 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was scheduled to record an interview with Dmitry Orlov today, and we did speak for a bit, but Dmitry lives on a sailboat, and while he was below deck, the wind was still blowing against his cell phone mic. I'm sure you've had the experience of talking to someone who was outside in the wind. It's very distracting. Dmitry closed the hatch on his boat, and that stopped the wind noise, but then it got unpleasantly hot inside the boat. Hardly ideal conditions for an interview, so we've re-scheduled. In the time we were talking, Dmitry did mention that an essay by Michael T. Klare called Portrait of an Oil-Addicted Former Superpower has just been published in the Baltimore Chronicle and Sentinel. Here's a sample: From the end of World War II through the height of the Cold War, the U.S. claim to superpower status rested on a vast sea of oil. As long as most of our oil came from domestic sources and the price remained reasonably low, the American economy thrived and the annual cost of deploying vast armies abroad was relatively manageable. But that sea has been shrinking since the 1950s. Domestic oil production reached a peak in 1970 and has been in decline ever since -- with a growing dependency on imported oil as the result. When it came to reliance on imports, the United States crossed the 50% threshold in 1998 and now has passed 65%.
Though few fully realized it, this represented a significant erosion of sovereign independence even before the price of a barrel of crude soared above $110. By now, we are transferring such staggering sums yearly to foreign oil producers, who are using it to gobble up valuable American assets, that, whether we know it or not, we have essentially abandoned our claim to superpowerdom.
(...)
The managers of these (sovereign wealth) funds naturally insist that they have no intention of using their ownership of prime American properties to influence U.S. policy. In time, however, a transfer of economic power of this magnitude cannot help but translate into a transfer of political power as well. Tags: peak oil, swf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 I didn't create this poll. If I had, I would have made clear a few distinctions that get mashed up here. I'm going to paraphrase some of the positions found in the discussion thread on PeakOil.com under the poll so that I don't have to spend a lot of time formulating the proper attributions to quotes. At least one person said, "I knew it, all you Peak Oil types are just misanthropic doomers. You're not interested in learning how much oil is in the ground or how long it will last. You just want to see human civilization come apart at the seams." A less partisan position went something like this, "Anyone who says they WANT Peak Oil to occur is either nuts or just doesn't understand the massive human die-off that a breakdown in the chemical/mechanized style of agriculture that we now practice will entail, that's why I voted no." And at least one person confirmed these viewpoints by posting something to the effect of, "Darned straight. I can't wait to see all the useless eaters get what's coming to them, and I'm going to try my best to survive just so I can see as many of them as possible die and dance on their graves." But many people said something to the effect of, "I don't want to see a die-off or misery on a grand scale, but I want to see the end to the uglier side of global corporate capitalism." Or "I don't want a die-off, but we can't let the environmental effects of burning all these fossil fuels continue or it will mean the death of us all." Multiple respondents asserted, "It doesn't matter what we WANT to happen with regard to Peak Oil. It's just a question of what WILL happen." Of course, you've got the libertarian/free-market zealots saying, "There's no such thing as pollution. Nothing humans can do endangers the Earth." Some folks took that bait and got shunted to some rather silly conversational epicycles. The poll did not allow people to express their motivations for choosing one answer over the other. It classified people who are eager to see the "useless eaters" get their comeuppance with people who emphatically do not want to see an increase in human misery and death but who would like to see our civilization divert from its course of seemingly ensured collective self-destruction. Similarly, people who voted "no" might have been voicing their abhorrence at the prospects of a global food shortfall or they might have been expressing their hopes that their stock portfolios, heavy in energy companies, would continue to keep them on the investment-class gravy train. It's time for me to replace the current 2012 poll on C-Realm, and I'd like to put up an improved version of this peak oil poll. I'd like the new poll to allow people to express their concerns over the link between an end to chemical/mechanized agriculture and a possible "malthusian correction." I'd also like them to have a choice that would allow them to weigh in on globalization and corporate capitalism as well as on the environment. I'd be interested in some suggestions for restructuring this poll. It looks like the poll can only include one question and up to 12 possible responses to that question. Any ideas? Tags: agriculure, environment, malthusian correction, peak oil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"C" stands for consciousness Episode 74: Big Hat No Cattle In this episode KMO concludes his conversation with Dr. Kathy McMahon of PeakOilBlues.com about common reactions to learning about the implications of Peak Oil including the pathological faux-optimism she calls " Panglossian Disorder." KMO wraps up with a look at the Singularitarian faith as reflected in Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, by Jared Diamond.  