Dear Reader,
Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky conclusion of a religious cult, but rather the result of diligent analysis sourced by hard data and the scientists who study global “Peak Oil” and related geo-political events.
So who are these nay-sayers who claim the sky is falling? Conspiracy fanatics? Apocalypse Bible prophesy readers? To the contrary, they are some of the most respected, highest paid geologists and experts in the world. And this is what's so scary.
The situation is so dire that even George W. Bush's Energy Adviser, Matthew Simmons, has acknowledged that "The situation is desperate. This is the world's biggest serious question."
According to Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, "America faces a major energy supply crisis over the next two decades. The failure to meet this challenge will threaten our nation's economic prosperity, compromise our national security, and literally alter the way we lead our lives."
If you are like 99% of the people reading this letter, you have never heard of the term "Peak Oil". I had not heard the term until a few months ago. Since learning about Peak Oil, I have had my world view, and basic assumptions about my own individual future turned completely upside down.
A little about myself: A few months ago, I was a 25 year old law school graduate who found out he had just passed the California Bar Exam. I was excited about a potentially long and prosperous career in the legal profession, getting married, having kids, contributing to my community, and living the "American Dream."
Peak Oil has caused me to seriously question how realistic this vision of my life is.
Whether you're 25 or 75, an attorney or an auto mechanic, what you are about to read will shake the foundations of your life.
Below you find a brief explanation of Peak Oil, the ramifications, and what we can do about it. For the sake of simplicity, I have designed the following explanation for somebody unfamiliar with Peak Oil. If you would like more in depth explanations with graphs, charts, and the like, please consult the extensive interviews, articles and sites I have linked to throughout this site.
What is "Peak Oil"?
All oil production follows a bell curve, whether in an individual field or on the planet as a whole. On the upslope of the curve production costs are significantly lower than on the downslope when extra effort (expense) is required to extract oil from reservoirs that are emptying out.
Put simply: oil is abundant and cheap on the upslope, scarce and expensive on the downslope.
For the past 150 years, we have been moving up the upslope of the global oil production curve. "Peak Oil" is the industry term for the top of the curve. It's often referred to as "Hubbert's Peak" a reference to King Hubbert, the geologist who discovered that oil production follows a bell curve.
Once we pass the peak, we will go down the very steep downslope. The further we go down the slope, the more it costs to produce oil, and its cousin, natural gas.
In practical terms, this means that if 2000 was the year of Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2020 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world's population in 2020 will be both much larger (appoximately twice as big) and much more industrialized than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace the worldwide production of oil by a significant margin.
The more demand for oil exceeds production of oil, the higher the price goes.
Ultimately, the question is not "When will we run out of oil?" but rather, "When will we run out of cheap oil?"
When will Peak Oil occur?
The most wildly optimistic estimates indicate 2020 will be the year in which worldwide oil production peaks. Generally, these estimates come from the government.
A more realistic estimate is between the year 2004-2010. Unfortunately, we won't know that we hit the peak until 3-4 years after we actually hit it. Even on the upslope of the curve, oil production varies a bit from year to year. It is possible that the year 2000 was the year of peak oil production, as production has dipped every year since.
The energy industry has quietly acknowledged the seriousness of the situation. For instance, the president of Exxon Mobil Exploration Company, Jon Thompson, recently stated:
By 2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today. In addition, the cost associated with providing this additional oil and gas is expected to be considerably more than what industry is now spending.
Equally daunting is the fact that many of the most promising prospects are far from major markets — some in regions that lack even basic infrastructure. Others are in extreme climates, such as the Arctic, that present extraordinary technical challenges.
If Mr. Thompson is that frankin an article posted on the Exxon Mobil webpage, you have to wonder what he says behind closed days when he talks about oil depletion. (note - if you read the link, read it in the context of what Matthew Simmons says - see below)
Even the Saudis are aware of the situation. They have a saying that goes, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel."
