When I first began blogging, the only people discussing the Peak Oil theory were fringe types, such as Michael Ruppert. The idea that the world was running out of oil neatly explained why Bush would engineer a country-by-country invasion of the Middle East: We went to war in order to place dwindling resources under U.S. control.
For obvious reasons, the administration did not want the American people to discuss a weltanschauung that would explain the Iraq adventure as a straightforward oil grab. Ann Coulter might have no problem with this, but most others would prefer that we go to war for reasons nobler than mere theft. But now that so many people (including Bill Maher, who seems to be pulling a Dennis Miller on us) have bought into the ludicrous belief that Bush invaded Iraq in order to "export democracy," Peak Oil has become a permissable, even fashionable, topic.
See, for example, this discussion in Congress. See also the SAIC report, described here. See also Julian Jackson's polemic here. I presume that you already have read Salon's report, "Running on Empty."
What are political mavericks to do, now that an "outsider" theory has gained respectability? Obviously, they have no choice but take the opposing stance. Thus, alternative writers now go out of their way to attack the Peak Oil theory; see, for example, this discussion of the abiotic theory, which denies the basic assumption that oil is produced by dead dinosaurs. Oil, according to the non-organic theory, exists at very deep levels where no fossils have ever been found.
Then there are those who do not necessarily embrace the abiotic stance, but who nevertheless argue that we have oil aplenty for centuries to come. Aficionados of this scenario offer dark hints that the Peak Oil theorists themselves have covert ties to the oil industry. Peak Oil may thus be a ruse to jack up the price -- or worse, to reap political benefits from an oil shortage.
This monograph offers what appears to be a detached, scientific rebuttal to "alarmist" Peak Oil prognostications. The author argues that the amount of retreivable oil in the earth fluctuates according to technological developments: "oil resources are under no strain, but increasing faster than consumption!"
We thus have arrayed before us three basic Theories of Oil:
1. Peak Oil. Oil originates from organic material, and we are running out of dead dinos. There is no hope. Forget solar, wind power, nuclear, hydrogen: There is NO hope.
2. Abiotic. Oil is a non-organic, endlessly renewable resource. Want some more? Just dig deeper. Go ahead. Use all you want. Plenty more where that came from.
3. Techno-Oil. Oil is organic, but there's still a lot of the stuff out there; we just need to develop new retrieval technology. There are ways to separate the shale from the dead dinosaur sauce.
These three competing notions remind me of the three characters in No Exit, exquisitely trapped in a state of perpetual tension. Proponents of each of the three scenarios presume bad faith on the part of those wedded to other ideas. Peakers believe that non-Peakers are trying to hide the real reason for the Iraq misadventure. Non-Peakers think that Peakers are aiding the oil companies in another '70s-style scam. The abiotic boys think it's all a scam to hide the truth about how common oil really is. It's oil theorist against oil theorist and all against all!
Is there a fourth theory? Being a true maverick, I'm looking for some new, hipper-than-hip, unconventional ways to look at this problem. The three scenarios outlined above are like, so five minutes ago.
2 comments:
Yeah, the forth theory, which I'm digging on pretty hard at the moment, is that Oil will peak, and that industrial civilisation as we know it will end.
But there is hope. Hope of a better, localised world, free from globalisation, mass consumerism, and excess. We may get a second chance, and hopefully learn to appreciate our enviornment a little more.
Bayard - How is the fourth theory different to the first theory ?
As for the original post - I think you're being a bit harsh on peak oil theorists - not every peak oil believer thinks dieoff.org is gospel or that FTW is an entirely believable source of news (then again, maybe Dick Cheney really did fly those planes into the WTC by remote control !).
At its simplest, peak oil theory says that one day oil production will peak and we'll have to start living with less oil.
That doesn't necessarily mean we're all doomed. Maybe we'll all become greens and just use energy a lot more efficiently.
Of course, thats not the likeliest option, which is why there is so much gloom and doom in the peak oil world. The economic and political systems in place in the US (and China) makes economic collapse and/or global scale war an entirely plausible option.
Post a Comment