 | BP: A power plant that reuses carbon dioxide? | The Oil Drum | Public interest, peak oil and global warming |  |
Our Toughest Foes: Apathy and Cynicism
Posted by Glenn on February 12, 2006 - 10:19am in The Oil Drum: Local
Afterward we had lunch and discussed our experience. Trying to get people's attention is quite a demanding task. A lot of people are totally apathetic, and either don't look at you, or look right through you. This experience with the average person was eye-opening. Our toughest enemy in creating a more sustainable world is not the cornucopians like John Tierney, but rather the pervasive apathy and cynicism in our post-modern society. And in particular, I'd like to call out my own demographic - Caucasian men and women between 20-35 years old (with an ipod in their ear and a latte in their hand). If we don't try to create change now for the world we will inherit, who will?
Even if I achieve all that I hope to in my neighborhood, it would help somewhat but not stave off a severe PO scenario. But at least we would have done our share and we would be in a better position to adapt to the new realities.
Herein lies the answer: It would take all the neighborhoods in America together to find ways to solve the peak oil associated problems.
So TODers, what's your local plan to take action to make your community more sustainable?
Here are some suggestions on how to frame your thinking about taking action locally.
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008 (1)
- August 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (4)
- June 2008 (4)
- May 2008 (3)
- April 2008 (1)
- March 2008 (1)
- February 2008 (2)
- January 2008 (2)
- December 2007 (4)
- November 2007 (4)
- October 2007 (6)
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007 (3)
- August 2007 (2)
- July 2007 (3)
- June 2007 (8)
- May 2007 (1)
- April 2007 (8)
- March 2007 (2)
- February 2007 (3)
- January 2007 (5)
- December 2006 (5)
- November 2006 (12)
- October 2006 (10)
- September 2006 (9)
- August 2006 (14)
- July 2006 (15)
- June 2006 (11)
- May 2006 (18)
- April 2006 (35)
- March 2006 (14)
- February 2006 (13)
- January 2006 (12)
- December 2005 (17)
- November 2005 (13)
- October 2005 (25)
- September 2005 (36)
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Every time I think about PO in general, and how to sell it, it raises the question of whether to jump right in with PO, or tell them about other problems that will conveniently be solved at the same time. Usually, the latter is better, since those reasons are more palatable. Take the bike lanes issue: for most people, it's not about reducing oil use, it's about reducing traffic congestion. I suppose that if we get the outcome we want and change people's habits for the future, it doesn't matter if they don't know why they're really doing us a favor for the future.
I've probably tried to raise it with fifty people in real life, at least fifty more online outside the peak oil community. Perhaps 2 or 3 of them actually took it seriously at all, so I guess it will take some shock event to bring even a decent minority out of their torpor. It doesn't bode well for humanity waking up in time to do something effective to mitigate.
Fortunately there is beginning to be a little mention of the subject in the more serious UK media. Though relatively few people actually pay attention to that and the content hasn't been particularly good yet, I hope the steady drip of that low level background noise will eventually impinge on mass consciousness.
Perhaps the best route, for now, would be to target populations that are more likely to be interested and aware - leafleting farmers' markets, green and ecological meetings maybe.
http://www.bikeleague.org/about/index.html
FWIW, I'd say that I make a daily effort to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but now and then I back off a bit. It's no fun to be a hair-shirted monk in a world of libertines. So for what it's worth I try to keep my "averages" low, but loosen up now and then. Whether that is an accommodation to Apathy & Cynicism, or a means to combat it ... who knows.
I think those ranks of (what I'm semi-seriously calling) libertines will change on their own, if they change at all.
First remove the telephone pole from your eye, then remove the speck from your neighbor's eye.
(BTW, I do ride to the excellent local carnicerias to buy meat! But that happy ride might also be seen ...)
Furthermore I can drink you under the table, beat you at tennis or fencing, wipe you out at Trivial Pursuit and sail right by your power boat when you run out of gas.
Also, I have a great sense of humor;-)
Don't lose that sense of humour - I, at least, appreciate and like it - but do try to augment it with a bit more self wisdom before it's too late, particularly if your genetics are the least bit unfavourable.
Live long and prosper
Please explain,
What did I do right?
Once the waveform collapses you watch the electron, rather than ponder the probabilities of the waveform.
I have this feeling, however, that somehow I can create "luck" and beat probabilities. I know intellectually this is totally irrational, but I feel it nevertheless.
In addition I think the men in my family are attracted to spectacularly intelligent women who have ancestors the same. But nutrition has something to do with it: My father was 5'3" and I'm 5'9" but my son is 6'4" tall. To grow thirteen inches in three generations is probably a lot more than just genetic selection.
One huge puzzle to me is why we are no smarter than people were 2,500 years ago. That is about 100 generations, and as I understand evolution, being smarter than others should provide some advantages. Yet if you read the ancient Greeks, it is pretty clear that people have not gotten smarter at all, and the simplest hypothesis is dysgenic breeding.
Oh now I'm going to be attacked from all sides, but maybe there is something to "The Bell Curve." I do know this: Plato worried a lot about dumb people having more kids than smart ones. Anything that Plato worried about, I worry about.
Thus, to do my part and redress the imbalance, I decided the right and moral thing to do was to have a lot of kids and improve the gene pool;-)
In a contest for Political Incorrectness, I'll win hands down. LOL
Many things can be limited by environment and can limit us in many ways, perhaps that has to do with height in your family, it reminded me of something I read yesterday: 'In 1942, 17-year-old Pvt. Harold Zatkowsky sat down for his first breakfast in the U.S. Army. "That was the first time in my life when I got enough to eat." '
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=10940
There's an hypothesis in evolutionary biology that the rapid increase in human brain capacity was a direct result of dietary changes of humans living near seas and eating more fish oils. Twin studies indicate that about two thirds of intelligence (as measured by IQ tests) is due to genetic inheritance and only a third due to environment - but that third can make a huge difference, lol.
There's a lot of room under a bell curve, those at the extreme high end may be rare but are the ones whose words are most likely to live through history. Perhaps there are proportionately as many or more with the ability of Plato now but relative to the accumulated wisdom, knowledge and intelligence of humankind they are less obvious. I once saw a quote (dunno how accurate it is) that the average male in 17th century England processed as much information in their life as was in a typical 1980s UK Sunday newspaper - and they've got bigger since then!
