I'm sure I'll eventually forgive Toby Hemenway at Energy Bulletin for writing -- before I did, and better than I could have -- a cogent and eloquent analysis of the apocalyptic bent of those concerned with peak oil. His piece should be read by environmentalists not obsessed with peak oil as well.
An excerpt:
I now believe that Peak Oil catastrophism is largely a manifestation of our primary cultural myth: that all things end with suffering, death, and then resurrection. Belief in apocalypse is programmed into western civilization. Given our heritage, "the end is nigh" is the nearly unavoidable personal and collective response to times of uncertainty and rapid change....
The apocalypts may, for the first time in thousands of predictions, be right ... But perhaps some of us can recognize how familiar is this dark road, resist the natural urge to repeat the story once more, and remember that there are many routes into the future other than the one toward the lowest common denominator.
I honestly don't understand the enduring popularity of apocalypse porn. I don't believe there's any empirical evidence for the catastrophist interpretation of our various crises, as much as I am 100% convinced of the danger they represent. Crucially, you can't prove the certainty of any future, dark or light.
While I don't want to come off as some technologically-determinist "cornucopian" optimist, it's quite an argument to say we'll be helpless before the ravages of climate change, or peak oil, or whatever. It's essentially an argument that the undeniable power of human civilization -- all the ingenuity, all the energy, all the industry -- will simply stop working so suddenly that we'll all be cast into chaos and despair.
This is a profoundly dehumanizing view. It assumes people are incapable of intelligent collective action in the face of crisis. Moreover, it is prejudiced against finding solutions, because after all, anything that sustains our lives as we know them is simply aggravating the problem.
That's not what I think advocacy of any stripe should be about, much less something as important as environmentalism.
Comments
View as Flat
jscorse Posted 5:05 am
07 Dec 2006
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 7:47 am
07 Dec 2006
Certainly the task is large and the way foggy at present
BUT if the will is there (it must be truly inspired by the seriousness of the situation)
THEN there is a way.
Can we all get together long enough to see that logic come about?
because normally now is when we all have sacred opinions and consensus is lost
Permalink
randino Posted 9:52 am
07 Dec 2006
I think it is intellectually possible to say that we are screwed, but then what the hell do you do with it? Nothing. Apocalyptic thought is positively useless. So call me an anti-apocalyptic acpocalypt.
If any of you wish to chew on this topic more, may I recommend Rebecca Solnit, the scorge of doomsters who has a regular column in Orion.
randino
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 11:47 am
07 Dec 2006
It is simply that people tend to think in terms of either-or dichotamies. You can see this over and over in debates aboure religion, politics, philosophy, whatever. The tendency to polarize a point of disagreement seems fundamental. It can be overcome, of course, but the tendency remains. Thus you wind up with the conucopian-vs-doomer debate, and relatively few positions in between.
There happens to be a discussion of this article going on at my blog, if anyone cares to jump in there.
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 1:09 pm
07 Dec 2006
Not so with climate change, which involves un-owned, open-access resources. Use of the atmosphere as a GHG/carbon black dump is free, so market transactions do not reflect any of the net social costs that such emissions impose. Nor are there any market incentives for people to change their consumption or investment behavior to reflect the real costs of climate change. Principal users of fossil fuels find it in their self-interest to avoid paying costs for carbon, especially if it adversely affects their relative competitive position.
Until a mutually agreed and effective international regime is in place the regulates the use of the global atmospheric commons, concerns about climate change are quite legitimate. Hysteria may be overdone, but rational discourse alone has not budged the US over the past thirty years.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:21 pm
07 Dec 2006
I wish the things you said about oil were true, but alas it is not so. The oil markets are the furthest thing from transparent. Very little good information exists on reserves, and even month-to-month production figures often contradict each other. Partly as a consequence of this, the price of oil has become largely decoupled from market fundamentals.
If you would like to understand more about the complexities of this market, I suggest you spend some time at http://www.theoildrum.com.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:14 pm
07 Dec 2006
Dreamily they buy a nice new SUV with that big Ford factory rebate. Rush/fauxnews/Snowjob told them global warming is an apocalyptic liberal plot.
The fact is that the gulf stream will stop if GHG buildup is not reversed. It's happened before, throwing north america and europe into an ice age. Coastal cities will flood from rising ocean levels and more severe storms, droughts will cause massive fires,crop failure and famine, and mass exodus of populations. It is already underway in Africa.
