Peak Oil – The Lessons of Y2K
by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 08. 2.05
Our friends at WorldChanging have a great post titled: "Peak Oil and the Curse of Cassandra". If you are not familiar with the concept of "peak oil", you should first read this primer, then you really must read WorldChanging's post. Here's the general idea: As we know, not much happened on 01/01/00 despite all the apocalyptic Y2K computer-bug scenarios that flooded the media. The reason for the anti-climax is that people were so scared by all the end-of-time predictions that they actually worked very hard to fix the problem. The hysteria was actually helpful then, and it is possible, as peak oil gets more airtime, that something similar might happen in the near future. Of course, the parallel is not perfect: peak oil can't be solved quietly behind the scenes and it doesn't have a set date like Y2K (it's easier to procrastinate and live in denial). If we want to make the transition as smooth as it can be, radical and very visible changes will have to be made, but as long as people don't feel that the threat is real and are not rightfully concerned, these changes won't take place. So Kunstler & co, keep on being scary! The scarier, the better (but keep it realistic, because a caricature isn't very scary).
::Peak Oil and the Curse of Cassandra, Peak Oil Primer
"If we want to make the transition as smooth as it can be, radical and very visible changes will have to be made..."
I'm amused at the wording in this sentence, though I know that by 'smooth' the author means 'minimizing strife'... the phrase 'radical smoothness' springs to mind - if at all possible we want changes that are drastic, but not painful in the sense that riots and looting are painful.
"peak oil can't be solved quietly behind the scenes"
I have to take issue with this. Why can't it be? An example: if automakers sold Hybrids on a large scale and they were cheaper than their gas-only counter parts (through incentives on the hybrids, taxes on the gas-onlys, or both), they'd simply buy the hybrid and wouldn't ask any more questions about "batteries" and whatever else is under the hood than they do now. Most drivers just want it to work. They don't care how.
And as the infrastructure changes that would require rollouts of this sort, well those are no less 'behind the scenes' than the frantic Cobol programmers of 1999. It may just be a matter of inducing enough fear in the people who can make the needed changes happen. Why can't solar panels be offered by home makers as an option next to "type of shingles"?
Ike,
I wrote "smooth as it can be", not "smooth". I just meant it in the relative sense.
But I understand what you mean; it is true that in this case the smoothest possible will still require some radical changes.
Terry,
Well, it really depends on how inclusive your definition of "behind the scenes" is. To me, solar rooftops, focus on mass transit, hybrids, local food, electric cars, wind turbines everywhere, the end of suburbia, etc, are all very visibile things, not behind the scene ones.
So Kunstler & co, keep on being scary! The scarier, the better (but keep it realistic, because a caricature isn't very scary).
Kunstler, Heinberg, etc. have a very fine line to walk here, and I'm concerned that they may have already stepped over it.
Peak oil will lead to dramatic changes in the way we live. It will have enormous economic consequences. There is absolutely no way to maintain our current energy-intensive lifestyle in the post carbon world.
On the other hand, the notion that petroleum shortages will lead to empty store shelves and food riots, or the complete collapse of social order, is absurd.
The US only gets 40% of its energy from oil, and most of that is used for transportation, and most of that, for personal transportation. And from an energy perspective, the vast majority of it (~4/5) is wasted by our inefficient transportation infrastructure.
Long before oil scarcity would lead to a failure of basic services, the government would implement rationing and controls. There would be plenty of oil for commercial transportation and basic infrastructure.
The average American need not fear famine (at least, not from peak oil; climate change is a separate question). What they should fear is major economic dislocations, an end to their ability to hop in the car any time they want, and probably the loss of their job if they commute to work.
That scenario is scary enough, IMO. And much more credible than some of the fantasies that Heinberg, etc promote.