The WSJ blog reprints an incredibly dumb "You can't handle the truth!" memo from uber-peaker Robert Hirsch.
Yes, the author of the seminal 2005 study [PDF] funded by the Bush Energy Department on "Peaking of World Oil Production" has written a memo "To The Peak Oil Community," recommending that group "minimize its effort to awaken the world to the near-term dangers of world oil supply."
Well, I'm not on that distribution list, so instead of endorsing Hirsch's inanity, I'll endorse his original conclusion:
The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.
So why is a guy with such foresight now urging temporary blindness? Read his dopey memo and see if you can figure it out:
TO THE PEAK OIL COMMUNITY:
The world is in the midst of the most severe financial crisis in most of our lifetimes. The economic damage that has already been wrought is considerable, and we have yet to see the bottom or the turnaround. Against this background, I suggest that the peak oil community minimize its efforts to awaken the world to the near-term dangers of world oil supply. The motivation is simple: By minimizing our efforts in the near term, we may not add fuel to the economic fires that are already burning so fiercely.
We are all aware of how disoriented governments and business are right now. Our leaders, leaders-to-be, and best minds are disoriented and seeking pathways out of the current morass. The public is in a quiet panic mode -- those who were reasonably well off are less well of, and their options for action are limited. Those that have lost their jobs and/or homes are desperate. Businesses and the markets are in what might be called a free fall. If the realization of peak oil along with its disastrous financial implications was added to the existing mix of troubles, the added trauma could be unthinkable.
Like many of you, I've devoted my recent efforts to trying to wake the public and governments to the impending horrors of peak oil. As much as that awaking is urgently needed, continuing to press forward now is almost certainly not in the broader interest.
Many may be tempted to directly challenge the recent IEA World Energy Outlook. I am among those who were very disappointed. Pressing those concerns at this time might further the peak oil "cause," but it could well do much more damage than any of us really intend.
Please keep up your studies and thinking, because helping the world realize the dangers of peak oil is an absolute must. In the near term, keeping relatively quiet is likely the better part of valor.
That is both absurd and cowardly, just like the Shakespearean character who first uttered the words "discretion is the better part of valor," Falstaff.
If Hirsch were a climate expert, would he urge "keeping relatively quiet" about "the impending horrors" of global warming because "the added trauma could be unthinkable"?
Seriously. With apologies to the Bard, here's a maxim for the Climate Century: "Prevention is the better part of valor."
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
The hidden cost of coal
Comments
View as Flat
Nickz Posted 4:30 pm
17 Nov 2008
He believes peak oil will cause a depression all by itself. He's been warning recently that a 20% fall in oil production and consumption would cause a 20% fall in GDP, an event on the order of the Great Depression. This is something which makes no sense, and for which he has no real evidence.
Now he's telling people not to talk about Peak Oil, apparently to protect people from being scared by his own faulty warnings of financial doom. It makes no sense.
Permalink
cjwirth Posted 11:47 pm
17 Nov 2008
Now my research -- http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html -- indicates that alternatives cannot make up the gap in declining oil supplies; this is now confirmed by the Energy Watch Group, which in funded by the German Parliament:
"By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame."
http://www.globaliamagazine.com/?id=482
Clearly, it is important to note that not only will oil production soon decline, but that alternatives will not fill the gap.
Dr. Hirsch should be announcing that we are in trouble and he should be calling for a National Academy of Science study of Peak Oil impacts. The NAS is the only objective source that can advise the Congress and president without interest group bias.
Meanwhile back at the ranch. I see the catastrophe coming and I have found a lifeboat off of this Titanic. There is lots of room on the lifeboat. I used to live in NH, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil?
clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number 603-668-4207.
Here is another lifeboat that I am working on: http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/
cjwirth http://www.peakoilassociates.com
Permalink
oildependency Posted 11:50 pm
17 Nov 2008
Matt Coyle
oildependency.org
ouroiladdiction.com
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:02 am
18 Nov 2008
Lowering demand is the only effective response to lower supply. That is the message peak oilers could emphasize now. They wouldn't lose their audience if they adjusted to this new reality.
Give up the "Mad Max" screaming about the end of cheap oil. Admit that if demand drops in conjunction with supply, our oily GHG economic war on terror problems would evaporate into thin air.
Climb on the GHG tipping point scream wagon and talk up demand reduction as the only way out.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
endependence Posted 12:10 am
18 Nov 2008
Politicians are hot on the buzzword "energy independence". They see patriotism and national security halos floating above their heads when they utter the phrase...energy independence.
We propose that the citizens demand something more:
Endependence-energy independence that ends dependence on polluting fuels.
The politicians can have their halos, but in exchange we have to hold them accountable to make the energy choices that get us to a sustainable environment and an energy system that doesn't rely on "cheap" (fossil fuel) energy.
Interested? Sign the Declaration of Endependence at
http://endependence.info/declaration/ .
http://blog.endependence.info/
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:15 am
18 Nov 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
nika Posted 12:44 am
18 Nov 2008
That way forward is NOT oil, "clean coal" or any other carbon-polluting climate-toxic dwindling fuel.
If Peak Oil doesn't get discussed then the way forward will be DOA because using the old carbon energy will not solve the economic woes. They may make it out the gate but they will be sheared off at the knees as the approach the first turn on what will be an epic race down the peak slope.
By choosing the Blue Pill, the problem remains and looms and continues to hurt our present and future.
Unless EVERYONE understands and "gets" Peak Oil as a current concern, then the needed New Fuels New Deal will not happen and vast sums of money will be (are being) wasted on propping up pre-collapse companies, business models, economies, all of which can not survive or thrive as we are all forced to power-down.
To ignore it, as Hirsch suggests, is a miscarriage of our basic responsibility as a rational humane society.
Permalink
Nickz Posted 2:38 am
18 Nov 2008
One comment quoted a magazine, which casually claims that the Energy Watch Group also predicts doom. In fact, they don't. Looking at the source http://www.energywatchgroup.org/Renewables.52+M5d637b1e38 ...
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/2008 ...
we find that EWG says:
"the scenarios describe two possible developments among other possibilities, but they
represent realistic possibilities that give reason for optimism. The results of both scenarios show that - until 2030 - renewable capacities can be extended by a far greater amount and that it is much cheaper than most scientist and people actually think."
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 5:39 am
18 Nov 2008
The question is whether using the Hubbert Theory is worth it to persuade people to do something. Here we're in a bit of a catch because while we want people to start implementing alternative kinds of energy, peak oil would do all that work for us (except of lingering doubts we'd ever be able to replace the energy from oil with clean alternatives, another dismal science).
So to me the theory of peak oil is only useful is it can do something for you, such as to help people change their lifestyles. Otherwise it doesn't bother me all that much, and predictions about the hydrocarbon industry have been littered with failures at every fork in the road. -sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:48 am
18 Nov 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Darrell Posted 4:05 pm
18 Nov 2008
This is where Robert Hirsch's proposed wedges (2005 study: Enhanced Oil Recovery, Coal Liquids, Heavy Oil, and Gas To Liquids) only address oil substitutes, not the larger problems.
Far from waiting for the economy to improve to deploy energy solutions, the right solutions will help repair our economy.
Permalink