And the likelihood of nuclear terrorism due to oil wars, petrodollars feeding terrorism, and proliferation due to nuclear power, greatly increases every moment we still depend on oil and nuclear power.
Instead of pretending there isn't really a problem, that it will all work itself out somehow (due to "the undeniable power of human civilization -- all the ingenuity, all the energy, all the industry"), it might be better to focus on the positive in a way that proposes real world solutions.
Real action to solve problems is the real alternative to negativism, attack the messenger is just the same old wing nut talking point propaganda ploy. All this article does is villify environmental activism.
It's the old slippery slope, buy the false premise, environmentalism is apocalyptic, (then they slip in this one)... apocalyptic predictions are unrealistic, (on down the garden path to)...therefore environmentalism is unrealistic.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 3:55 pm
07 Dec 2006
GreenEngineer is right that the feedback messages about oil are garbled, but even so I think the feedback for oil is much stronger than for climate change. He's right about The Oil Drum. That and Gristmill are two of my favorite sites.
Amazingdrx, I think Toby is drawing a distinction between hysteria and concern. He's not denying the importance of environmentalism, limits, etc. But apocalyptic thinking is more than just recognizing the substantial problems we face. With apocalyptic thinking, the brain is short circuited. One loses one's judgement. Evidence is twisted to fit into the pre-determined conception. Discussion is often based on horrifying Mad Max-type images (guns, cannibalism, massive die-offs).
To my mind, it's destructive and counter-productive, which is why I'm glad that
Gristmill has been free of it.
Permalink
randino Posted 11:28 pm
07 Dec 2006
Humans are the only animals who can perceive, and fear the future. But we take a perverse delight in peering into the abyss. Heh, Hollywood knows us better than we know ourselves, and it has been selling us such cheerful epics as On the Beach, Blade Runner, and any host of other movies where NYC or LA is being destroyed. We flock to churches where the sulphurous vapors of hell are a favorite topic.
Admit it, we are apocalyptic because we enjoy being apoclyptic. We love to piss ourselves with fear and it doesn't matter if the source is melting glaciers, or the maniac who has just selected a tool from our knife rack in the kitchen, and is now creeping up the stairs with a mad gleam in his eyes, headed to our bedrooms to commence the slaughter.
Booooo!
randino
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:48 am
08 Dec 2006
I really see no one else taking the apocalyptic view. Is "An inconvenient Truth" apocalyptic? No, just factual.
So why the self-criticism by enviros? The Lovelockes are already off the track.
The apocalyptic view is mainly used by global climate change deniers, as Gore said, they go straight from denial to despair, with no stop in between for any discussion of solutions.
I just don't see this as a big problem for the real movement, it is mainly used by corporate shills like Lovelocke.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Cennad Posted 1:52 am
08 Dec 2006
As a newcomer to these pages I have been struck by the anti-denier sentiment and to me it sounds hysterical, quite unlike the attitude of these malcontents. The science based deniers seem pretty calm though I think they are taking rather too much time over that damned hockeystick. All the hysteria seems to be in the AGW camp.
Now 'peak oil' is a focus for hysteria - but surely we should be delighted at the prospect of oil becoming short - it might even focus the minds of those so in love with their gas-guzzlers on alternative means/lifestyles.
Oil is as bad as coal but wars haven't been fought over the latter yet.
The fact that folk like to be frightened has been mentioned - I am a fan of dystopian SF mainly, I believe because one asks oneself the question:"how would I cope?".
We coped for years without electricity though we had to fuel the outboard. Now I am not a primary user of oil at all, but of course we have to eat
from the supermarket shelves - compromise.
And the pc needs power.
There are no gods, no goddesses - only The Mother.
The Earth is our Mother... and if you don't behave, she'll clout you!
Permalink
CO2 Sceptic Posted 1:53 am
08 Dec 2006
Politicians use fear as a way to manipulate people into accepting their policies whether it be 'war on terror' to 'global warming'. Once this fact is accepted then everything becomes clearer as to why environmental issues are being driven by apocalyptics.
Incidentally, as my user name suggests I do not believe CO2 causes global warming to sufficient levels that endangers the planet nor that there is sufficient scientific evidence to suggest global warming exists (man made or otherwise).
