I can't decide if this is horribly crass or effing genius, or both:
How to get people to pay attention to peak oil 45
-
Posted 6:01 PM on 7 May 2008
by David Roberts -
Posted in
-
Read More About
David Roberts is staff writer for Grist. You can follow his Twitter feed at twitter.com/david_h_roberts.
Related Stories
Nigeria’s oil pollution is stark example of resource curse, says Amnesty International
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments View as Flat
Sean Casten Posted 11:02 am
07 May 2008
I don't know about the crass part
But I agree with you on the choreography.
Permalink
zgartz Posted 11:05 am
07 May 2008
Peak oil
Neat presentation but the itchy gal wasn't necessary. Peak oil is a fact because America is like a spoiled kid.
Better get used to some energy disipline!
ZgartZ
When you have to make a choice and don't make it, you've already made it.
Permalink
green8659 Posted 12:23 pm
07 May 2008
I can appreciate both
As a concerned consumer I find the left vary informative. As a red blooded man I find the right equally watchable. However, they warrant different moods...I'd much rather watch them separately.
Green and Environmental Website | Green Blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:16 pm
07 May 2008
Uhh separately?
That is the point. Sex sells. Sex sells the message. No one would watch it without the sex. it wouldn't have been linked here without the sex.
We wouldn't comment on it.
But despite the sex, the message was flawed. But no one will notice. Why? because of the sex.
It isn't peak oil, it is peak GHG. Renewable/conservation energy revolution will solve the problem. Plugin hybrids and electric mass transportation will work. She is wrong.
And here's the real shock. The left panel is sexier. Smart is sexier. If she was smarter on these issues the left panel would be sexy enough.
But she is wrong, and it isn't. That's why she needed the crass side.
Check out the lap dance in Quentin's "Death Proof", it's a similar problem. Shallow is no longer sexy, Britainey (and others) killed it for us. Smart women are sexy now. times have changed. Many people haven't yet, but the trend has.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
LGT Posted 2:18 pm
07 May 2008
Degrading and Trivial
The video degrades women and and trivializes an important issue.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:24 pm
07 May 2008
Use what you got
I always say.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
kmwilson3 Posted 3:24 pm
07 May 2008
Unsure
Although I am appalled by the fact that this video exists, I am still unsure as to whether I agree with their advertising technique. While watching it, I was distracted by the right side and would rather just see the right side played out by itself. On the other hand, the topic of depleting resources has been needing to gain attention for over a decade, and if this is a way to catch the eyes of the population still uninformed, I guess go for it. Shock factor and the fact that any media is good media make me think that this could actually gain some real attention.
Permalink
kmwilson3 Posted 3:26 pm
07 May 2008
To clarify
"While watching it, I was distracted by the right side and would rather just see the right side played out by itself."
Should state, "While watching it, I was distracted by the right side and would rather just see the LEFT side played out by itself"
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:53 pm
07 May 2008
Why "or"
Is that necessarily an "or" question? Grist uses an image of three people holding onto their butts to draw eyeballs, among other tricks intended to win a glance.
The 5% Project
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:54 pm
07 May 2008
Hehe
Her myspace page says "Education by any means necessary". Indeed...
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:15 pm
07 May 2008
Interesting video
I couldn't get any sound, dammit!
Did I miss anything?
(If I had been listening.)
Permalink
Pathos Posted 10:48 pm
07 May 2008
Sex in advertising, and the triple bottom line
One thing about with Dr. X is definitely right: Smarter is sexier. To add to that, more human--more likable rather than simply desirable--is also sexier. Personally, I spent a good minute being distracted by this girl's face (and her voice, which is quite beautiful) before I even started paying attention to what was happening on the right.
That said, despite all the visual distraction, I managed to catch every word of the message, and form opinions as I went all the way through--and I multitask about as well as I expect Dick Cheney does the lambada--so I think we can say this video will sell its message.