Political correctness must not preclude rational discussion of important subjects. You and Plato were right to be worried about that, methinks. Many things, including 'luck', contribute to survivability, and human development seems to have thwarted most of those determinants in the last couple of centuries - but before then they were largely operational - without substituting any alternative mechanisms. No doubt some corrective processes will occur one way or another, if Darwin was near correct. Genetic (mitachondrial DNA) studies seem to suggest that virtually all modern humans are descended from a mere 6 or 7 women, hopefully we won't come that close to exterminating ourselves in the future.
Like Yogi Berra?
It's why I never had kids. I already raised a family when you count taking care of the younger ones.
This type of message, where its not only not 'cool' to be profligate and unaware, but IS cool to be sustainable- has to, and will someday pick up momentum. People wont do things for the planet unless it somehow helps their own lives as well. We need to change culture in a way that conforms to our evolutionary impulses to be more fit than the next guy (even if we consciously are thinking about saving frogs going extinct, we are subconsiocusly thinking about how to get the 'chicks' and get more money-our cultural fitness measuring stick)
my little stunt is a small step in the direction of having 'chicks' choose differently - (the money thing will only follow post peak) If some would be Humvee buyer consciously sees that driving one makes him an a$$hole, maybe he/she would reconsider the purchase, out of shame.
( I rationalize that my actual use of the Humvee and miles driven will be outweighed by the impact of smaller future Hummer sales, so that 'technically', Im not really an a$$hole)
If a Hummer isn't "good enough" rent out a moving truck and put signage made with bed sheets. We could send out press releases a few days before we embark on out gratuitous missions of fuel-wasting protest. You could make a CD with one "song" with a repeating message like an advertising sound truck, blaring the stereo. For Hummers, you could get magnetic signage made easally so as you drive off, you get your load of fuel, slap the signs on, and slip the CD in, and start your all-day drive. Of course, you drive the "a$$hole-mobile" by crowds to attract attention. A nice bright RED Hummer would work best, the only case where you WANT a red vehicle.
Let's pick a date this summer. 7/4/2006? I'm game!
People think that if we can just educate people on issues, they will all come around the to "right" way of thinking about something. But the problem is that "Success", defined crudely as actions that result in more of what you desire in a certain timeframe, doesn't always align with what is "right".
Wealth and power are measured in timeframes shorter than those of their impacts. There has long been, and forever will be a thoughtful and more educated minority of activists. Many will burn out in grassroots attempts at converting the masses. But the problem is a company, government, or individual who is willing to seek short term gains at the longer term expense of others, will often be "better off" and their offspring will be "better off" and so will overpower those who are more thoughtful of the long term impacts. There are many exceptions, and they do well in proving the rule. If you match a peaceful, long term thinking culture and pit them against the power of highly consumptive U.S. like culture in a conflict, it is clear who will continue to exist in the future and who will perish (in the timeframe of that conflict, not ultimately). It is this fact that we are inherently ill equipped to be "aware" of the long term (knowing only cerebrally, not instinctually) that will cause us to face Peak Oil more as crisis than as transition.
-Ptone
There are many who have given up on trying to educate the masses. At this point we plan the best we can so that we can to survive as individuals, and the folks with the big SUVs and all the rest will be blindsided when TSHTF.
Part of the problem is that for many people this 'issue' still isn't critical - it is optional.
The best analogy I can come up with is that people say we ought to reduce oil usage just like people say they need to work out at the gym more often, but in the end it is just talk.
This is really coupled with the individualism, materialism, consumerism and all of the rest that people in our society have strongly embraced. I hear some people talk who say they are all for alternative energy, and once it becomes cheaper than traditional energy they would buy it. No thought given to simply using less for the common good - the notion that there even is a common good got lost years ago.
I hate to say it, but I am thinking that it won't be until oil prices jump a few more times that people will be sufficiently introspective to actually do something about it.
Now I want to buy a low priced used LPG car and low priced farmland. The apathy of the masses makes those tasks easier. Since it is at least 20 years too late to mitigate the PO transition, public education in 2006 doesn't make any sense at all. The apathy I used to hate is now my best friend. Go sheep, keep playing your oil age consumer games while the rest of us quietly prepare for the inevitable.
I think that it might be a good idea to permanently post the preprinted versions of Hubbert's remarks somewhere.
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2005/05/our-petroleum-predicament.html
A Special Editorial Feature by GEORGE PAZIK Editor & Publisher, Fishing Facts, November 1976
Excerpt:
The preprinted version of Hubbert's paper distributed at the March 7, 1956 American Petroleum Institute meeting in San Antonio, Texas had the following statements:
"According to the best currently available information, the production of petroleum and natural gas on a world scale will probably pass its climax within the order of a half a century (i.e., 2006), while for both the United States and for Texas, the peaks of production may be expected to occur within the next 10 or 15 years. (i.e., 1966 to 1971)
"Assuming this prognosis is not seriously in error, it raises grave policy questions with regard to the future of the petroleum industry. It need not be emphasized that there is a vast difference between the running of an industry whose annual production can be counted on to increase on the average 5 to 10 percent per year and one whose output can be depended upon to decline at that rate. Yet, in terms of the production of natural gas and crude oil, this appears to be what the petroleum industry in the United States is facing."
(When the paper was published, after Shell Oil Company censors had finished with it, the statement above was deleted and replaced with the following: "the culmination for petroleum and natural gas in both the United States and Texas should occur within the next few decades.")
You do not get feedback.
I got a realy nice energy politics article into the largest local newspaper a couple of days ago on the most read page. 0 phone calls, 0 emails, so far 0 answers in the newspaper (the editing delay can be a week or two), 0 letters, some friends and relativs commenting that it was a realy good one.
The direct feedback to established politicians seems to a large extent be nutty people, a few ordinary citizens, friend and relatives and other politicians. Politicians high up in the hierachies seems to often become isolated and only get feedback from other politicians, mass media and lobbyists. I get the impressions that their views on things then can drift away to strange lands, at least that would explain a lot about how the world is led.
Of course, I do not realy know how strange my views on things are. I use misc sources and debates such as TOD to "anchor" them in reality. A sad thing about that is that a 0 feedback article perhaps accomplishes much more then writing with feedback such as this forum or other with more nutty people then sane. TOD has better signal/noise ratio then most. But it is said and I think it its true that the thankless work is important for winning the election. I might be spoiled by the direct feedback on the net.
Your work to get something good built probably do more good then what is apparant when you campaign. Try and try again. Perhaps you can also figure out better ways of getting it done, that is what I try myself when my political opponents have a good idea or get something to work.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
How does TOD match up?
