any comments?

-- flora (***@__._), April 26, 2000.


Hi Flora,

I'm glad I checked back here. You've always been a special friend. (I'm not going off in a huff, just tired, frustrated and in more than a little back pain.)

I get a big kick out of the "brownlashers" who think that enviros should pedal their bicycles cross-country to an event, forgetting that they're in the same auto-trap as anyone else (that's transport in general).

In direct answer to your question, check out Bill McKibben's article from Atlantic Monthly a couple of years ago.

As for attitudes: Some poll somewhere said that 83% of Americans are environmentally aware or consider themselve environmentalists. I guess that doesn't apply to readers of the Time Magazine Earthday issue, the results of which I've excerpted below.

The articles are expectedly naive and (ahem) uplifting. But the appalling aspect is the yes/no/dunno polls that accompany each article. I wish I had counted the number of responses per question; they ranged from 11 to 138, mostly ><25.

93% Would not pay more for housing in order to reduce urban sprawl.

93% Would not install low-flow showerheads and toilets reduce consumption.

92% Would not give up driving their SUV to help prevent global warming.

81% Would cut down forests to create more agricultural land to feed more people.

60% Would stop eating endangered seafood species to help marine biodiversity.

80% Would limit the catch of fishstock even if prices rise.

87% Would invest in a clean energy company rather than biotech.

50% The environment is the most important political issue.

63% Would vote to not build a dam that would endanger native fish species.

56% Would link population control to economic help for third-world nations.

59% The Internet will not undo the damage of the industrial revolution.

70% Would rather use nature as a resource than adapt their life and economic development.

And, after those frightening and depressing opinions, here's the kicker:

83% Think we will cause our own extinction because we did not listen to Mother Nature's cries.

I need to get away from this computer and thinking about this stuff in general. Spring is here, the sun is out, my boysenberries are beginning to blossom. I sure hope I get more bees than last year.

Thanks for your concern, dear friend.

Hallyx

"A friend is someone who knows the song in your heart and sings it back to you when you can't remember it." ---Angeles Arrien

-- (Hallyx@aol.com), April 26, 2000.


Thanks for the references!

I used to love the Atlantic Monthly, the time for reading it regularly has passed for me awhile ago { I hope it returns again someday}.

Bees love borage plants, have you seen them at Essalen beside the tomatoes? My favorite view near there is the running fence of sunflowers that slips towards the sea.

-- flora (***@__._), April 26, 2000.


Paging cpr---more bunk to debunk.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), April 26, 2000.

Hope is the thing with feathers

-- (emilydickinson@amherst.MA), April 26, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