What a relief!
Contrary to popular belief, peak oil alarmists and Greenpeace propaganda, the world is still and will continue to be for at least a century, largely powered by oil. And not just for transport. An endless number of consumer goods depend on a steady supply of petroleum products for their manufacture. As Marin Katusa, chief energy investment strategist for Casey Research points out, ‘A country without oil simply cannot continue to expand or even be competitive on the world stage.’ [links in original]
If only we could just end the conversation there. No doubt fossil fuel industry officials and their just-offer-what-we-tell-you-to-offer spokespeople would prefer that option. If only….
Legitimate proponents of peak oil never dispute the suggestions/possibilities that economies and cultures will be powered by oil for decades to come, or of a nation’s dismal prospects without an adequate supply. It’s not exactly a news flash to realize that we’ve advanced as have over this past century and a half-plus because of both the amazing energy properties of fossil fuels and mankind’s capacity for producing from that once-bountiful supply an almost endless array of uses and adaptations.
But here’s where the paths diverge. Whereas those who deny peak oil, like the author of the above quote, seem to think that being powered by fossil fuels for decades to come is the definitive answer to the “myth” of peak oil, we here in real life [the one with facts and everything] call that statement The Problem.
On a planet with increasing demands being placed on finite resources (the kinds which are not infinite); with the main source [conventional crude oil] experiencing production rates which have at the very least been on a plateau for almost a decade if not actual decline; and with alternatives requiring more effort, cost, and energy investment to try and keep pace—among many other considerations/drawbacks—it’s not all that difficult to understand why continuing with Business as Usual is going to lead us all to some serious economic, cultural, and industrial challenges in the not-too-distant future. Not having the supply we would normally rely upon to adapt suggests a problem or two….
Doug Casey, the Chairman of the above-referenced Casey Research, offered this comment about Peter Glover’s above-quoted denial of peak oil in a similar piece Glover wrote in 2012 [links in original]. Mr. Casey’s observation is one applicable to too many others sharing Glover’s perspective:
There shouldn’t be any controversy, as the facts are clear – and there wouldn’t be any, if so many people weren’t so obstinate about misunderstanding plain English. For instance, I was just reading an article the other day, entitled Whatever Happened to Peak Oil? in which the writer comes across as if not an idiot, then at least intellectually dishonest. He does so first by his reference to an apocalyptic religious prediction, where he implies that those who credit M. King Hubbert’s Peak Oil theory are like foolish religious fanatics, as opposed to analysts of a possible geological reality, and second – and more important – by showing a complete failure to grasp the very simple essence of the Peak Oil argument.‘Nuff said.
[NOTE: I’m traveling from February 13 to February 25, so just one or two diaries during that period, and any comments/replies from me may be delayed a bit. Thanks for your interest & comments!]
(Adapted from a recent blog post of mine)