Small group? 1777 member spread throughout the world
Thoughtful? Definitely! The best on the web IMHO
Committed? To varying degrees, but I would say more committed than most. There's definitely some room for improvement
The Peak Oil special today is Ham and Swiss :-)
It might work because you would be offering an immediate benefit in exchange for the off chance they would actually read the print near the coupon.
With a catchy headline they might even read further.
Just a thought.
Where is our Tom Paine?
Where is our Patrick Henry?
And where oh where can we find George Washington . . . Ben Franklin . . . . Where is our Madison? Or Adams? or Jefferson?
Let us make no small plans.
How about a new political party? Both the Dems and GOP are worthless and worse than worthless in their craven dependence on Big Money from the fat cats in special-interest groups that benefit from the status quo.
What would be a good name for such a political party? (BTW, the Green party had to fail, partly because of its unimaginative name. Names matter.)
For example, in Minnesota, a state that not long ago elected professional wrestler Jesse "The Body" Ventura to be Governor (as an Independent) we now have Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey, also a professional wrestler, Satanic Dark Priest, Sanguinarian Vampyre, and Hecate Witch. Now that is what I call originality: a self-confessed vampire as politician! Truth in advertising? I mean, how many other candidates for high political office confess to being vampires? Until somebody better comes along, he's got my vote. Maybe we can co-opt him to TOD agenda, because after he becomes governor, he has presidential ambitions.
O.K., who wants to start a new political party?
You had dumb people then too - its just that the works they created were not saved by anyone - so today you have no record.
Alas today, if humanity still has technology in its futue, all the dumb things said via SMS and on usenet will be around for others to read.
How about a new political party? Both the Dems and GOP are worthless and worse than worthless in their craven dependence on Big Money from the fat cats in special-interest groups that benefit from the status quo.
The purpose of government is to benefit the status quo. Period. Each American here HAS gained a benefit from the dollar as international trade unit - with all the baggage which comes along from that idea.
The problem for humanity is when the benefit goes away, the resulting actions of the removal of what is seen as an entitlement/birthright will mostlikely end up in personal harm being done to us.
As for a political party - you have the Technocracy (One of the founders is M. King Hubbert). If one wishes to break the back of large corps, VERY local government would mean they'd have to spend large amounts of money ALL over, instead of spending a bunch on the federal level - the downside is local corrupt or just plain incompetant officials
I'd like to read it.
(My guess is that you're a swede like me)
http://www.corren.se/archive/2006/2/7/ijvrj8lweyd6uff.xml?category1=1097835189-26&category2=1097 835189-27
Its lots of thoughts in very few words and its in Swedish.
I agree with your thoughts fully, great short piece. However I think very few not already thinking of the energy issue will really get it. But I can feel the awareness and worries growing in general; friends and collegues is showing more interest when the subject comes up. At least in the rather academic context in which I live.
By the way, regarding the subject of this thread, I find people not listening if you start the subject of PO flat out. Rather make them ask you by hinting when discussing other or related subjects. Or when asked of your own adjusted lifestyle.
dstore in my long island neighborhood that the parking lot runneth over with fuel guzzling suvs. a bit of cognitive dissonance i guess
This is only because 'organic foods' is yet another trend that these people are chasing.
I was in an organic foodstore the other day, and I was surprised at how overpackaged their stuff was. I don't know if you can blame the store - if the customer wants a trendy instant meal in a box, then I suppose that is what you have to give them.
A tiny minority of people doing the right thing will be totally swamped by the hordes doing the selfish thing. We could complain about how wrong that is, but I think it's more productive to accept it as the reality we live in.
People's behavior will change when the economic incentives change. In Amsterdam bike riding is the primary means of getting around. Gas prices are high, but perhaps just as important, there's nowhere to park and roads are narrow and congested. It's just so much faster and more convenient (and cheaper) to get around by foot, bike, or public transportation.
I think the best strategy is to try to change the incentives, not urge people to act altruistically for the larger good.
Doing what you're doing (going to public meetings, handing out flyers, trying to get bike lanes, talking to people) is still worthwhile. It can help add meaning to your life and it's fun, and it's no joke to say it might even be an effective way to meet "chicks" :) ... but to create change I think you should focus on changing incentives.
Unfortunately, the mass media and the politicians are totally working against you. Consider republicans. I really doubt you'll get any receptiveness there. Now consider democrats (elected officials). Well, setting aside that they are generally spineless and totally ineffective, I don't think you'll find much more openness to your message there. I just got an unsolicited email from the democratic party in my state urging me to help them pressure republican lawmakers to make laws to lower gas prices. Brain-dead, but true.
You might have the best luck with local officials.
There is good news, however. If peak oil is now coming upon us, that means gas prices will be on a rising trend from here on out. Slowly, the economic incentives will favor conservation more and more. It would be nice to hurry the process by removing subsidies for motorists (and that is a strategy worth looking into), but even if that fails, reality will step in and reduce incentives to drive, through higher prices.
If you are lucky you will talk with someone who is a little negative and questioning and who book a time for a new meeting or start an email conversation. This actually means that your idea is good enough to make a difference.
If it is all smiles and I love you, your idea is probably destined for the round archive below the desk and the politician congratulate himself to an easy vote. I do not like politicians who love all ideas and everybody whos vocabulary is "yes", "intresting", "we will solve your problem", "trust us".
I was also pissed about the amazingly decrepit state of the crosswalks in Providence at that time. I contacted city hall but they were indifferent. I set up an online petition that people could sign asking city hall to fix the problem. The rules were anyone signing had to promise to call city hall, then sign, and ask some friends to do the same. Eventually it kind of snowballed and a couple hundred people signed and called. I checked in w/ city hall at one point, identified myself as the person who set up the petition, and the staffer exclaimed "That was you? I hate you!!" A few weeks later they painted a lot of the worst crosswalks.
A few years later in Princeton I called up my city council rep to chat about similar issues and she promptly invited me to join a citizen's advisory group. I agreed; we mainly discussed parking. That was the obsession. Parking, parking, parking! I did sucdeed in changing one small thing. The local commuter bus company routinely parked diesel buses in town and left them idling (illegally and obnoxiously). For a year I couldn't make any headway on this issue. It was frustraing: clearly illegal by local and state laws, but couldn't get enforcement. Until one day at a committee meeting I mentioned it to the police officer who sometimes came by to talk with us, and he was like, "Oh yeah we can take care of that no problem." They started giving tickets to the bus drivers and incidents of illegal idling went way down. This latter story is recounted here: BUSTED: Suburban Transit Caught on Camera!
