Radical Noesis - Thinking outside the box

We have discussed and brainstormed together on this site about peak oil. The implications are massive and catastrophic. We all know that. It is likely that we are past peak oil. Every day the news gets clearer that the global oil "reserves" are largely fantasy, and that consumption is escalating at an incredible rate. The time frame of reaching peak oil have moved from 2080 to 2050, to 2020, to 2012, to 2008, to we are past the peak. A map of the world's top ten countries with oil reserves shows a bleak scenario - and the future and present conflicts. What it doesn't show is the top consumers do not overlap with the top reserves. The U.S. has been the top consumer (and still is per capita), but China and India are on a surge. China's oil consumption is expected to increase by one third this year alone (Ruppert).

The issue will be (and already is) the high cost of oil and the effect on the economy. However, that is a foolish piece of news with the end of oil clearly within sight. High prices will wreck economies and lives; loss of oil will destroy societies and kill billions. That is the story that no one wants the public thinking about. You can utilize peak oil to legitimate war after war for resources, but the end of oil calls for very different solutions. It calls for global and societal transformations. Believe me, it is going to take more than hybrid cars, or even hydrogen powered cars, to make a dent. We quite simply cannot continue on the path we are on.

Within months, the U.S., whose trade imbalance is at record levels will feel the crunch of escalating oil prices. Those imports are going to cost more - much more. So will food, and everything based on the oil economy (which is virtually everything at this point). The rest of the world which has been driven in to the global import-export dependent economy will see the same issues. The U.S. is not ready ... and neither is the world.

There is no quick technological solution here. The one strategy that might give us breathing room is written off as politically and economically unpalatable - dramatically decrease consumption. The U.S. certainly doesn't want to do that, and developing China and India are fighting for their right to increase consumption as part of development. Development, I might mention, which is pointlessly oil dependent in the face of what is looming in front of the world.

Some might say that we should follow the Bush "energy plan" of dramatically increasing exploration and exploitation of existing reserves (or hoped for reserves). That is, at best, an very short term solution. The U.S. could save more from modest reductions in consumption than from what is now anticipated in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. We can scrabble for increasingly hard to extract oil, or we can be blunt about the global situation we are facing. We can engage in military action to control remaining oil and eliminate competitors (such as China) and effectively start a global war, or we can work together to change paths. We can lie and deny, or we can face squarely the situation we are in. Lying and denying means death to a significant portion of the population (including in the U.S. - you might want to check out Congress Mulls Cutting Food Aid to Poor).

We have created a "global economy" totally based in a petroleum economy. Through global institutions and economic colonialism we have undermined the ability of virtually all nations to survive disconnected from that economy. Global agreements such as GATT limit nation's ability to even respond to domestic catastrophes by limiting emergency food supplies and fuel reserves. While this strategy has hooked nations into the global economy through forced interdependence, it has also created a very fragile environment for survival in the current situation.

"Go nuclear" some would say. Unfortunately, there are numerous problems with that approach. The known problems with nuclear power aside, one of the (purported) cornerstones of U.S. complaint with North Korea and Iran are their nuclear power plants. One of the by-products of nuclear energy is the material needed to create nuclear weapons - including "dirty bombs."

Ruppert argues we are past the point of being able to avert disaster. Perhaps he is right. However, I believe (or at least hope) that there is time to change in a less chaotic and destructive fashion. Politicians have a doubly vested interest in pretending oil is not an issue. On the one hand, they believe their citizen constituencies would vote them out of office if they do what needs to be done. On the other, they are beholden to the companies and financial institutions and industries that benefit from oil. Citizens can certainly change at least one side of that equation. Do nothing and you will be voted out of office.

We are facing interlinked catastrophes as this point. The collapse of the oil-based economy and the collapse of the earth's climatological systems. Don't you think it is well passed time when that news took the place of the Michael Jackson trial?

Resources - Please share yours
Declining Oil Reserves: Some Key Concepts and Possible Consequences

Hubbert Peak of Oil Production

Surviving Peak Oil

Peak Oil and see Peak Oil Web Links

Alt-E

The Wolf at the Door

UK Survival in the 21st Century