That sounds pretty bad, but if gas prices get too high, I'll just carpool or take public transportation more. What's the big deal?
Almost every current human endeavor from transportation, to manufacturing, to electricity to plastics, and especially food production is inextricably intertwined with oil and natural gas supplies.
Commercial food production is oil powered. Most pesticides are petroleum (oil) based, and all commercial fertilizers are ammonia based. Ammonia is produced from natural gas.
Oil based agriculture is primarily responsible for the world's population exploding from 1 billion at the middle of the 19th century to 6.3 billion at the turn of the 21st.
Oil allowed for farming implements such as tractors, food storage systems such as refrigerators, and food transport systems such as trucks.
As oil production went up, so did food production. As food production went up, so did the population. As the population went up, the demand for food went up, which increased the demand for oil.
Oil is also largely responsible for the advances in medicine that have been made in the last 150 years. Oil allowed for the mass production of pharmaceutical drugs, and the development of health care infrastructure such as hospitals, ambulances, roads, etc . . .
We are now at a point where the demand for food/oil continues to rise, while our ability to produce it in an affordable fashion is about to drop.
Within a few years of Peak Oil occurring, the price of food will skyrocket because of the cost of fertilizer will soar. The cost of storing (electricity) and transporting (gasoline) the food that is produced will also soar.
Oil is required for a lot more than just food, medicine, and transportation. It is also required for nearly every consumer item, water supply pumping, sewage disposal, garbage disposal, street/park maintenance, hospitals & health systems, police, fire services, and national defense.
Additionally, as you are probably already aware, wars are often fought over oil.
Thus, the aftermath of Peak Oil will extend far beyond how much you will pay for gas. Simply stated, you can expect: war, starvation, economic collapse, possibly even the extinction of Homo sapiens.
This is known as the post-oil "die-off". The term "die-off" captures perfectly the nightmare that is at our doorstep
What do you mean by "die-off"?
Exactly what it sounds like. It is estimated that the world's population will contract to 500 million during the Oil Crash. (current world population: 6 billion)
5.5 billion deaths? That is ridiculous. I could see that things might get pretty bad, but the idea that 90% of the world's population could die is ludicrous! Did you just pull that number out of your ass?
Far from it. That estimate comes from biologists who have studied what happens to every species when it exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment in one life giving aspect or another.
For instance, bacteria in a petri dish will grow exponentially until they run out of resources, at which point their population will crash. Only one generation prior to the crash, the bacteria will have used up half the resources available to them. To the bacteria, there will be no hint of a problem until they starve to death.
While comparing humans to bacteria in a petri dish is a bit uncomfortable, the similarities are numerous:
The first commercial oil well was drilled in 1859. At that time, the world's population was about 1 billion. Less than 150 years later, our population has exploded to 6.3 billion. In that time, we have used up half the world's recoverable oil. Of the half that's left, most will be very expensive to extract . If the experts are correct, we are less than one generation away from a crash. Yet to most of us, there appears to be no hint of a problem.
We need not look solely to the petri dish to predict what will happen to the planet. We can look to our own history.
Take the case of the famous Irish potato famine. For well over a century, year after steady year, the British encouraged and the Irish developed a near-total dependency upon a single dietary mainstay, the potato, and the population of the island grew from 2 million people to more than 8 million.
Then suddenly in 1845, a parasitic fungus turned the potatoes into sticky, inedible, mucous globs. Within a generation the country was devastated, more than half the population died or emigrated, and those who remained were reduced to a poverty that diminished only a century later.
In some ways, planet Earth's future is likely to be worse than Ireland's past. The severity of the potato famine was offset by the fact that many of the Irish could emigrate to the land of plenty: America. This allowed those who remained to make the most of what little resources were left.
Unlike the Irish, we have nowhere else to go. But we do have lots of WMD's to toss at each other.
Oh, by the way: you want to know what the bacteria do as their population crashes?
They eat each other.
