[GJM] Fw: (Fwd) Heinberg on Oil and Politics - trying to talk sense into ostriches

[mary rose]

>From where I sit, it is not so much trying to talk sense into ostriches,
it is that we are dealing with an addiction problem that needs to be
handled by therapists who know what they are doing.  While addiction
can be treated, it is one of the most difficult of phychosis to transform.
And, in our society it is a "collective dis-ease of the sub-conscious mind,"
just as is "consumerism".

And, if one has ever tried to "talk" to the family alcoholic about their
problem, then one realizes how futile this is in changing the behavior
pattern. The favorite behavior of the addict is "denial" and we see this
running rampant in our society as literally billions of people refuse to
come to terms with their addicitons that result in over-consumption
and consumption of poisons in the food chain, luxury items that are
simply "unaffordable" in our current state of affairs, etc., etc., etc.,
and until those attempting to transform the citizenry get a clue as to
where the root of the problem lies, then they are simply blowing a
big wind that goes no where.

While Richard Heinberg has great insight into defining what the problems
are, he has little insight into how to solve them.

mary rose

We must be the change we wish to see in our lives. M Gandhi




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dave Ewoldt" <dave at reststop.net>
To: "Daves Posts" <dave at reststop.net>
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 10:42 PM
Subject: (Fwd) Heinberg on Oil and Politics - trying to talk sense into 
ostriches