And here's a point where Dr. X and this lovely lass are both right: The best solution to both peak oil and global warming is to hawk renewables like they'll save us all by themselves, and alter our lifestyles like renewables won't do a damn thing.
LGT: Don't confuse expression with exploitation. This isn't mainstream porn--which I don't think anyone here is defending. This is a woman voluntarily using her beauty--both the very personable beauty of her face and voice, and the sex appeal of her body and movements--to further a cause in which she believes. And by the look of things, I'd guess she's rather enjoying it. Denying her that right is just as demeaning and just as harmful as objectifying her.
Take a look at how women are treated in countries where any expression of sexuality is repressed; you'll find a pretty frightening--and disturbingly consistent--trend there.
You might note, they're not very nice to L's, G's or T's in those places, either.
JMG: You make an excellent point about the Job Board ad banner (if you're referring to the image I think you are), with one small exception. The banner is not in fact three seperate people displaying their backsides, but one single, solitary backside, displayed three times.
I find myself thinking when I view the ad, it would be three times as powerful if it were three distinct pairs of buttocks--truly a "Triple Bottom Line" as it claims--rather than simply a single bottom (and a lovely bottom, it is, at that) presented in triplicate. There's no reason all three have to be female--but if they were really ambitious, why not devote one banner to each and achieve true equality?
What do people think? More nudity for more powerful advertising? The good people in Grist's advertising department need to know!
Why, yes, it is 8:30 in the morning here, and no, I haven't been to bed yet. Incidentally, why do you ask?
Permalink
johnmcc793 Posted 11:01 pm
07 May 2008
Who is the target audience?
Let me guess...guys. Was I right?
What will the right panel exhibit if the my-space cadet intends to shift the audience to meth addicts, Presbyterians, single-parent working mothers, Muslims or decent folk over fifty who drive SUVs and don't lap dance.
Grist, change your channel.
John McCormick
Permalink
mihan Posted 11:24 pm
07 May 2008
My vote
The triple bottom line ad is very different---it is stylized (monochrome, tiled), in the background, not video, and is humorous rather than tittilating.
Right?
This is no more effective than PETA's habit of getting (nearly) naked women to tell people to go vegan.
"Dick Cheney does the lambada"---thanks for the image. And by that I mean "damn you."
Permalink
LGT Posted 11:46 pm
07 May 2008
excluding women
@ John McCormick
John - you made a good point. Clearly there's a problem with quality control, unless grist has made a conscious decision to target a puerile audience instead (a quick browse through some of the comments makes that point clear).
The video degrades women (about 50 percent of the population) by excluding them from the audience, as if they don't have a say in the matter.
BTW, the video also insults intelligent men because it implies that their brains are located in their trousers!
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:33 am
08 May 2008
Nigel Tufnel's advice
What's wrong with being sexy?
Permalink
gmobus Posted 12:56 am
08 May 2008
And the word irony...
hasn't been mentioned? As William Shatner's character in 'Airplane: The Movie' said, "Irony can be pretty ironical" or something to that effect.
Left side: serious commentary on a fundamental problem.
Right side: the social milieu - not sex, the use of sex to SELL. Consumption and gratification of desires, i.e. cause of the problem we face.
Sheesh guys.
George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:02 am
08 May 2008
Yep
"...brains are located in their trousers!"
That's the vestigial penisaurus brain though. Remember the thunder lizards had that extra brain to control the tail? That's where the "little brain" comes from.
Hope springs eternal in the pants of man. I think women like this stuff too, it is more in the nature of contrast and comparison with them though.
Alteration "as if" the eco-battle is hopeless is definitely indicated Pathos! A very important point (it was worth staying up all night to pluck that one out of the aether).
It's really true, evolution or whatever... obviously favors the intellect, at least in some of our sexual psyches? Oh well. That evolutionary branch seems to be dying off lately.
My smart women friends do not believe this however, they suspect they are being conned. And that the claim that they are more attractive than their bimboed brethren are merely desperation on the part of the penisaurus brain. That's a shame. Hehehey.