Now I'm really laughing! Ha, ha, ha!!! You silly conspiracy theorists!!
Tin foil hat wearing freak!!!
You're right. I am a tin foil hat wearing freak.
I am a tin foil hat wearing freak who is trying to tell you essentially the same thing that Dr. David Goodstein, physics professor and vice provost of the California Institute of Technology, is trying to tell you.
George W. Bush's Energy Advisor, Matthew Simmons, is essentially saying the same thing.
Lets see what two "conspiracy theorists" like Goodstein and Simmons have to say about Peak Oil.
In his just-released book, Out of Gas: The End of Oil, Dr. Goodstein argues forcefully that the worldwide production of oil will peak soon, possibly within this decade. That will be followed by declining availability of fossil fuels that could plunge the world into global conflicts as nations struggle to capture their piece of a shrinking pie.
Worst case: After Hubbert's peak, all efforts to produce, distribute, and consume alternative fuels fast enough to fill the gap between falling supplies and rising demand fail. Runaway inflation and worldwide depression leave many billions of people with no alternative but to burn coal in vast quantities for warmth, cooking, and primitive industry. The change in the greenhouse effect that results eventually tips Earth's climate into a new state hostile to life. End of story.
In a recent interview, Matthew Simmons largely echoed Dr. Goodstein's sentiments. When asked if it was time for Peak Oil to become part of the public policy debate, Simmons responded:
It is past time. As I have said, the experts and politicians have no Plan B to fall back on. If energy peaks, particularly while 5 of the world’s 6.5 billion people have little or no use of modern energy, it will be a tremendous jolt to our economic well-being and to our heath — greater than anyone could ever imagine.
When asked if there is a solution, Simmons responded:
I don’t think there is one. The solution is to pray. Under the best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that it’s a certainty.
answered there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that it’s a certainty.Still laughing?
Maybe there is something to this whole Peak Oil thing. Still, I need to hear it from the horse's mouth before I'll take it seriously.
By some estimates, there will be an average of two percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three percent natural decline in production from existing reserves.
Cheney ended on an alarming note, "That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day."
This is equivalent to more than six Saudi Arabia's of today's size.
After we hit the peak, how are things likely to progress?
1. Rising petrol prices.
2. Increase in cost of living.
3. Increase in death due to starvation (most likely to be seen in the 3rd world first).
4. War (pre-emptive) for resource rich areas.
5. Economic collapse and further chaos (mass scale starvation affecting the globe, increasing war, and potentially cannibalism due to food shortages and all that fresh meat laying around).
6. Restablization resulting from reduced numbers of humans and conservation of remaining resources (enough to potentially last another 100 years).
If you want an in depth look at how things are likely to progress, read this when you get the chance.
So when worldwide oil production peaks, will there be mass chaos in the streets? Or will it be more like the Great Depression?
Metaphorically speaking, the aftermath of Peak Oil is more akin to falling down a mountain than driving off a cliff.
In the first few years after the peak, people will assume we are just going through a "rough patch." Good times are just around the corner, we will tell ourselves.
The rough patch, however, will continue. The blackouts will become a weekly event. Once in a while there will be some good news. Again, people will perk up, thinking to themselves, "Look what they just announced on the news. Hey just a little longer and we will back to how we were before."
But as the blackouts get more frequent, as unemployment continues to rise, and as food gets ever more scare, the populus will wake up. Of course, there are still small pockets of people in denial. Eventually, however, most everyone will accept that the "good ole days" are never coming back.
If you'd like to use history as a guide, I feel the following timeline is a reasonable approximation of what to expect in developed nations such as the United States:
1-5 years post-peak: Major recession comparable to those experienced during the artificially created oil shortages of the 1970's.
5-15 years post-peak: Recession worsens into a second Great Depression.
15-25 years post-peak: Society begins to collapse. Conditions in the United States begin to resemble those in the modern day former U.S.S.R.