However, having said that I find it difficult to disagee with any argument for protecting our forests and planting more trees. :-)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:01 am
08 Dec 2006
It is self-defeatism at its finest.
It tells them gas guzzling is a-ok.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Cennad Posted 2:11 am
08 Dec 2006
My attitude may be atypical because I want an end to GHG emissions - it would give us cleaner world and an end to wars fought for oil.I want the polies to take sea rise seriously and stop adventures in Iraq, etc. Trident,forsooth!
The plight of people in drought-ridden parts is going to have to be dealt with and the cause of their misfortune is irrelevant. The battle between
RealClimate and Cimate Audit is absorbing but does nothing for the dispossessed.
There are no gods, no goddesses - only The Mother.
The Earth is our Mother... and if you don't behave, she'll clout you!
Permalink
CO2 Sceptic Posted 2:24 am
08 Dec 2006
It is exactly this sort of political closed mindedness that diverts attention away from the real issues and encourages the apocalyptic evangalism as previously discussed in this thread.
Scientific open mindedness on the otherhand thirsts for debate and does not try close down opposing viewpoints based on unsubstantiated opinion but through scientific evidence.
Permalink
CO2 Sceptic Posted 2:36 am
08 Dec 2006
Here is a couple of questions:
What is the 'mean' global temperature that signifies the move from normal global temperatures into 'global warming' temperatures?
And to prevent simply plucking a figure out of thin air:
Where is the research that supports your answer?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:38 am
08 Dec 2006
Unless you are a climate scientist debating the academic finer points of the science, and even then it is a matter of degree rather than wether or not human caused global climate change is ocurring, it is not worth the effort to address your so-called arguments.
We have been through this nonsense over and over for years. It only lends credibility to corporate shilling to debate with you deniers.
I see this self-critique based on apocalyptica as nothing more than a way to enable the denier mindset and attack the credibility of enviros.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 3:23 am
08 Dec 2006
"I see this self-critique based on apocalyptica as nothing more than a way to enable the denier mindset and attack the credibility of enviros."
I don't agree entirely. There is a thread of doomerism that says society will crash no matter what we do, so any action to correct matters is futile. There is another thread that says running for the hills and riding out the crash in a secure bolthole is the only solution. Both of those threads only serve to frighten people, increase apathy, and if taken to extremes, disrupt lives.
Whether one is optimistic or pessimistic, hopeful or hopeless, good long-term decisions are not made in a mindset of fear. Good decisions need a mindset of creativity, innovation and thoughtfulness. Doomerism is part of the tornado storm of FUD, noise and obfuscation that seeks to overwhelm reasonable action and effective solutions.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:15 am
08 Dec 2006
No offence, but what rock have you been living under? Seriously, I see the kind of doomer hysteria that Hemmenway is talking about all over the place, and I see it warping people's judgement in discussion after discussion. It's present here, on Grist. It's present on The Oil Drum, though fortunately it's not the predominant factor. It is the predominant factor in some other prominent online communities, such as the EnergyResources Yahoo group. Not to mention dieoff.org, Knustler's site, and many other prominent proponents of change to our energy policy.
Let me just say that I think that a certain degree of hysteria and fear-mongering has its place. It can be an effective way to move the marginally-concerned from apathy to action. And it's not an untruth in that context: If we continue in the direction that we have been headed, then we will be well and truly screwed.
However, for serious analysts and folks who are already committed to changing their lifestyles and careers to address environmental issues, apocolyptic fear is dangerous. At the very least, it distorts judgement about the best course of actions (e.g. Lovelocke's uncompromising support of nuclear energy) and can in many cases be entirely paralyzing. As a friend of mine said Those at both ends of the "everything will be fine"/"we're screwed anyway" dichotomy tend to come to the same conclusion: "It doesn't really matter what I do, gimme a cheeseburger."
Permalink
CO2 Sceptic Posted 4:36 am
08 Dec 2006
Unfortunately, and this is an important point, by stagnating on your point of view without reasoning about other viewpoints more often than not means that the analysis remains incomplete and the wrong solutions applied which will not fix the problem.
If science can show that CO2 alone is responsable for 'global warming' I would happily change my viewpoint, but it can't simply because the subject is far too complex to attribute it to a single factor/solution.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:53 am
08 Dec 2006
Solving the problem of anthropogenic global warming is the opposite of doom. The solutions will be fun, entertaining, profitable, with long-term employment security, peace, and hope for a much better future. Global cooling success will feel so good.