They would rather date men who operate exclusively on the little brain, much easier to manipulate. A paycheck with a penis, the perfect man!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
johnmcc793 Posted 1:22 am
08 May 2008
new] Yep...where is this going
Does anyone else feel ripped off by the whole damned You Tube **serious** approach to a serious topic.
Now, we are treated to the unquestionably stupid and sexist hypothesis that goes as follows:
[They would rather date men who operate exclusively on the little brain, much easier to manipulate. A paycheck with a penis, the perfect man!]
Folks there are several ice bergs dead ahead and we are scratching around with nonsense...driven, in part, by that failed attempt to get our attention by hosting an exhibitionist to do just that.
Grist needs a dorm monitor and likely an overhaul.
John McCormick
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:52 am
08 May 2008
Sorry John
Should have put the more extreme satire on my site. Well, actually I did.
Sex is fundamental, it's a touchy subject.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:50 am
08 May 2008
I for one am insulted ...
... at the implication that mens' attention can be held by the sight of a beautiful woman!
grist.org
Permalink
LPS Posted 2:54 am
08 May 2008
I couldn't decide
if it was crass or genius, so I had to watch it again. I still can't decide...
Permalink
johnmcc793 Posted 3:25 am
08 May 2008
What degree of 'beautiful' changes the equation
David, most of us are grownups reding this thread. We know how MadAve thinks and operates.
So, your comment, if yuo really want to make a genuine point:
[ implication that mens' attention can be held by the sight of a beautiful woman!]
needs a qualifier. How about amending your comment to say:
*I for one am insulted by the implication that mens' attention can be held by the sight of a **woman!*
John McCormick
Permalink
nsehgal Posted 3:57 am
08 May 2008
Peak Oil
In several of my classes we have debated about the role of sex and delivering important information. Sex does sell, but it really does not get the whole message across. I view it as high quantity but low quality; numerous watchers tune in, but only a few actually listen/understand the issue at hand.
When I started to watch the video, I was getting annoyed with the right panel, so I put up a screen to block the right panel. After that, I was able to listen to the speaker in the left panel talk about Peak Oil. Reading through the blogging comments, I realized that most of us have a hard time multi-tasking, especially when important information is being delivered with sex related media. I personally prefer to just watch the left panel. For me, that is more interesting.
I agree with the speaker's message, but I wonder why the media has not put more emphasis on the the dire conditions. Our society is extremely depended on oil and to have a shortage in the near future should be disturbing. I know around the world there are more riots, wars, corruption, and poverty due to the oil conditions; however, I am sure that most people in the U.S. are ignorant to that. At most, they worry about gas prices and do not realize what rising gas prices really means for the national and international economy.
Permalink
tidal Posted 6:19 am
08 May 2008
oh heck, it is Grist after all...
and this thread seems as good a place as any to post this...
From New Scientist magazine site today:
Great tits enjoying the warmer weather - so far
Permalink
kmp Posted 9:13 am
08 May 2008
Thoughts
Permalink
LGT Posted 11:43 am
08 May 2008
Enough said about the delivery ...
What about the distorted message, rather the misinformation (disinformation?) it disseminates?
Based on what assumptions?
Say, sorry "Mr President," but smart species adapt and evolve. Adapt or perish because the only constant factor in the life equation is "change!"
Wow! Global war has started and I am worried about how many trips I could make to Wal-Mart this week?
Well, make up your mind, girl. Which one is it, "Peak oil" or "we are running out of oil very quickly?"
Oil comprises only about 38 percent of the world's total energy consumption. Please do more research next time, don't limit your data to postcarbon.orph and the oil drummers.
Come on, own up, Matthew (R. Simmons), I can see your fingerprints all over her.
Isn't a good time we made, bought and sold locally? Apart from "clothing" and "furniture" what other resources are you talking about, girl?
Well, what about it?
Ain't that obscene? Good time as any to localize? After all, we are the world's breadbasket!
How did you figure that one out? What assumptions did you make to arrive at that figure?