(yay -- finally ending my lurking days...)
Perhaps your case is different. Do you give equal grades to those who agree and dissent? Would you give an 'A' to a well argued cornocopian?
I'm sorry if I am wrong or offensive, but this seems like misuse of a position to push a political view point. And since students aren't as stupid as you think (are you mistaking disagreement for stupidity?), it probably backfires.
It would be fair to offer both sides - have them write about Yergin's book as to be fair ( I think it won some type of prize or something...) Let them make up their own minds and grade on quality of analysis.
As I see it, Peak Oil will be our Paradise Lost and we will be like the fallen angels who have lost our powers of up high and now must contend with lowly existence in an oiless world. And thanks to Global Warming, our world will be just as hot and uncomfortable as is the world of the prime fallen angel in Milton's work.
After several visits there, IMHO, what you need for Peak Oil is 1) The Second Avenue subway (Lexington is just over capacity !) and 2) streetcar feeders (yes, make an exception for the overhead wire ban) from the subway stations on the "Streets" (I would place them in a special curb lane that has a rough surface) and find a little used avenue to go N-S on.
Ideally, have "S" routes where the streetcar route crosses the subway lines at the stations ($).
As for locally grown food for NYC ? A lost cause. Too many people, not enough land.
As for myself, I am heading out the door to meet with a MidCity group (badly flooded, we are meeting in a half renovated house, in the only room finished) and plan out the cityscape for Galvez Avenue (including a streetcar spur from Canal to the Medical Center, the SuperDome and Upper Poydras) as well as an intergrated bike lane.
If your sister is interested in helping out, have her shoot me an email. Even if my efforts are successful, I will still need her neighborhood to approve a bike lane too to get the other half of my ride completed!
Its like my own stupid dreaming about Sweden. We are fairly ok regarding having a stable energy supply, good energy efficient infrastructure and good institutions and we could become one of the best or the best! Hopefully this will attract skilled people and business. This gives us something to trade with and we can survive well in a in some ways poorer world.
Being self sufficient is good for survival but to have a working and nice culture it is important to produce enough of something to be able to trade. It is probably the same in the micro scale, a few goats, a large garden and a wood stove is ok and you can survive on those resources for manny years but you anyway need to do something more to get something to trade with.
I can of course be wrong in this. I am an insignificant person in the opposition, not part of our government. I have no direct contact with anyone in our current government. My guess is that the best way might be via ASPO Sweden and its probably likely that someone there reads this forum and is familiar with your posts.
My email adress was a little cryptis, I have tried to correct it. I dont think another spam harvest matters since I have used it for nearly everything wise or stupid since 1989.
For the U.S. change is needed on a scale not seen since the American Revolution or the Civil War. Do I advocate blood in the streets? No. It need not come to that. For example, consider the enormous success of a social movement called the Women's Christian Temperance Union 100 years ago. Despite being in a minority, they were able to create the social support needed for the Noble Experiment, Prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcohol for human consumption. Prohibition was an experiment that failed, but the success of the social movement that brought about the Noble Experiment shows that a relatively small but well-organized group can mobilize social change forces sufficient to pass a major Constitutional amendment. (And by the way, at no time did a majority of American citizens support Prohibition. Americans have been a hard-drinking society as far back as statistics go, even to the late seventeenth century.)
Local action is all well and good, but it is not enough. Setting an example is all well and good, but it is not enough. Preparing for the collapse of industrial civilization is equivalent to provisioning life boats in case the Titanic hits the ice berg. Now I may be too optimistic, but in my opinion we are about four miles from hitting the ice, and if we reduce power and turn as fast as possible within the next few years, then we have maybe a fifty-fifty chance of avoiding an encounter of the worst kind with that floating ice.
A gigantic problem with big and luxurious ships is that it is very very hard to turn them. Extending the metaphor, Sweden is a much smaller ship than the U.S. and easier to turn away from fossil fuels. A small society such as that of Iceland, where there is a high degree of consensus, is even less difficult to change than Sweden.
Perhaps the nation state has failed as a form of organization. If only Minnesota could secede from the United States, it would have a good chance of adapting well to peak oil, because we have possibly the best public education in the country (still quite bad), plenty of water, plenty of timber, plenty of low-grade taconite ore for iron, plenty of good land for crops, a heritage of clean politics and tolerance, often characterized as "Minnesota Nice." Also, we produce much ethanol from corn and could produce much, much more from timber or from switchgrass or from any number of other crops.
Yes, Magnus, I am aware that there are more people of Swedish ancestry in Minneapolis than in Stockholm. The poor people, the losers, the landless came here and made good, as did the impovrished German and Irish peasants, not to mention the other ethnic groups that have contributed so much--the Norwegians, Serbs, Croats, Danes, Italians, and more recently Blacks, Mexicans, Hmong and Somali. All came here and made good. Most remarkable, seldom do we get in rages and riots and kill people who do not look like us.
Any state that can produce Bob Dylan, Eugene McCarthy, Paul Wellstone and vote to elect Jesse "The Body" Ventura as governor has to have a lot going for it.
But my thought is to make no small plans. Either figure out how to mobilize a social movement on the scale of the American Revolution or . . . stock up on tools, traps, medicines, food, . . . and dig a well in your back yard, and get a hand pump. Learn how to make an outhouse, because if the lights go out, running water will not run for long. Oh yes, and learn how to use an ax and a Swede saw;-)
I do not have a gun at home. The mausers are all sold or melted down. The home guard has switched to Ak-4:s (A slightly modified G3) but since the threath level is low they no longer have any ammunition at home. The Swedish defence had an enourmous disarment after the end of the cold war. It was more or less decided to replace it with a kind of expiditionary force to help EU/Nato/UN keep the peace far away from our borders. This has not worked out well and we are back in the situation we had in the 1920:s or worse when it was decided that there would be no more wars i Europe. A very weak army but lots of research and some very modern thinking. Then it was the bofors 40mm, dive bombing and airforce and an army the nazis could have walked over so we had to trade with them to survive. Now it is excalibur, Gripen and some other armaments and information technology.