> More and more people are starting to repeat this basic mantra: we can 
> either plan for
> our sustainable future through relocalization -- take our fate into our 
> own hands with
> eyes wide open, so to speak -- or have it forced on us at a time when 
> we'll have little
> left to build the alternative from. The latter sounds like a no-fail 
> recipe for collapse
> and chaos to me.
>
> We've been having some good conversations recently on the mail list for 
> the ~200
> coordinators of relocalization groups around the world, some of which have 
> centered
> on the questions of: Can we really change? Can we make a conscious 
> decision to do
> things differently? Can we accept the paradigm of economic cannibalism 
> (benignly
> referred to as the healthy growth of market economies) for what it is? Can 
> we build
> an alternative public infrastructure that adheres to natural systems 
> principles of
> sustainability, improve quality of life, further human progress, by 
> actually being more
> fully human?
>
> Well, since staying the course, trying to make the status quo even more 
> efficient,
> staying disconnected and addicted to substitutes for natural fulfillment 
> is the path to
> extinction, what have we really got to lose, even if we make a few 
> mistakes along the
> way?
>
> ------- Forwarded message follows -------
>
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051408R.shtml
>
>  Oil and Politics
>     By Richard Heinberg
>     t r u t h o u t | Perspective
>     Wednesday 14 May 2008
>
>     On Tuesday, Senate Democrats introduced legislation that would halt a 
> US
> arms sale to Saudi Arabia worth $1.4 billion. The implication is clear: no 
> more
> war toys for the Saudis unless they agree to up their oil output.
>
>     The same day, the House approved a Senate plan to suspend oil
> deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in hopes of diverting that
> oil to the market, thus lowering the pump price a tiny amount.
>
>     A week earlier, a handful of senators proposed a bill threatening a
> trade dispute with members of OPEC if the organization doesn't stop its
> "anti-competitive practices and illegal export quotas on oil."
>
>     It's understandable that our elected leaders would want to do
> something about the meteoric rise of gasoline, diesel and heating oil
> prices that are now bankrupting independent truckers and forcing many 
> folks in
> colder states to choose between being able to stay warm and being able to 
> drive
> to work. Yet, efforts like the ones just mentioned are based on a profound
> misperception of why oil prices are rising.
>
>     The real problem is summed up in the phrase Peak Oil. Petroleum is a
> finite substance and we have reached the inevitable point at which it
> simply isn't possible to increase the rate at which we extract it from the
> ground. Most oil-producing countries, including the US, have already seen 
> their
> glory days and are now watching output from their wells gradually dwindle. 
> Only
> a few nations are early in the production cycle and able to ramp up the 
> rate of
> flow.
>
>     Here is a concise definition of Peak Oil from my colleague Chris
> Skrebowsi, the editor of Petroleum Review in London. He says: "Global oil
> production falls when loss of output from countries in decline exceeds
> gains in output from those that are expanding."
>
>     Well, how are we doing? Who's winning: decliners or expanders?
>
>     According to last year's scorecard, the decliners won. The same
> happened in 2006. And that's with oil prices at record highs, presumably
> offering every incentive for nations that can produce more oil to do so.
>
>     Does this mean we are at the all-time peak of global oil flow rates
> now? Not necessarily. There are large new production projects coming on
> line this year and next, including one in Saudi Arabia that will add
> several hundred thousand barrels a day to that nation's productive 
> capacity.
>
>     However, on the other side of the balance there is some very bad news.
> Russia, the world's leading oil-producing nation and the country that has 
> been
> responsible for the lion's share of the world's production growth over the 
> past
> decade, has gone into decline. Optimistic analysts hope Russia will be 
> able to
> keep production more or less flat for a few years, but that may not be 
> possible.
> The past few months have seen reductions in output. Other important 
> exporting
> nations, such as Nigeria and Mexico, are also in trouble.
>
>     The timing of the global peak may still be unclear. But surely we
> can't afford, as a matter of national policy, to assume that it will be
> decades in the future - given that all of the symptoms are staring us in
> the face now.
>
>     Some economists say that current high oil prices are largely due to
> the falling value of the dollar, or to speculation. Simple arithmetic 
> tells us
> that dollar depreciation has added only ten or fifteen percent to oil's 
> cost
> over the past two to three years. As for speculation, one has to ask why
> investors are choosing to park their money in oil contracts. It must be 
> because
> they see the fundamentals supporting rising prices. In a situation where 
> demand
> is headed higher but supply isn't, speculation is inevitable. So 
> speculation is
> a symptom; it isn't the cause of the problem.
>
>     Given all this, how much sense does it make to spend our time and
> effort blaming OPEC for not producing more, or to neglect saving some
> petroleum for the inevitable point in the future when our problem isn't
> just high oil prices, but actual shortages of fuel for emergency vehicles
> and food delivery trucks?
>
>     If I were a Saudi or a Kuwaiti, I would be advising my government not 
> to
> pump more oil. After all, these countries earn nearly all of their income 
> from
> selling the stuff; once the oil's gone, what can they do for an encore? 
> No, it
> makes more sense for them to husband the resource, sell it for higher 
> prices and
> invest in renewable energy sources at home in preparation for the day when
> nature's patrimony is gone.
>
>     In fact, however, in recent years most OPEC countries have been
> pumping flat out; only the Saudis claim to have any spare production
> capacity to speak of. But isn't it a good idea for some country somewhere
> to keep some capacity in reserve in case of a real emergency - a major
> pipeline outage, another hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico, or a revolution
> in one of the other main producing countries? Should efforts at 
> responsible
> resource management make these people our enemies?
>
>     The blame game makes for good sound bites on the floor of Congress. It
> plays well with folks back home who are struggling to find the money to 
> fill up
> their SUVs but can't find Saudi Arabia on a map. All they have been taught 
> to
> know is that Arabs have lots of oil and they are bad people.
>
>     But think where this might lead: suppose we get tough with the Saudis 
> and
> end up destabilizing the kingdom so that forces unfriendly to us take 
> over. Then
> we will feel more or less forced to invade in order to maintain access to 
> our
> national drug of choice. Where would it end? Does any of this help?
>     Rather than looking for villains, we should be exploring how we can
> adapt to having less oil next year, and even less the year after that.
> Rebuilding our oil-dependent transport, agricultural and manufacturing
> infrastructure is going to be a big job, and it's going to take time. So
> the sooner we start, the better.
>
>     The real problem is that we use too much oil. It's that simple and
> that difficult. If we truly want to reduce our vulnerability to high
> prices, the best way to do so is to reduce consumption.
>
>     One way or another, we will adapt. We will drive less, we will fly
> less and we will grow our food more locally with fewer inputs. But these
> changes will go far more smoothly if we plan for them, rather than being
> forced into them at the nozzle of an empty gas pump.
>
>     There is a cliche in action films: "We can do this the hard way, or we 
> can
> do it the easy way." Blaming OPEC while doing nothing to rein in our 
> domestic
> demand for petroleum only ensures that we will be adapting to Peak Oil the 
> hard
> way.
>
>     -----
>
>     Richard Heinberg is a senior fellow of Post Carbon Institute and the
> author of Peak Everything,The Oil Depletion Protocol and The Party's Over. 
> He
> writes a regular column for The Ecologist magazine and is widely regarded 
> as one
> of the world's foremost Peak Oil educators.
>
> ------- End of forwarded message -------
>
> _dave_(peace _on_ Earth requires peace _with_ Earth)
> http://www.reststop.net/NCEP/index.html
> http://www.attractionretreat.org/
> Catalyzing personal healing, cultural transformation, and planetary 
> sustainability
>
>