Quote from Navigating the Collapse of Civilization: a Spiritual Map by Carolyn Baker, Ph.D: For most Americans marinated in materialism, heads anchored firmly in the sand, never having heard the words “Peak Oil,” still driving their gas-gulping SUVs, reveling in suburban sprawl, and gullibly counting on their pensions and 401Ks to be there when they need them, the notion of civilization's collapse is ludicrous and merely the latest obsession of the lunatic fringe. For other Americans of the rapidly-vanishing middle class who are only one paycheck or one catastrophic illness away from financial oblivion—who between mortgage, car payments, monthly bills, medical expenses, gas prices, and doubling monthly credit card bills, realize that not only will they not be able to pay for their kids’ college education but that every day they are now walking over an economic tightrope across a gaping precipice with a thousand-foot drop. Those folks know in their bones the reality of collapse—they feel it, smell it, taste it, but may not yet be able to allow the words to pass from their lips. Others, such as the individuals I've named above, are the prophets and John the Baptists of our time who get in our faces and scream “Repent!” or in less biblical language: “Wake the hell up!” Tags: panglossian disorder, peak oil, technological singularity
Current Location: The Shiraz House
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
C-Realm Podcast "C" stands for consciousness Episode 73: Cui Bono In this episode, KMO concludes his conversation with James H. Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century . Later, we hear from Kathy McMahon, founder of PeakOilBlues.com about the range of psychological reactions which commonly manifest themselves in people who come to appreciate the implications of peak oil. In addition to the long emergency, Jim Kunstler wanted folks to be aware of his forthcoming novel, World Made by Hand: A Novel . Promised Links:Coming Clean, an audio seminar by Catherine Austin Fitts: http://www.solari.com/store/free_offer/Century of the Self a BBC documentary by Adam Curtis: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+century+of+the+selfTags: james h. kunstler, peak oil
Current Location: The Shiraz House
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In response to this entry, Dmitry Orlov wrote: I don't know how much of a response this sort of thing calls for. But,
since I am too tired to do anything actually creative, I might as well
ramble on a bit about this.
I have a question about the phrase "Peak Oil fantasies." I suppose
it's fine in the sense of fantasizing about what happens after the
economy crashes. I am more of an observer who draws analogies than a
fantasist, and I would like to guide the imagination of those who do
have to resort to fantasy to see the future, rather than to the past.
The other way to take it is to mean that Peak Oil is a fantasy. That's
more a question of figuring out whether or not global conventional oil
production peaked in 2005, and, if it did, figuring out if and for how
long non-conventional sources can cover the shortfall. I have to go by
what other people say, but maybe it did, and maybe the other stuff
won't hold up for very long. Do your own research.
Now, I wholeheartedly agree that just quietly preparing to watch a lot
of people die once their life support system goes on the blink is
monstrous. Those who see it coming have to do their best to raise an
alarm, no matter how belated or ineffectual, but they should certainly
stop just short of sounding like they are crazy, because that won't do
anyone any good.
Finally, I have a word of admonishment for those who go around saying
"We must do something!" When you say "We" in this context, I expect to
see a list - names, addresses, phone numbers, skill sets and
availability/allocation. When you say "do" - I want to see a Gantt
chart with dependencies and milestones. When you say "something" - I
want to see a list of deliverables. And I want to see a budget for the
whole thing, and an environmental impact statement. Got it? If not -
then go eat lunch.
Another non-starter I often run into is the strange notion that in
order to point out a problem (say, suburban drivers stranded and
starving due to lack of gas) one must also propose a solution to it.
It is not stipulated anywhere that all problems must have solutions. I
think the knee-jerk reaction of trying to solve every problem that
comes along is somehow instilled in college students, especially in
the sciences and engineering. Often, it is counterproductive to try
solving a problem without addressing its root causes (suburban sprawl,
car-dependence) because it helps perpetuate them, making the eventual
catastrophe even worse.
Underlying all of this nonsense is the notion that you can do anything
through diligence and hard work. My reading of history is that with
diligence and hard work you can pick a lot of cotton. But to strike
gold - like the Spaniards did in the Americas - requires viciousness
and dumb luck. The viciousness is never in short supply, but the luck
often is, and, without the luck, the viciousness is useless. And since
there is only so much luck to go around, on this Christmas eve, we
should all try to be a bit less vicious.
How's that for a Christmas encyclical?
-Dmitry Dmitry Orlov is the author of the forthcoming Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Example and American Prospects . I interviewed Dmitry for episodes 20 and 21 of the C-Realm Podcast. Tags: dmitry orlov, peak oil
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
kmo's journal
Previous