We can hardly do anything far abroad nor defend ourselves against any threath larger then a Jugoslavi war lord. Its like we have shot ourselves in the foot to have no option left but to sit on the bench and shout encouragements while world politics games are played out. Back then the central part of our defence were to be able to blow up our iron mines and ball bearing factories. I guess we could threathen to blow up refineries refining a significant part of the russian oil exports if they threathen us. :-/ And beat us up and there wont be a Nobel prize! :-)
We have had a civil defence you would have dreamed about. There were some light starvation during WW1 and a better civil defence with stocks of supplies, pre planned rationing etc were set up after WW1 and worked well during WW2. This organisation were improved further to keep people alive and productive during a multi year near total trade stop. It was then further improved to handle nearby nuclear war and a few nuclear warheads detonating in Sweden. All municipials had NBC hardened civil defence command posts, there were evacuation plans and shelters for the whole city/town population, there were firefighting equipment stored outside of cities to put down fires after heavy bombing or high level N bombing. There were refined oil products stored for half a years use and then a years use or more, I have only found public figures for closed civilian oil depots.
http://www.sgu.se/sgu/sv/miljo/avveckling/bergrum_info_s.htm
There were food stored for at least a years use and then fertilizer, spare parts etc to keep farming, food industries etc going for a few years.
But it degraded over the years. The civilian defence planning slowly disintegerated. It was an impossible goal to store spare parts and key supplies for constantly changing industries. What is the use for hundreds of tonns of steam boiler tubing when those boilers are scrapped? It was used for other political ends. We had for instance an ailing shoe industry that were out competed. Our government wanted to waste tax money on keeping them alive a little longer but had signed free trade agreements forbidding subsidies. This was solved by ordering the civil defence to store massive ammounts of shoes. Never mind that most everybode had multiple shoes at home that would last for years. It was probably financed by redirecting civil defence funds intended for other supplies, free votes at no extra cost, brilliant!
We had the same kind of rot in our defence force. Previus generations had used every trick to combine defence and civil defence with other needs to get more defence for the limited public funds. Like building schools prepared to be converted to war time hospitals. Now it turned around and the defence budget was used for other needs, mostly for doing things to employ people in key voting regions.
Almost everything was scrapped after the cold war ended. The rebuild is partial and they have neglected to use a lot of the usefull leftovers.
Civil defence was at its worst a couple of years ago. It seems like it slowly is being rebuilt stimulated by 9/11, and the Tsunami and the small hurricane "Gudrun" a year ago. The goals are fairly moderate like nearly complete cablification of the <40kV grid within about 5 years. Emergency diesels for all teleco installations, water works and larger old peoples homes within a year or two more or less volontery for the teleco operators and municipials but most do it. Having exercises on local levels on what to do if there is a bus crash, or a large chemical accident, or we get bird flu is starting to be common.
I would like to have a little more ambitious goals like an ability to recieve refugess equal to 10% of our population and keep them alive for one year on stored supplies, preferably outside our major citiers if some terrorist would do something realy nasty. Some smaller parts of the home guard train for scenarios such as stripping refugess of any arms, registering and feeding them, if I have heard the right rumours. I hope it is correct since then
at least some ideas are being prepard for others to use.
Planning for problems like global warming is not very fast. The state meterological institute and some researchers have started to go public with
maps and lists of costal areas threathened if we get significant sea level rise during then next decades and wich areas would be hurt if we get any large area extreme rainfall. Some relevant work have been done since we 10-15 years ago had a small dam overtopping and failure and it prompted a complete recertification of all hydro dams and their calculations and some dam strenghtening. And our insurance companies hastily included a clause that broken dams are force majure and coverage of them require special probably very expensive insurance. I guess the same will happen with the exposed costal areas if the seas start to rise. Levees will be built and the houses behind them wont have any insurance, support the levy or be screwed.
Myself I like prepairdness but its second tier hobby, the most likely outcome is that no harmfull things will happen to me. The biggest personal threath is that I exercise too little. I need to find more income and then build a cottage, that is good exercise, work is good, sports are boring. The funniest thing about thinking about such things where when a few friends said that their
TEOTWAWKI plan were to find me since I surely would figure something out. Prompted me to buy a propane stove to be able to greet them with hot cofee or tea. :-)
I think there are lots of parallells between how disaster prepairdness works for individuals and states.
And there must be something regulating a states system so that it do not turn too corrupt. We have in manny ways failed in Sweden, some of the failures are being fixed, some are not being fixed and some failures are very dear to large parts of the population making them very hard to do something about. We have a very large state sector and enourmous tax preassure and a lot of the failures are within our states functions. Hopfully it isent bigger then it can be slimmed down and made vital. A state that try to do everything becomes a burden and cant do anything right, it has to concentrate on what is vital and do a very good job with it.
A state is very powerfull, much good can be done with such an authority and also immense failures. The USA government should be able to do quite a lot about peak oil, you got the institutional tools and its only a few generations since you did massive things with much smaller money and energy flows. You also have much more powerfull corporations that in themselves can get a lot of things done. Most of what we have in Sweden in pony size or smaller compared to other countrys immense resources.
My guess is that we will have a massive introduction of biofuels in Sweden due to industry and enviromental intrests. I do not think peak oil is the most driving force yet. A 50% jump in fuel cost would do it and then things would happen fairly fast. I dont think the fairly large part of the population that has an "engineer" mindset will have especially hard to understand peak oil but most people will probably not react untill we are on a likely plateau. I will try though, today I by accident got my grandmother to understand the extra biofule for heat energy needed in an FT-diesel from blac liquor plant. Maybe I should write a book. ;-)
By the way, the Swedish military surplus clothing is excellent--none better ever made, especially for cold weather.
I see in the news that our Vice President Cheney mistook a hunting companion for a grouse and shot him. Some people should not be allowed to have guns. In case you want a Swedish Mauser 1896 model (or later modified model) they are readily available in all grades from "good" for very little money up to excellent sniper quality, accurate at 800 meters and deadly at five times that distance. How sad that so many things have gone downhill in Sweden: But you still live in one of the best countries in the world. (And it is easy for you to get Danish butter, ham and bacon, the best in the world;-)
There is another way to see the histroy.
Rockefeller was in the business of making kerosne save via removing the more volitile gasoline. That waste product needed a market. Lo and behold, along comes the car. Cars that used to run on either alcohol OR gasoline. If the alcohol went away - the only product to use would be gasoline.
Cached page #1
Cache #2
You want a 'movement' - somehow make the movement profitable for the monied interests. Then it will have funding and backing.