This must be the most blatant item of disinformation in the entire message. The current industrial farming [agriculture] system is unsustainable EXACTLY because of the excessive use and reliance on petroleum (not due to the lack of petroleum, as she incorrectly/deceptively states).
If the shortage of food were to prove the undoing of 4 billion ("billion") of the world population, it would be as a result of loss of topsoil, erosion of agricultural land and water scarcity (drought). Four billion ("billion") people would not die as a result of expensive petroleum products!
Have posted this link before, but it's definitely worth another look!
http://edro.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/topsoil/
and a more recent one:
http://edro.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/can-humans-enter-the ...
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 2:23 pm
08 May 2008
Peak Oil
Not only doth methink that LGT protests too much, he obviously got distracted from the message by the medium (apologies to Marshall MacLuhan and to Wm. Shakespeare also) and was reduced to making points that were essentially pointless in his efforts to demolish the accuracy of the video's words.
His weak attempts at irony (?) can be illustrated by two simple examples. He pretends not to understand the concept of 'Peak Oil' as if it were some kind of airy fairy tale, and he dismisses the author's concern about the current (and growing) shortage of food out of hand as if it were not even relevant to the discussion.
Anyone can turn his back to the truth, but then reality will always get you in the end.
Des Emery
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 2:27 pm
08 May 2008
Reality
I mentioned above that I had no sound with the video, but that I found it interesting. If it was trying to convey that peak oil is a very serious issue, more so than the hype on AGW, then I agree. Furthermore if the gross exaggerration of Hansen and Gore etc is considered necessary "to get the message across" on AGW, then why not peak oil?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are some sickening numbers concerning oil consumed around the World, which hopefully will put things into a more rational perspective:
USA: 20,730,000 bbl/day (~25% of the world usage) (0.068 per capita)
China: 6,534,000 bbl/day
India: 2,450,000 bbl/day
The World: 82,234,918 bbl/day
Ref: Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day (0,032 per capita...less than half of the USA)
Ref: UK: 1,827,000 bbl/day (0.030 per capita; less still)
Re:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil- ... ...
Population Clocks
U.S. 303,917,023 (~4.6% of the World)....(~12.5% of India + China)
World 6,663,106,867
06:29 GMT (EST+5) Apr 23, 2008
Other sources: Population of India and China: ~ 2,450,000
Germany ~82.5 million (2004), projected 80.3 million by 2015.
UK 60,943,912 (July 2008 CIA est.)
Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the possibility that oil-in-ground may not be able to keep-up with increasing World demand. Furthermore, that aircraft carriers and cruise missiles will not be able to ensure a "fair share" of it for them! (And, that some peoples in this shared World, whom "own" it, do NOT LIKE such attitudes)
Let us imagine a future when Americans suddenly awake to the fact that other developed nations of high "life quality" use roughly half the amount of oil per capita! Will they ask why?
Whatever, there currently seems to be an urgent need to develop bio-fuels, despite some negative aspects that may be attached to them.
Try to imagine how American life-style would be affected if auto fuel became as scarce as hen's teeth!
Oh yes, that's right; plug-in electrical cars. Just dig-up more coal to make the electricity to power them, and put-in a bit of infrastructure here and there, whilst trying to catch-up on other crumbling infrastructure like concrete bridges etc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, I'm not being USA-centric, because when the USA economy sneezes, the WORLD gets a cold!
I've posted this around the place variously since April 23......The response has been NIL!
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 2:34 pm
08 May 2008
Our posts crossed
High Des Emery,
I agree with your outrage at the LGT Gobble Gobble.
It was LGT that provoked me to make my "Reality" post
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:34 pm
08 May 2008
yeah KMP
You got that too, she really wasn't offering much hope at all. There she was wrong.
I knew women would watch it too, see you guys. Thanks for 'splainin' that KMP.
Women don't have the homophobia as bad as men, so can admit the woman is sexy.