25-50 years post-peak: Societal collapse worsens. Conditions in the United States begin to resemble those in modern day Iraq: electrical grid collapse, clean water shortages, super high unemployment, military police state.
50-100 years post-peak: Society begins to stabilize, albeit in a form drastically different than anything most of us have imagined.
Is it possible that we have already hit Peak Oil and are now in the first stages of the Oil Crash?
Yes. As stated above, we won't know we have hit the Peak until a few years after we hit it. Global oil production has dipped every year since 2000, so it is quite possible we've hit the peak.
Ample evidence exists that we are in the first stages of the Oil Crash. In the last year (2003), health care costs have risen 15%. Education costs have risen 20%. These are often excluded from measures of inflation because they are considered "volatile".
As of 12/03 the "adjusted" unemployment, which has been squeezed out of as much meaning as conceivably possible, still hovers in the 6% range. However, if you factor in the quality of employment, then the real numbers are closer to 12%-15%.
The rolling blackouts experienced in California during Fall 2000, the massive East Coast blackout of August, 2003 and the various other massive blackouts that occurred throughout the world during late summer of 2003, while not directly related to Peak Oil, are simply a sign of things to come.
At the Paris Peak Oil Conference in May, 2003, Princeton Professor Kenneth Deffeyes, author of Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage, explained that Peak Oil actually arrived in 2000 by noting that production has actually been declining since that time.
As further evidence of the production peak, Deffeyes noted that since 2000, there has been a 30% drop in stock values, interest rate cuts have not helped, 2.5 million have become unemployed and the employed have been unable to retire, budget surpluses have vanished, the middle class has vanished, and the World Trade Center has vanished.
What about alternatives like solar, wind, hydrogen etc?
Unfortunately, the ability of these alternatives to replace fossil fuels is based more in myth than reality.
Fossil fuels account for 65% of our current global energy supply. None of the traditional alternatives can supply anywhere near this much energy, let alone the amount we will need in the future as our population continues to grow and industrialize.
Let's briefly examine the commonly proposed oil alternatives:
(The following data has been extensively researched by Bruce Thompson, moderator of the Yahoo Group, Running on Empty)
Natural Gas:
Natural Gas currently supplies 20% of global energy supply. Gas itself will start running out from 2020 on. Demand for natural gas in North America is already outstripping supply, especially as power utilities take the remaining gas to generate electricity. Gas is not suited for existing jet aircraft, ships, vehicles, and equipment for agriculture and other products. Conversion consumes large amounts of energy as well as money. Natural gas also does not provide the huge array of chemical by-products that we depend on oil for.
Hydro-Electric:
Hydro-Electric power currently accounts for 2.3% of global energy supply, compared with the 40% provided by oil. It is unsuitable for aircrafts and the present 800 million existing vehicles.
Solar
Solar power accounts for .006% of global energy supply. Energy varies constantly with weather or day/night. Not storable or portable energy like oil or natural gas so unsuited for present vehicles and industry. Batteries bulky, expensive, wear out in 5-10 years.
A typical solar water panel array can deliver 50% to 85% of a home’s hot water though. Using some of our precious remaining crude oil as fuel for manufacturing solar equipment may be wise.
Wind
Wind power accounts for .07% of global energy supply. As with solar, energy varies greatly with weather, and is not portable or storable like oil and gas.
Wind can not supply oil derivatives such as fertilizer or plastics.
Hydrogen
Hydrogen accounts for 0.01% of global energy. Hydrogen is currently manufactured from methane gas. It takes more energy to create it than the hydrogen actually provides. It is therefore an energy “carrier” not a source. Liquid hydrogen occupies four to eleven times the bulk of equivalent gasoline or diesel. Existing vehicles and aircraft and existing distribution systems are not suited to it. Solar hydrogen might be an option in some of the hot countries.