I also wonder about the wisdom of rebuilding at the same place while climate cahenge is likely to bring us more and worse storms.
Isn't it a waste to build where we will be required to spend a huge amount of energy and materials to try to protect the city against future storms, and where future storms may overwhelm the systems put in place anyway?
I attended a presentation by a friend of mine this morning who worked on cleanup between No and Biloxi, and who is heading back to do more work in April. The photos and description of the damage brought this question to mind at that presentation as well. Why not find a way to rebuild back from the coastline, and cultivate natural barriers along the coastline.
I laugh at myself as I suggest this. Developers want money and get it by building right on the coast. The cost of compensqating people to move would be pretty big. Some folks would insist on being allowed to rebuild right where they were, etc....
It does seem like a waste of energy to keep rebuilding in places where we are likely to see terrible storm damage again.
Apathy and cynicism are reinforced, IMHO, when we ignore the role of climate change and energy resource deplation as we "rebuild" after Katrina and Rita.
Yet, we do not universally share, but we just talk about it and generally donate a pittance to charity to make ourselves feel good. Basically, we are not evolved to have a sharing modus operandi; we have evolved to have a greedy, even murderous modus operandi. Even as children we express this innate drive by playing the games of Keepaway, King of the Mountain, and Sharks and Minnows.
Until a breakthrough in genetics occurs whereby everyone can subconciously and conciously seeks sustainability: we will Overshoot and Dieoff till time eternal. The Dieoff will be incredibly horrific as the elites control BioWMDs and nukes. Until then, the elites can direct decline by fostering, and greatly profiting from, wars and insurrections that grind up the weaker humans as canon fodder. More E for them, less e for us. Such is the Tragedy of the Commons and the ruthless calculus of ERoVI [energy returned on violence invested].
This ERoVI is the primary fear of survivalists. ERoVI is always greater than ERoEI: for example, you labor greatly to grow crops, only to have them removed by force after the harvest. The person who holds the food is the new elite, the person lacking will soon starve. ERoVI/ERoEI is the basic ratio impelling Dieoff until sustainabilty is reached. Jay Hanson's Thermo-Gene Collision as explained by the reams of information available at Dieoff.com can make this point clear to all.
Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Being wealthy does not necessarily make a person stupid.
But it helps.
In fact, I often struggle with your signature question: Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Today, I have my doubts.
The current change in demand is due to the few consuming yet more and a few of the many beginning to consume a little more. It is incumbent on the few to change their ways, otherwise the many must try to kill the few else face a slower death. Those are the basic choices.
If you, reading this, are around afterwards I ask you to carry this thought with you: never allow an economic or power elite to develop, put in place limits to individual and group power and wealth such that the disparity between the richest and poorest cannot exceed a sensible level (say, ten fold). It will be easier, then, to make this philosophy stick for you will see things as they are now with more clarity.
The key isn't just education and awareness. The key is education and awareness among people that actually care and are in a position to do something substantial.
We're not comedy clubs, or restaurants handing out flyers. Those are the ones that I politely say "No, thank you" to. We didn't stand there mute, hoping people would take them--we tried to make our case. And it's worth pointing out that the people caught at the corner waiting for the light to change were more likely to turn around and ask to take a flyer after they'd actually been forced to listen to the pitch one or more times (though it was still the women over 40 who turned around). Maybe we hadn't found the perfect, pithy 5 word sentence that would have appealed to everyone, but I'm guessing that 20-somethings on the UES wouldn't have cared no matter what, because they aren't particularly domestic (i.e. they don't cook).
Believe me, we hardly want to contribute to the solid waste, but how else are we supposed to get this message out to the community? And is it more important to garner support for the markets than it is to save paper? Sometimes you have to sacrifice.
In fact reducing solid waste generation will probably be my next campaign. Will giving out flyers about how people can compost organic waste be worth the paper we use to spread awareness? I think so.
Perhaps we need a scientific way of calculating this: EROERI - Environmental Return on Environmental Resources Invested?
Having said that, if you reach one person who goes on to make a difference with this issue, then I'd say your day was a success. I just wouldn't have high expectations with a leaflet campaign.
We need some new myths. Not made up "noble-lies" such as Plato proposed, but more along the story of John Henry, the steel-driving man who won a contest against the steam-powered machine . . . but then fell dead. Or how about the Johnny Cash song, "You load sixteen tons [of coal],
And what do you get?
Another day older, and deeper in debt.
Lord dont't take me, 'cause I can't go:
I owe my soul to the Company store."
Now if those lines do not express the deep universal eternal truth of the futility of materialism, I do not know what words could.
Who needs bike lanes when every other street can easily be closed to motor vehicle traffic, just by dragging some Jersey barriers into place? And when will this happen? When nobody can afford to drive any more. All we have to do is wait.
So the audience for your leaflets might be said to consist of two kinds of people, those who are clueless and therefore optimistic, and those who are well-informed, know that the system cannot be reformed, and therefore pessimistic.
Maybe the best-informed ones sense intuitively that the most fruitful approach is a cold restart: let the entire system shut down completely, let all these debt and credit-based relationships go pop, allow all financial capital to wither away, and then something more reasonable can take its place, but without any input from those people who have had so much say in creating the current mess.
But a few lanes will not make a large difference. There is a fairly large networking effect. My impression from Sweden is that towns with complete bike lane networks have a much larger percentage of biking then towns with partial bike lane/walking networks.
It's more along the New Age line of being "negative." People - especially women thirty and younger - will tell me I should be more positive; that I have latent personal issues to resolve.
Though I don't discount that there are a certain percentage of Peak Oil Death Wishers, most are of a scientific bent and accept the predictability of thermodynamics.
There are however, many people out there who operate from a different paradigm; one that sometimes conflates dire predictions of hardship, or decline in civilization with an individuals personal unhappiness or suicidal thoughts
In the modern world, our reasoning frailties are more serious problems. But I think we can assume that 90% of the response to peak oil will not take place via enlighted foresight, but rather through people doing whatever they think is their best personal option in response to the higher prices that peak oil is already engendering. Society is, and probably will continue to be, responding largely unconsciously to the problem.
I ride pedicabs and cargo trikes, as you pobably know. I work from my trikes and traliers. I do all kinds of work for people who are relatively quite well off, with discretionary income to hire people to clean the house, do repairs and improvements, and take car of the yard.
Some of these folks have a little "W" stinker on the bumper of the gas-guzzler, while others have stickers representing the Dems or various liberal or progressive political persuasions.