But isn't that right? Were she actually right about the big picture, offering some hope, her general intellectual zest would make her sexier than the dancer? Brilliant is sexy.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 4:56 pm
08 May 2008
Yebbut
What about the numbers?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:18 pm
08 May 2008
"I for one am insulted ... "
that so excellent a writer as DR gave us the possessive plural form "mens'," without the least suggestion of irony ...
Poor lad: next time he is in a public place, and needs to pee, will he be befuddled by a bathroom sign saying "men's room"?
Anyway, as a grown-up human being who am neither female nor a straight male, I am in the uncomfortable position of being able to react to this video with minimal emotion, and total objectivity, on the one hand; but on the other, for the very same reason, totally missing the video's point.
Very coldly and objectively, therefore, with no appreciation whatsoever of what the video is really about ("really about," hint-hint), I should make these observations:
- Her ankles were scrunchy.
- Was it the same woman on both sides? I think they were/are; or better, she is indeed one and the same. But the lecturer on the left has bangs, while the wiggler on the right has locks that are long and sweeping.
- The lecture is rather technical and wordy, especially towards the end, and would be hard to follow even without a(n allegedly) gonad-gripping distraction.
In sum, I came away from this video not understanding much more about peak oil than before (which is not all that much, as you can easily believe), but thinking instead that the video-maker's unpleasant agenda were twofold:- We must realize that once men start thinking about sex, they can think seriously about nothing else; and
- Since men are so easily distracted by thoughts of sex, the rest of us are fools to entrust them with any decision-making power whatsoever.
Being a man, though not an other-sex-oriented one, I sadly but dutifully acknowledge that sexual attraction can at times sway what might otherwise hopefully have been good and fair judgment. Nevertheless, it is certainly not true that we are hopelessly sex-crazed.So, although I love cynicism, and indulge in it all the time, in this case the cynicism is a bit too strong, even if the fundamental observation works well enough.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:43 pm
08 May 2008
Yes, a "gay" perspective was inevitable
Fair enough!
Nevertheless testosterone driven males can find the video interesting, even without the sound. Also, KMP a straight woman above implied she was a bit turned-on.
But so what, the video will generate a wide variety of views, especially in the extreme by those caught masterbating in youth by their mommy or other authority.
But what about the numbers
See:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/7/17111/15550#com ...
Permalink
LGT Posted 5:56 pm
08 May 2008
Another Drummer?
@ Black Wallaby
Peak Oil is a serious issue, after peak water and peak topsoil and the climatic tipping point.
As of 2007 more than 500 weather-related disasters are affecting more than 250 million people each year.
http://msrb.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/500-weather-related- ...
So instead of "Gobble Gobble"-ing as you put it, lets see your date for the number of people who were killed or displaced in 2007 as a result of Peak Oil.
Nargis Death Toll May Top 100,000
http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/05/09/nargis-asias-2nd-mos ...
Permalink
LGT Posted 6:04 pm
08 May 2008
Erratum
@ Black W...
Correction (mine): So instead of "Gobble Gobble"-ing as you put it, lets see your data for the
Correction (yours)
I wish! Try 2,450,000,000 instead
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:14 pm
08 May 2008
"inevitable"?; "'gay'"?
BlaWall,
FYI, I am honestly and truly gay, and there is no need to put quotation marks about that characterization of my perspective.
Moreover, I certainly do not claim to speak for other members of the LGBT community who may read Gristmill. (From what I can tell, I am the only one, actually.)
Moreover, so far as that goes, there is absolutely nothing "inevitable" about my comments, or the comments of any other gay person (should one exist in the Gristmill community). (Believe it or not, we do not speak all with one voice.) If I offered those comments to you free of charge, you should be grateful. You most certainly did not have them coming.
"But so what": Right, other people's opinions matter not a jot to you, do they. In that case, you marginalize yourself, you know.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
LGT Posted 7:31 pm
08 May 2008
Rage, rage against the Peak Oil.