Permalink
CO2 Sceptic Posted 5:21 am
08 Dec 2006
None of which have been proved as yet unless you consider the narrow selective research that government use to support the policies for the up and comming 'carbon taxes'.
Interstingly no one has answered my earlier two questions regarding the 'mean' temperature that signifies 'global warming' - I wonder why?
How can you say that we are heading for 'global warming' if nobody knows the threshold that defines the start of 'global warming'?
This is ideal for scaremongerers - heck we could say we have been in a 'global warming' period since the last ice age.
Permalink
Cennad Posted 5:31 am
08 Dec 2006
To spend huge efforts in the ludicrous excercise of carbon trading in an effort to cure AGW is to take the eye off the ball. It doesn't require ernest discussion of global temperatures to know
things are warming nor idiotic remarks about summer and winter... it's happening, mate and it is just as likely to be the sun.
Its impossible to get concensus about climate models simply because we don't know enough so it is no good waiting until they agree.
We are still like children gaping at wonders we don't understand.
But we can understand drought threatens people and when villages sink through the permafrost.
What more do we need to start pushing for the so-called lawmakers to get their fingers out.
There are no gods, no goddesses - only The Mother.
The Earth is our Mother... and if you don't behave, she'll clout you!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:34 am
08 Dec 2006
I don't think any climate scientist, or even any serious lay student of global warming, would contend that CO2 alone is responsible for the effects we are observing. There is always more than one cause for any complex phenomenon (whether physical, social, economic, whatever). In terms of global warming, methane from animals is apparently a big player. Urban heat island effect probably also contributes, though that is a subject of much debate, as I understand it. There are many, many other elements of the picture, and the relative degree of impact of these different elements is one of the things that climatologists argue about -- and these arguments are then siezed upon by the skeptic community as evidence that the science behind global warming is fundementally in doubt.
There is a strong consensus among scientists about the basic drivers of global warming; it's the details of the relative weighting that are still under debate. Those details are, in fact, very important for informing effective strategies to control climate change. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that CO2 has a significant impact, even if it isn't the most powerful. More to the point, there are lots of good reasons (economic, geopolitical, ethical, humanitarian, and non-climate-related environmental) to take agressive steps to control our use of fossil fuels. So action is certainly warranted at this stage, even though we don't yet know the entire picture.
Permalink
Cennad Posted 5:34 am
08 Dec 2006
Do you live in a paper bag? By heck!
There are no gods, no goddesses - only The Mother.
The Earth is our Mother... and if you don't behave, she'll clout you!
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 5:55 am
08 Dec 2006
Our CO2 Skeptic is trying to make it appear that this is casually stated, but in fact it is very calculatedly stated. He must know something about the minefield he is in and he's trying to get us to approach and debate on glittering generalities instead of on the particularities of the science--where he has no case.
First of all, what do his scare quotes around 'global warming' mean here? No scare quotes are necessary. We know that it's happening.
Secondly, CO2 is definitely known to be an agent of global warming. Debating in a lawyerly fashion, you could say "perhaps" there is another agent at work somewhere, which by some wild chance is coming into effect at the exact same time that we're releasing all of our CO2. But again, this is lawyerly debate, not science. "Perhaps is not evidence," as Naomi Oreskes has pointed out.
The actual evidence points to CO2 as the agent of warming. It's silly to have to point out that it's evidence that counts in science, not speculation. It's incumbant upon anyone who dissents to come up with the science that would show otherwise. And unfortunately, they don't have any of the data on their side.
Lastly, surely some things are complex. But the act of doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually fairly straightforward.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:05 am
08 Dec 2006
No need to re-hash the arguments, just refer to "Argument 3-b, sub-argument IV." Or just copy and paste.
I've been pushing the peak oil folks to develop something similar to counter peak oil skeptics. Maybe something based on Wikipedia.
It's a big step forward if we can get good authoritative information online, rather than continuing to waste energy on the same arguments.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:16 pm
08 Dec 2006
Mushroom clouds. Stay the course. More study. Peace with honor.
Lots of jokers out there. Why are they in the white house instead of at their local watering hole?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
tobyhemenway Posted 7:32 am
11 Dec 2006
Toby
http://patternliteracy.com
Permalink