Nuclear
Nuclear is currently being abandoned globally. Its ability to soften the oil crash is very problematic due to several factors:
1. Possibility of accidents and terrorism.
2. Cost: one reactor costs about 13 billion dollars.
3. Number of reactors needed: 1,000's
4. Not directly suited for transportation or agriculture.
5. Uranium requires energy from oil from in order to be mined.
6. All abandoned reactors are radioactive for decades or millennia.
7. Even if we were to overlook these problems, nuclear power is only a short-term solution. Uranium, too, has a Hubbert's peak, and the current known reserves can supply the earth's energy needs for only 25 years at best.
Coal
Coal accounts for 24% of current global energy supply. As a replacement for oil, it is unsuitable due to the fact that it is 50% to 200% heavier than oil per energy unit. Substituting coal for oil would require expansion of coal mining, leading to land ruin and increase in greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast to oil and gas fuels, fine-tuning the rate at which coal burns is difficult. It is therefore used in power stations to make electricity, wasting half of its energy content.
Coal mining operations run on oil fuels as do coal-mining machinery and transportation. Pollution is also a major problem. A single coal-fired station can produce a million tons of solid waste each year. Burning coal in homes pollutes air with acrid smog containing acid gases and particles. Large pollution & environmental problems: (Smog, greenhouse gases, and acid rain). Finally, liquid fuels from coal are very inefficient, and huge amounts of water required.
Non-Conventional Sources Such as Shale, Tar Sand, & Coalbed Methane
These non-conventional sources currently account for 6% of US gas supply. Each of these alternatives would require a huge investment in research and infrastructure to exploit them, plus large amounts of now-expiring oil, before they could be brought online.
For example, in Canada about 200 thousand barrels a day are being produced in Alberta of non-conventional oil, but it takes about 2 barrels of oil in energy investment to produce 3 barrels of oil equivalent from those resources. Additionally, the environmental costs are horrendous and the process uses a tremendous amount of fresh water and also natural gas, both of which are in limited supply.
The major problem with non-conventional oil is that they cannot be exploited before the oil shocks cripple attempts to bring them on line, and the rate of extraction is far too slow to meet the huge global energy demand.
You're forgetting about biomass and ethanol. We can just grow our fuel.
In an article entitled The Post Petroleum Paradigm, retired Professor of Geology at the University of Oregon, Dr. Walter Youngquist addresses the severe limitations of biomass and ethanol. The following is an excerpt from that article:
Oil derived from plants is sometimes promoted as a fuel source to replace petroleum.
The facts and experience with ethanol are an example. Ethanol is a plant-derived alcohol (usually from corn) which is used today, chiefly in the form of gasohol, a mixture of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. Because it is used to some extent,it is commonly thought that ethanol is a partially acceptable solution to the fuel problem for machines.
However, ethanol is an energy negative – it takes more energy to produce it than is obtained from ethanol.
Ethanol production is wasteful of fossil energy resources. About 71% more energy is used to produce a gallon of ethanol than the energy contained in a gallon of ethanol.
Ethanol production survives by the grace of a subsidy by the U.S. government from taxpayer dollars. Continuing the production of ethanol is purely a device for buying the Midwest U.S. farm vote, and may also be related to the fact that the company which makes 60% of U.S. ethanol is also one of the largest contributors of campaign money to the Congress – a distressing example of politics overriding logic.
I just read an article about some scientists who developed a new reactor that can turn ethanol into hydrogen. What do you have to say about that?
My response:
1. See the above question on why ethanol won't cut it.
2. See the above question on why hydrogen won't cut it.
3. Ask yourself: How long would it take for this prototype to being implemented on a wide scale? How much would that cost? Can it be used to fuel airplanes, tanks, cargo ships, large trucks, construction equipment, manufacturing plants? Can it be used to produce fertilizer or plastics?
I think you know the answers.
What about that new technology that can turn anything into oil?
"Thermal depolymerization" which can transform many kinds of waste into oil, could help us raise our energy efficiency as we lose power due to oil depletion. While it could help us ameliorate the crash, it is not a true solution.