Des Emery
Do not go gentle into that depletion,
Old age should burn and rave at Peak Oil;
Rage, rage against the dying of the oil.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that Peak Oil.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green energy,
Rage, rage against the peak oil.
Wild men who caught and sang the solar energy in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that Peak Oil.
Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the oil.
And you, Des Emery, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that Peak Oil,
Rage, rage against the dying of the oil.
With apologies to Dylan T.
Please also see the reply I gave Black W.
Ps. My initials, LGT, stand for Lisa T. Greene so "she" if you must discriminate.
Permalink
VeganCountyFan Posted 12:28 am
09 May 2008
what about the numbers
"UK 60,943,912 (July 2008 CIA est.) "
Hysterical! An estimate? Why did they not just ask? And why does the CIA need to know how many people there might be in the UK in July? Do they know something we don't? Should I go on holiday in July?
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 8:52 am
09 May 2008
Sensitivities
Hi Caniscandia,
I'm sorry if what I wrote in part was insulting to you; that was not the intent, and I add emphasis to the final words:
"Yes, a "gay" perspective was inevitable
Fair enough!"
BTW, when you said of "The Wiggler" (dancer?) that she had "scrunchy ankles*, I take it that that was an attempt at satire rather than an overt insult
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 9:01 am
09 May 2008
Peak Oil
LGT, Thanks for pointing out that the populations of India and China are measured in billions, not millions.
What is interesting is that you appear to have been the only person to spot the mistake. This post has been hanging around since 23 April on at least four threads/sites....maybe five from memory.
I'm puzzled why it seems that people are not interested in these applling numbers.
Your other comments are much more complicated, and I may comment tomorrow.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:07 pm
09 May 2008
What about the numbers?
Oil Consumption, partly revised 10, May 2008:
USA: 20,730,000 bbl/day (~25% of the world usage) (0.068 per capita)
China: 6,534,000 bbl/day
India: 2,450,000 bbl/day
The World: 82,234,918 bbl/day
Ref: Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day (0,032 per capita...less than half of the USA)
Ref: UK: 1,827,000 bbl/day (0.030 per capita; less still)
Re:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil- ... ... ...
Population Clocks
U.S. 303,917,023 (~4.6% of the World)....(~12.5% of India + China)
World 6,663,106,867
06:29 GMT (EST+5) Apr 23, 2008
Other sources: Population of India and China: ~ 2,450,000,000 (corrected 10 May)
Germany ~82.5 million (2004), projected 80.3 million by 2015.
UK 60,943,912 (July 2008 CIA est.)
Anyone interested?
Permalink
greenfire8 Posted 11:47 am
10 May 2008
couldnt make it 10 seconds
I'm sorry, I couldnt even listen to what she had to say. She's fine no doubt and I'm definitely a red-blooded american man, but that was just ridiculous. Anyone who thinks this kind of vanity is going to bring about a more sustainable population needs to spend a little less time in the bathroom and a little more considering places like Las Vegas.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 11:09 pm
11 May 2008
Tidal - more details
Not to quibble, but it's worth noting that:
(From E&E) : )
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:00 pm
16 May 2008
But what about the numbers?
Repeat from 10 may 2008
Oil Consumption, partly revised 10, May 2008:
USA: 20,730,000 bbl/day (~25% of the world usage) (0.068 per capita)
China: 6,534,000 bbl/day
India: 2,450,000 bbl/day
The World: 82,234,918 bbl/day
Ref: Germany: 2,650,000 bbl/day (0,032 per capita...less than half of the USA)
Ref: UK: 1,827,000 bbl/day (0.030 per capita; less still)
Re:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil- ... ... ... ...
Population Clocks
U.S. 303,917,023 (~4.6% of the World)....(~12.5% of India + China)
World 6,663,106,867
06:29 GMT (EST+5) Apr 23, 2008
Other sources: Population of India and China: ~ 2,450,000,000 (corrected 10 May)
Germany ~82.5 million (2004), projected 80.3 million by 2015.
UK 60,943,912 (July 2008 CIA est.)
Anyone interested?
Permalink