Nina Jankovic
Peak-Oil Skeptics: Is peak-oil theory truly a conspiracy, encouraged by radical environmentalists? & why are there such discrepancies in the information we receive?
In the article from the Economist, major arguments for peak-oil happening within the next decade were opposed. The perspective of this article was not entirely on the other end of the spectrum- the author does not say that oil will never peak, and is not a finite resource. However, the article claims that oil will not peak for decades to come (information based on the projections of unidentified experts and “oilmen”.) The main point of the article is that, since there is enough time before world oil peaks- more than 30 year- investment in alternative energy sources will greatly increase, creating an easy transition. “…experts say a decline would probably be gentler and prolonged.” Firstly, because price signals would foreshadow any sort “peak”, and secondly when this happens it will encourage efficiency, the practice of latest technologies for new discoveries and it will promote investment in alternatives to conventional oil, as fuel. Essentially, we should have hope that the transition to alternative energy sources will be smooth and take on fate that the global oil industry is making the needed changes in its industry. In addition, the term peak-oil does not accurately describe this optimistic perspective. Jackson points out that the metaphor of peak, as it might be envisioned to be an abrupt mountain crest; he suggests that “The right picture is of an undulating plateau.” The information presented is clearly different from previous sources in numbers; the Economist claims that 3 trillion barrels of oil was the original existing amount in the world before extraction and refinement, and that we have used 1 trillion. However previous readings (from private geologists) say that in fact 2 trillion are gone. Also, this article doe not seem to believe that the “Global discovery of oil peaked in the 1960s” as Heinberg and many others claim. Rather that there will be and currently are technological breakthroughs in detection that simply need to be put in to practice around the world. “…as global warming melts the polar ice cap, will perversely become the next great prize in oil.” This excerpt simply shows the optimists oblivion to the destruction of our environment, as where the pessimist even jokes about whether peak-oil or global warming will be the down fall of civilization.
How do we know that any information about the projections of peak-oil is accurate?
If geological methods are used for the claim, than why are the estimates so different? Therefore I think that the best use of our psychic abilities is to analyze what each side stands to gain. What is the agenda driving the apocalyptic calculation versus the optimistic?
It seems to be in the interest of the Economist and its sources of information such as the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to say that the peak will not happen for decades and that by that time it will not be a peak at all but a smooth transition. The Economist is a journal about the US economy, and it uses sources funded most by the US government. Since this economy is based in the production and demand of oil, and capitalism is based on the growth of the economy, consequently it is in the best interest of the US as a society to say that oil demand and production will increase for decades to come. Therefore keep investing, profits will keep on rising. They cannot officially deny the accepted fact that oil is a finite resource, a smooth transition to other energy sources is the best presentation of the problem possible. With a smooth transition the economy will remain stable and because this will be happening for years before the peak, and publicly, investors will have time to reinvest their certain wealth gained as oil becomes an ever more precious resource. The Capitalist must believe that the economy is and will keep on thriving.
The various projected dates given by the pessimists and the optimists are all in question. However why did it take the optimists fifteen years to start taking about the issue? All of the alleged steps that the oilmen claim will be taken to ensure a stable economy and society when oil peaks, why were they already not taken; especially since experts like geophysicist Dr. Hubbert have been talking about oil-peaks for about half a century?
Both the Economist and clearly Exxon still do not acknowledge the possibility (in fact inevitable experience) of a radically different way of life. Many experts such as Heinberg and Jensen argue that the core issue is changing the way we live – from the destruction of civilization to building strong communities and sharing resources- rather than managing or replacing the world’s energy source in order to support our destructive and anti-life system.
Peak-Oil Skeptics: Is peak-oil theory truly a conspiracy, encouraged by radical environmentalists? & why are there such discrepancies in the information we receive?
In the article from the Economist, major arguments for peak-oil happening within the next decade were opposed. The perspective of this article was not entirely on the other end of the spectrum- the author does not say that oil will never peak, and is not a finite resource. However, the article claims that oil will not peak for decades to come (information based on the projections of unidentified experts and “oilmen”.) The main point of the article is that, since there is enough time before world oil peaks- more than 30 year- investment in alternative energy sources will greatly increase, creating an easy transition. “…experts say a decline would probably be gentler and prolonged.” Firstly, because price signals would foreshadow any sort “peak”, and secondly when this happens it will encourage efficiency, the practice of latest technologies for new discoveries and it will promote investment in alternatives to conventional oil, as fuel. Essentially, we should have hope that the transition to alternative energy sources will be smooth and take on fate that the global oil industry is making the needed changes in its industry. In addition, the term peak-oil does not accurately describe this optimistic perspective. Jackson points out that the metaphor of peak, as it might be envisioned to be an abrupt mountain crest; he suggests that “The right picture is of an undulating plateau.” The information presented is clearly different from previous sources in numbers; the Economist claims that 3 trillion barrels of oil was the original existing amount in the world before extraction and refinement, and that we have used 1 trillion. However previous readings (from private geologists) say that in fact 2 trillion are gone. Also, this article doe not seem to believe that the “Global discovery of oil peaked in the 1960s” as Heinberg and many others claim. Rather that there will be and currently are technological breakthroughs in detection that simply need to be put in to practice around the world. “…as global warming melts the polar ice cap, will perversely become the next great prize in oil.” This excerpt simply shows the optimists oblivion to the destruction of our environment, as where the pessimist even jokes about whether peak-oil or global warming will be the down fall of civilization.
How do we know that any information about the projections of peak-oil is accurate?
If geological methods are used for the claim, than why are the estimates so different? Therefore I think that the best use of our psychic abilities is to analyze what each side stands to gain. What is the agenda driving the apocalyptic calculation versus the optimistic?
It seems to be in the interest of the Economist and its sources of information such as the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to say that the peak will not happen for decades and that by that time it will not be a peak at all but a smooth transition. The Economist is a journal about the US economy, and it uses sources funded most by the US government. Since this economy is based in the production and demand of oil, and capitalism is based on the growth of the economy, consequently it is in the best interest of the US as a society to say that oil demand and production will increase for decades to come. Therefore keep investing, profits will keep on rising. They cannot officially deny the accepted fact that oil is a finite resource, a smooth transition to other energy sources is the best presentation of the problem possible. With a smooth transition the economy will remain stable and because this will be happening for years before the peak, and publicly, investors will have time to reinvest their certain wealth gained as oil becomes an ever more precious resource. The Capitalist must believe that the economy is and will keep on thriving.
The various projected dates given by the pessimists and the optimists are all in question. However why did it take the optimists fifteen years to start taking about the issue? All of the alleged steps that the oilmen claim will be taken to ensure a stable economy and society when oil peaks, why were they already not taken; especially since experts like geophysicist Dr. Hubbert have been talking about oil-peaks for about half a century?
Both the Economist and clearly Exxon still do not acknowledge the possibility (in fact inevitable experience) of a radically different way of life. Many experts such as Heinberg and Jensen argue that the core issue is changing the way we live – from the destruction of civilization to building strong communities and sharing resources- rather than managing or replacing the world’s energy source in order to support our destructive and anti-life system.
posted by Nina Jankovic at 23:44
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home