I talk with all my clients about peak oil and climate change. I find that as my clients get to know me, we are able to talk quite openly about these matters.
While people are able to talk about peak oil and global climate change as theoretical constructs, when it comes down to "what will I do" or "what can I do" or "what is likely to happen" people who identify with the two mainstream US political parties often react in exactly the same way.
The bumper sticker on the SUV or Volvo wagon is considered activism. Allusions to techno-magical fixes abound. Reasons why "we need the trucks to haul the boat and trailer to the lake" and other such themes recurr in conversation.
Talk of change is always kept remote and revolves around the idea that sooner or later we will develop products that people can comfortably buy so to solve these problems.
A few of my clients "get it" though and are active beyond the bumper sticker. Wealth tends to insulate us so that we cannot see the handwriting on the wall.
Was it Flannery O'Connor who, when asked why she wrote such strange stories with exaggerated characters replied: "You have to write really, really big for the blind." She was not talking about physical sight.
Keep up the activism, all!
I think that is perfectly ok and affordabel post peak oil if they can walk/bicycle to the train/subway/trolley station to get to and from work and friends most of the time. A fine car as something extra you use on weekends and when you have a special transportation need, not something you use each day. A car that is more like the boat on the trailer...
Good point.
It looks to me like we will have plenty of trucks and SUVs sitting around in my city for occasional discretionary use.
Do Ford, GM, and all really think that world needs millions upon millions of new SUVs?
I hope to do an optional class at my son's school entitled something like "Futurology: Imagining Post Peak Oil Life." The idea will be to stimulate kids and their parents to look at information about peak oil and global climate change together, and then begin to imagine how they will be living in ten, twenty, or thirty years with less petroleum.
This might be a good way to help people begin to grapple with peak oil and climate change.
Driving the car or truck as a special-purpose, even special-occasion vehicle seems like one of the changes some people will make.
Anyone else doing peak oil education for kids or for families? Any suggestions for activities or ways to present information so that the people in such a class are not too intimidated to participate?
But notice that you could probably not get away with doing anything that good in a public school.
The entire book is a good read but Chapter 9 is the core of his argument - From Africa to Everywhere: Was the still-full-of-bugs prototype spread around the world? http://williamcalvin.com/BHM/ch9.htm
Also, an excellent read is his previous book, A Brain for All Seasons: Human Evolution and Abrupt Climate Change http://williamcalvin.com/BrainForAllSeasons/index.htm
We view ourselves as primarily rational beings with thought processes founded on logic, evenly weighing strength of evidence and evaluating options but we fail to recognize or account for the impact of emotions and unconscious cognitive processes.
To understand the impact of emotions and, in turn what is required to gain and retain the attention of various groups of people sufficient to change their behaviour, look at the work of George Lakoff, http://www.georgelakoff.com/ Matthew Nisbett http://www.comm.ohio-state.edu/People/Faculty/MatthewNisbet.aspx and others doing research in this area.
More links are in this chaotic pile of stuff here: http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/courses-jmgay/SustainableAg.htm#Sociology
Social scientists of the early 20th century had trouble with "primitive" world theories. Levi-Strauss and others developed elaborate theory about cooked and uncooked food for example. Taboos were of great interest too. A community mindset, like the hive-mind of science fiction, is not easily translated into a modern Western paradigm.
The hunter-gatherer societies were not worried about, or particularly uncertain, about their world. They had centuries of successful adaptation... not to be confused with rigid custom.
Eskimoes lived well in a most inhospitible and energy deficient environment. So did the Navaho. Forest pygmies had it a bit easier.
The reason highly technological societies will have major problems with peak oil is that social flexibility is very poor (are we not still arguing about the ancient issue of homosexuality?) and our rituals do not drive group concensus.
So... we will try raiding and shouting loudly, like savanah chimpanzes for a while.
apathy, complacency and inappropriate belief systems that characterise
the general public.
We in NZ who have been pushing the issues of PO and climate change
for several years know all about it. The government does not want to know,
city councils do not want to know, businesses do not want to know: they just want
the delusions to continue.
After over five years of banging our heads against the wall of indifference,
the more active amongst us have recently concluded that there is now no time
left and that our major effort needs to be directed toward self-preservation
- as exemplified by From the Wilderness giving up on trying to convince the
unconvincable and relocating away from the heart of dysfunction to a more
survivable location.
Just for your inforamtion, last Easter I carried out a re-enactment of Christ's
last journey and asked the question "Did Jesus die in order that peopel could
destroy the planet through emissions?' I was arrested on a pretext by the corrupt
Auckland Police for my trouble -New Zealand is no longer a Christian country, so
let's not pretend any longer. A new religion, the worship of cars took over a number
of years ago and is unshakably embeded in mainstraeam culture; anything that cgallenges
the car-worship religion [that provides a handsome income for the eco-vandals who run it]
is dangerous and has to be opposed with overwelming force.
Although I eventually was exohorated in court and did not have to pay any further penalty,
I learned my lesson and ceased attempting to assist the people of Auckland who simply do
not want to know. I am sure the same of similar phenomena of materialism and car-worhip apply
around the world.
But the world will soon enough divide into survivors and perishers (it's already happening
in many locations) and individuals therefore need to take care of themselves and those
close to them, rather than trying to undo a generation in trained in dysfunction that the
advertising sector has created.
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
William Butler Yeats, "The Second Coming," 1921
I was naive enough to think the Greens would get traction in the recent elections from the rising oil price. but just the opposite ensued--people were baying for reduced petrol taxes and blaming the oil cartels. the Greens nearly got tossed out of parliament altogether. so my conclusion is that somewhat less than 5% of people in NZ have any real grasp of the issues. thus, education of the general public seems a lost cause. people who are curious enough can get the information themselves and figure it out, as most of the people reading this probably did. so i think web information resources and a few high-profile people popping up from time to time in the mainstream media is as effective as we'll get it in the medium term. of course local initiatives like bike lanes are practical and non-doomerist, so I'm all for it.
Lot's of people think the whole business is just a conspiracy by the oil companies to drive up price and profit. Others think it'll just blow over. The scary part comes when people start believing peak oil. Which way do we go now? Do we follow Bush and crew and say let's go take what's left, come hell or high water? That's not impossible! Coulter and others of her ilk are already whispering that in people's ears.
Peak oil is not just a matter of conserving and so forth. It's a deeply political issue, connected with the whole direction of the country (and the world!) As are things now, we are headed into a series of wars -- well actually they already started, haven't they? People will start taking an active interest in the conservation part when their pocketbooks are badly damaged, just as a practical matter.