Like all other forms of alternative energy, we have run out of time to implement it before the crash. Currently, only one thermal depolymerization plant is operational. Thousands of such plants would need to come online before this technology would make even a small difference in our situation.
Furthermore, whatever comes out of the process must carry less useful energy than what went into the process, as required by the laws of thermodynamics. Finally, most of the waste input (such as plastics and tires) requires high grade oil to make in the first place.
The biggest problem with thermal depolymerization is that it is being advertised as a means to maintain business as usual. Such advertising promotes further consumption, provides us with a dangerously false sense of security, and encourages us to continue thinking that we don't need to make this issue a priority.
There is nothing to worry about. When the price of oil gets too high, the "invisible hand" of the market and the laws of supply and demand will force us to switch to alternative sources of energy before things get out of hand.
If the previous three questions have not made it perfectly clear that no alternative sources of energy currently exist that can replace oil and gas, then perhaps this quote from Michael Ruppert will help clarify the situation for you:
For all of the Pollyanna advocates of alternative energy who assure us that there is nothing to worry about, I suggest that they go and live in the northeast today and see how warm their windmills, solar panels, biomass and hydrogen myths keep them.
Where is the infrastructure to employ even the pitiful solutions that solar, wind and biomass might provide?
Furthermore, market indicators will likely come too late for us to implement whatever alternatives we have available. Once the price of oil gets high enough that people begin to seriously consider alternatives, those alternatives will become too expensive to implement on a wide scale. Reason: Oil is required to develop, manufacture, transport and implement oil alternatives such as solar panels, biomass and windmills.
There are many examples in history where a resource shortage spurned the development of alternative resources. Oil, however, is not just any resource. In our current world, it is the precondition for all other resources, including alternative ones.
In pragmatic terms, this means that if you want your home powered by solar panels or windmills, you had better do it soon. If you don't have these alternatives in place when the lights go out, they're going to stay out.
Put simply, the "invisible hand of the market" that we've blindly trusted for so long is about to slap us back to the stone age.
So are these alternatives useless?
No, not at all. Whatever civilization emerges after the crash will likely derive a good deal of their energy from these technologies.
While traditional alternatives such as solar and wind are certainly worth investing in they are in no way the magic bullets they are so often advertised as.
The following is an excerpt from Professor Richard Heinberg's book, The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Civilizations., in which he explains why the notion that "All we have to do is switch to solar, wind., etc . . ." is delusional in its' simplicity:
Clearly, we will need to find substitutes for oil. But an analysis of the current energy alternatives is not reassuring.
The hard math of energy resource analysis yields an uncomfortable but unavoidable prospect: even if efforts are intensified now to switch to alternative energy sources, after the oil peak industrial nations will have less energy available to do useful work - including the manufacturing and transporting of goods, the growing of food, and the heating of homes.
To be sure, we should be investing in alternatives and converting our industrial infrastructure to use them. If there is any solution to industrial societies' approaching energy crises, renewables plus conservation will provide it. Yet in order to achieve a smooth transition from non-renewables to renewables, decades will be needed - and we do not have decades before the peaks in the extraction rates of oil and natural gas occur.
Moreover, even in the best case, the transition will require the massive shifting of investment from other sectors of the economy (such as the military) toward energy research and conservation. And the available alternatives will likely be unable to support the kinds of transportation, food, and dwelling infrastructure we now have; thus the transition will entail an almost complete redesign of industrial societies.
What about "new" energy. Didn't Nikola Tesla invent some machine that produced lots of energy?
There are some very promising technologies currently under development, commonly referred to as "New Energy."
The potential of New Energy is enormous. The political, academic, industrial, and enviormental activist resistance to it is equally enormous.
If we as the public started demanding this technology, it could go along way in solving our problems. My optimism regarding New Energy is guarded, not because of its' scientific limitations, but becauase I wonder if we will wake up in time to demand, develop, and implement it.
