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]
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. Peter C. Glover, the author of that by now fairly-typical quote, is one of many fossil fuel industry cheerleaders who—while always quick with a snarky jab but just as often light on facts or reality—seem to think that that point alone is sufficient to put an end to the peak oil vs fossil fuels forever debate.
But here’s where the paths diverge. Whereas those who deny peak oil 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 demand being placed on finite, depleting resources, with the main source [conventional crude oil] experiencing production rates which have at the very least been on a plateau for almost a decade, and with even faster-declining rate substitutes 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.
Telling developing nations to put a hold on their plans to modernize isn’t exactly an option. Urging exporting nations to withhold more of their own resources from domestic usage which is benefiting their growing and modernizing societies in order to ensure that the international Big Boys have enough isn’t a diplomatic argument likely to gain much traction.
Doug Casey, the Chairman of the above-referenced Casey Research, offered this comment about Mr. Glover’s denial of peak oil in a similar piece Glover wrote in 2012 [links in original], and it’s one applicable to too many others sharing Mr. 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.
There’s a lot to be gained by failing to acknowledge the troublesome implications of not-so-readily-available-or-affordable fossil fuel supplies which have served as
the most essential of all ingredients in developing and growing our modern societies. Of course, those gains fall to the few at the expense of the many.
That may work for a short period of time, but it will make both the adaptation efforts and the inevitable reckoning a lot more unpleasant for everyone.
(Adapted from a 2013 blog post of mine)
Top Comments Submission Made Easy
|