I'm not worried about that, not mostly. What matters most is their political reaction: do we go to war to keep our "way of life" as long as possible, or do we support working with the rest of world on figuring out how to come down off the peak without spilling as much blood as we have oil.
I live in a 9 story condo with 69 units. I've been yelling about peak oil and its impact for at least a year now. It's not been a waste even though not a whole lot has actually been done yet. We only got a slap in the face so far. By next year, I fear will be getting bruises around the eyes, and we'll do more.
For me peak oil is not an isolated issue. (I'm sure that's true for most here at TOD, although beyond that disagreement sets in.) It's connected to war, to 9-11 (see Colin Campbell's take on that issue in his Oil Crisis), to the fate of empires, and society itself in the remainder of the century.
Don't get me wrong. The change in lifestyle is something we need to get working on, even just to show what's possible, to show that it IS possible to go down off peak in a reasonably comfortable way -- and a hell of a lot more comfortable than endless war. I have a car -- parked about 4 blocks away. I went to turn it over last week just so the battery doesn't run down. I don't use my bike much any more. I walk, more exercise.
But in the heartland, people don't seem to have much choice. Our whole country is built around the car. The arteries to every major city are huge parking lots for several hours twice a day. It's absolute madness. This is something that cannot just be reformed. Our whole way of life cannot go on as it is. How will the transition be made? Katrina gives us an idea, doesn't it?
I'm babbling, aren't I?
Now, in regard to things not being able to go on as they are:
Here is a DUET (Deep Universal Eternal Truth)
If something cannot go on indefinitely, then it won't.
The pain hits at the transition point. But I wonder why people wonder at the harm 20 billion people are going to do to planet earth. Not going to happen--don't worry about that.
Rather, we should focus how to get through the painful times to come as best we can, as individuals, families, organizations, communities, regions, and nation states.
Why dont you build lots of public transportation freeing up road capacity so people who realy like or need their car actually can use it to drive somewhere?
Should it nor be good for your car culture?
Any economist worth his salt can devise a system in which gasoline is very heavily taxed and the funds are used to subsidize public transportation--with the result that there are huge enormous GIGANTIC improvements in overall welfare (less congestion, less wasted fossil fuel, less road rage, faster times of travel, far less air pollution, and on and and on). But look at political realities: In the United States the last president to call for an increase in the gasoline tax was Jimmy Carter. He wanted an increase of five cents per gallon. And what happened? He was regarded as nuts for proposing this and lost the next election.
Carter had good ideas--not one of which he was able to get through Congress.
Politics rules.
For better or worse.
And worse.
My guess for what would be reasonable in Sweden is a complete system change on how the roads are financed. Fossil fuels have very heavy taxation and those incommes are used for roads and as a regular tax cash cow. The alternative bio fuels are so far more expensive to produce then fossil based fuels and the same "road" tax on them would delay their introduction for several years. If we then would start to juggle different taxation levels on wich fuel is best of RME, FT-diesel, Biogas, electricity, Metahnol, DME, and so on we will create a regulation mess.
If I were an influential minister I would accept shrinking tax incomes from fossil wehicle fuels. It would partly ballance out by increasing tax incomes from regular sales tax on bio fuels and taxation on the production work.
I would then introduce a distance, road wear and road space used fee that directly finances the road network. And when oil prices continues to get higher I would lower and then abolished the special fossil fuel taxes to make the taxation system simpler. Investments in the road and rail network can then be financed with the sales tax on fuel and other services. Hopefullt most of the running costs will be financed more or less directly by fees giving a system that is quite close to an ordinary market economy and thus less sensitive to future bad political decisions.
This is why I spend a lot of time on The Ergosphere writing about solutions. It has inspired at least one person to go, find and implement solutions; I'll post his letter on the blog on Tuesday.
So often I feel like the one person left in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" who hasn't turned into a mindless robot consuming and trundling along (the people in the bus, paragraph 1).
Prepare yourself for when the shit starts hitting the fan, and when it does, you'll be your local visionary who people might come to for advice later.
After all, we might be wrong. What if we are just like many see us: the latest craze like Y2K'ers.
Even if I am overreacting by buying gold bullion and a small off-grid farm, I might find a happier simpler life even if the peak oil scenarios lead to a soft landing...
If I rant too much to my friends and family, they just shake their heads and think I've gone mad.
- Lots of countries have huge gold reserves and will likely use them to finance their economies. This will likely put a cap on gold prices. It will happen as soon as they realize that the gold sitting in vaults does provide them any security and can't buy them oil & gas that isn't available.
- During the collapse of the Soviet Union, consumers barted for food, vodka, toilet paper, etc. They weren't interested in foriegn currencies or precious metals. Vodka was the highest valuable commodity as it was in short supply and in high demand, but that was a Russian thing. I doubt Vodka would hold the same value here in the US.
Gold like any commodity is only as valuable as the demand. I can't predict what commodites will be valuable in the future and I don't think anyone can either. In my opinion investing your capital in your farm will probably more valuable and rewarding than any shiny pieces of metal can offer you.Good luck to you
Deffeyes'most recent comments.
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2006/02/played.html
Note that a few of the first five comments depart from the usual sycophantic tenor of his followers.
But at least they are aware of the situation and I bleive that's all we can ask as this juncture of the game.. People will not listen to the message of peak oil until the crap hits the fan and we all know it will be too late by then.
FWIW, I had no trouble at all convincing two high school educated nephews that peak oil was a happening thing and that it mattered. Oh BTW, I never attended college either.
you did your part.
I don't see this. I see resistance instead.
Reno,
You & I have gone back and forth on the part about how "their eyes glaze over" when you start talking Peak Oil.
There could be another factor to the equation: Specialization.
Think about it.
Each of your relatives (& mine) specializes in some very narrow trade, especially if they went to college and majored in some focused area. Some spend their whole lives studying "managerial accounting", some spend their lives on "just-in time supply side economics". Some are "electrical" engineers and some are "chemical" engineers. (OK you mechanicals & civils, we know you're out there too.)
There is no "everything" person. Not one of them knows how the whole thing comes together. Each simply "assumes" there is someone out there taking care of every tiny detail. Nothing falls through the cracks. The system provides. (The markets provide.) It's the specialization of a college education that blinds them. They're too smart to see outside the framework of their tunnel vision spectacles.