Some of these technologies were pioneered by Nikola Tesla and Dr. Wilhelm Reich. Guess what happened to them? Tesla died penniless. The government burned his books. Reich was sent to prison, where he died. The government burned his books burned as well. In fact, he is the only person to have his books burned by the Russian, German, and American governments.
If you would like to know more, I highly encourage you to look through Infinite Energy Magazine or read Dr. Eugene Mallove's article, Universal Appeal for Support for New Energy Science.
In case this type of thing is important to you: Dr. Mallove has Bachelor and Masters degrees in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering from MIT and a P.H.D. in Environmental Health Sciences from Harvard University.
I just read an article that states that known oil reserves keep growing.
That article is most likely citing the U.S. government agency such as the United States Geological Survey or the Energy Information Agency (EIA). While USGS and EIA reports on past production are largely reliable, their predictions for the future are largely propaganda.
They admit this themselves. For instance, after recently revising oil supply projections upward, the EIA stated:
These adjustments to the estimates are based on non-technical considerations that support domestic supply growth to the levels necessary to meet projected demand levels.
In other words, they predict how much they think we're going to use, and then tell us, "Guess what, nothing to worry about - that is how much we've got!"
What is the government doing to solve this problem?
It may come as no surprise to you that our leaders are doing more to exacerbate the problem then they are to solve it. Rather then developing a reasonable plan for handling the coming Oil Crash, our leaders have decided to make a last ditch grab for what little cheap oil is available by stealing it from the nations that have it. With control over the world's dwindling supplies of cheap oil, they will have the ability to choose who lives and who dies. This includes deciding which Americans will live or die.
Some of you reading this might be saying to yourself, "Gosh, that sounds like a bunch of left-wing conspiracy b.s. I'm so tired of malcontents like this guy going on and on about how evil the U.S. government is."
If so, consider the following (less conspiratorial) outlook: the structure of the U.S. government largely mirrors the structure of a publicly traded corporation. In place of a CEO, we have the president. In place of a board of directors, we have Congress. In place of an oversight committee, we have the Supreme Court. Wealthy interests such as the defense, energy, transportation, and agriculture industries are the shareholders. Average Americans are the employees.
Like every analogy, the analogy of the government as a corporation is not a perfect one. Nonetheless, the similarities are uncanny. This should come as no surprise. As President Calvin Coolidge claimed, "The business of America is business."
In the corporate world, corporate officers are legally bound to make decisions that are in the best interests of the owners of the company: the shareholders. For instance, if a CEO deems it necessary to sacrifice half of his employees for the good of the company, he is legally obligated to do so.
In this regard, if the president deems it necessary to sacrifice large numbers of American (or foreign) lives for the good of the nation, he cannot hesitate to do so.
American veterans and senior citizens know this all too well.
According to the Veterans Administration, 29% of our troops from the first Gulf War are now disabled with Gulf War Syndrome. That is the highest casualty rate of any war we have ever fought. Since the V.A.'s definition of "disabled" is a high one, the true percentage is more likely in the 35%-70% range.
The Reserve and National Guard troops that are now in Iraq have not been issued bullet proof vests.
You wonder why your grandmother can't get the medicine she needs? If she's retired, she's not contributing at the GNP. In other words, she's hurting the nation's bottom line.
In the minds of our corporate driven government, if grandma isn't making dollars, it doesn't make any sense to keep her alive.
When our leaders decide to sacrifice your life or well being for the good of the nation, just remeber,"It's nothing personal, just business."
Finally, keep in mind that these are the same people who give us a color coded chart, a roll of duct tape, and a video of a bearded, homeless guy getting a free dental exam as solutions to terrorism.
Folks, we're on our own.
Is it possible that the government is actually trying to speed up the collapse?
Yes, but not necessarily for "evil" reasons.
From the government's perspective, a fast collapse may be better than a slow one. Why? A slow crash may simply exacerbate the problems, because the population at the turning point of oil production will be even larger than it would be at an earlier date. The higher the population the higher the number of deaths that will result when the cheap oil runs out.
In the eyes of our government, a fast crash may be the "kinder, gentler" alternative.
This would certainly explain why the government gives tax breaks to S.U.V. owners at a time when they should be encouraging conservation.
Damn those S.U.V. drivers! This is all their fault. I'm so angry I could set fire to a Hummer dealership!
Not so fast Mr. Self Righteous. You think you're off the hook because you ride a bicycle instead of drive an S.U.V.?
Guess what? It took oil to manufacture and transport that bicycle. The plastic that your veggie sandwich is wrapped in also came from oil. You're simply (considerably) less guilty than the S.U.V. driver.
As far as setting fire to a Hummer dealership, that's going to require oil (gasoline) to start the fire. The firefighters who come to put it out will get there in a truck powered by oil. You will end up in a prison that was built by machines that were powered by using oil. You will be taken there in a bus powered by oil.
We've all contributed to the problem. At this point, finger pointing will do us about as much good as a circular firing squad.
Well if I can't blame the S.U.V. drivers, who should I blame? Arab terrorists? Jewish bankers? Fascist corporate warmongers? Leftist environmental wackos? Bush? Clinton? Come on, I need a scapegoat!
If you're looking for a scapegoat, I don't think you will find it by looking to the usual suspects.
If you think the political left is at fault, and favor a more conservative solution, the result will be an exacerbation of what we've seen the past few years: more war, and less rights.
If you think the political right is at fault, and favor a more "leftist" solution, the result will likely be the similar to that seen during the Russian and Cuban revolutions: more war, and less rights.
Many of George W. Bush's energy policies are likely making the situation worse. At the same time, his administration has invested far more money into the development of renewable energy than Clinton ever did.
Given the circumstances, do you think Bush could be convinced to support energy conservation measures?
In 2001, President Bush stated, "We can't conserve our way to energy independence, nor can we can conserve our way to having enough energy available. So we've got to do both"
The oil companies are so greedy that they will come up with an alternative to keep making money, right?
Expecting the oil companies to save you from the oil crash is about as wise as expecting the tobacco companies to save you from lung cancer.
As explained above, corporate officers are bound by law to do what is in the best interests of the corporation, so long as their actions are legal. Their legal obligation is to make money for the company, not to save the world.
None of the currently available alternatives have anywhere near the profit margin that oil does. Even if an oil executive wanted to "do the right thing" and pursue oil alternatives, it is illegal for her to do so if it is not in the best interests of the company.
At the Paris Peak Oil Conference, Dutch economist Maarten Van Mourik of the Netherlands Economic Institute explained that because of the financial shortcomings of all currently available forms of alternative energy, a sudden crash is the profitable solution for the oil companies.
Furthermore, according to Dr. Colin Campbell:
"The major oil companies are merging and downsizing and outsourcing and not investing in new refineries because they know full well that production is set to decline and that the exploration opportunities are getting less and less.
The companies have to sing to the stock market, and merger hides the collapse of the weaker brethren. The staff is purged on merger and the combined budget ends up much less than the sum of the previous components. Besides, a lot of the executives and bankers make a lot of money from the merger."
Expecting the oil companies, the government, or anybody else to solve this problem for us is simply suicidal. You, me, and every other "regular person" needs to be actively engaged in addressing this issue if there is to be any hope for humanity.
Look kid, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but you haven't been around long enough to know how these things work. For example, back in the 70's there was a group of experts called the "Club of Rome." They predicted that by the end of the 20th century, we would be out of oil. Here we are, and the sky isn't falling.
Too bad more people in your generation didn't take the Club of Rome seriously.
Their predictions turned out to be correct.
Says who? None other than George W's main man, Matthew Simmons, who stated in 2000, "In hindsight, The Club of Rome turned out to be right. We simply wasted 30 important years by ignoring this work."
Read it and weep, old timer. (scroll down to "Simmons")
