PowerSwitch

Anybody else read the posts by those supporting the fuel protests on other sites?

I am amazed that so many of them are just unable to grasp the concept of Peak Oil.

They are so wrapped up in the argument of fuel duty they cannot see the cliff they are heading towards.

This is what really concerns me. Many people only see these problems from the point of view of how it affects them. They do not seem to consider that we are all in the same boat and we must all make difficult changes.

God help us when the real shortages hit.

Look... I'm not driving a Mini Metro!

What you need to do is send a simple and easy to read email explaining what peak oil is to the main organisers. Here's one I sent this morning to the 3 main people at www.lesstaxonfuel.co.uk (see contact page).

I also sent one to David Handley of www.farmersforaction.org (and got a rather snotty reply back from a Marilyn Handley, which gave the distinct impression that she had never heard of peak oil).

They have a responsibility to research their subject if they are going to set themselves up as representatives of their industry with regard to oil prices etc and take action which is actually counter productive to all of us. On the other hand, at least their action may force the government to look much closer at how much oil we've got left and whether Opec can increase output. Everything happens with perfect cosmic timing.

Anyway, I think it would help if these people were brought on board.

----- Original Message -----
From: mopo
To: martin@lesstaxonfuel.co.uk
Cc: Rhys@lesstaxonfuel.co.uk ; Alan@lesstaxonfuel.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 8:10 AM
Subject: Peak Oil


Dear Sirs

Are you familiar with the concept of Peak Oil? If, as many experts believe, the world has already "peaked" in production, this means that for each year that passes from now on we will see a reduction of around 3% in global oil supply whilst global demand will carry on rising exponentially. Do you realise how serious this is, not only on the implications for fuel prices, but also for every other aspect of our lives, including feeding the population.

We are at the end of the era of cheap oil. What are you going to do, threaten to blockade the refineries every time the price goes up? I think you need to look ahead a couple of years when the economic/social situation is going to become very dire indeed. I strongly urge that what you really should be doing now is using your position to demand that the Government start investing urgently in preparing our transport and agriculture infrastructure to be less dependent on fossil fuel to try to hopefully mitigate the catastrophic events that are going to occur.

Saudi Arabia's Gharwar oil field officially entered decline in April this year. That is by far the biggest field in Saudi Arabia and it has peaked. This should of been the news story of the decade at least. It has not been reported by any of the western media, only by a couple of middle eastern media outlets such as Al Jazeera. See this link: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... 0F8894.htm

Opec is no longer able to increase production, because quite simply all the low hanging fruit has gone and we are now entering the decline stage.

You must familiarise yourselves with Peak Oil. The whole global ecomonic model is based on perpetual growth through cheap energy and it will start to go into a protracted meltdown as the effects of Peak Oil start coming through, which they are already. Hurricane Katrina has caused a spike, but the underlying fundamentals are unchanged.

I have included some links that I hope you will find informative. Otherwise do a simple Google search for "Peak Oil" and have a look at what is really happening. Because you will not hear about this in our mainstream press.

Yours

mopo

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ ... opic=15068 (read from post number 9 downwards)
http://www.headheritage.co.uk/uknow/features/?id=63
http://www.peakoil.net/
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://www.peakoil.org

I think you're trying a bit too hard. You may also be better off posting shorter messages rather than trying to cover everything in one go.

If you ram a point of view down anyone's throat, they will put up barriers and resist.

I remember one of the guys ran a poll and he did at least acknowledge "Peak Oil".

I think the approach to take with them is to subtly suggest that they should call for Blair to help them "get off oil", because merely leaving it to "the market" is just going to ruin them.

Hi Banddidoz

I think the approach to take with them is to subtly suggest that they should call for Blair to help them "get off oil", because merely leaving it to "the market" is just going to ruin them.

That why I said:

I strongly urge that what you really should be doing now is using your position to demand that the Government start investing urgently in preparing our transport and agriculture infrastructure to be less dependent on fossil fuel

I think these people need to be told in stark terms so they will sit up and take notice. I don't think we've got time for subleties. If they are going to set themselves up as representatives and take this kind of action "on behalf of taxpayers" then they need to get the full picture.

They only appear to be concerned with the price of fuel, regardless of the underlying causes and the implications of them for all of us.

Anyway, the defining moment will be when the markets realise that Saudi cannot increase it's production as promised, which should become evident one way or the other within the next 12 months. Everything else is just a sideshow for now.

Saudi Arabia's Gharwar oil field officially entered decline in April this year. That is by far the biggest field in Saudi Arabia and it has peaked. This should of been the news story of the decade at least. It has not been reported by any of the western media, only by a couple of middle eastern media outlets such as Al Jazeera. See this link: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/ ... 0F8894.htm

And of course, the person you are trying to convince will say. "Officially? Show me the evidence. Thats just the OPINION of some guy who Ive never heard of sitting behind a desk in Canada. What does he know about it? If I paid attention to every scare story on the internet I'd never get anything done. We've had oil crises in the past and we always got over it."

The bigger the problem. the more people tend to think that its unlikely to be real. People naturally think that things will always continue in their lives as they have up till now. If you cant hit them with indisputible physical evidence you might as well not bother. If people don't want to hear a story they wont, even if the logic is impeccable. The combination of logic and evidence that biological evolution has happened in the past if obvious to me, but religious fanatics minds are closed on the subject. Ditto Peak Oil. That crude oil output will at some point hit a maximum and threreafter never hit it again is just pure logic - as crude is a non-renewable resource, it cant be any other way...but many people just dont want to hear that. ... "something will turn up"....

Maybe you are disturbed becasue you expect humans to be rational. I dont. I think humans can best be described as rationalising, not rational. some rationality exists at the individual level - most people seem to be a mix of rational and irrational elements - but not en masse. If humanity survives the 21st century it will be largely accidental.

(and got a rather snotty reply back from a Marilyn Handley, which gave the distinct impression that she had never heard of peak oil).

Probably she hasnt. Why should she have? I'm not interested in football. Anything about football in the TV / radio / newspaper is in one ear/eye and out of the other without making contact with my brain. The only member of the English team I can name is David Beckham. Surprised? I'd much rather go for a walk or listen to some Wagner than watch 24 men kick a piece of leather round a patch of grass. My attention lasts for about 2 minutes, then after that - seen one football match seen them all. Ditto all spectator sports. I prefer doing to watching.

Most people will similarly not be interested in anything to do with soemthing technical like energy supply. Its just background to their lives - something that is taken care of that they dont have to think about. Flick a switch, light comes on. Like breathing. Not something you think about. Boring. . They've got other things to think about. The kids, the job, the mortgage and the football. They are only interested in the price of a litre of unleaded or diesel. Then they will grumble for ten minutes and blame Gordon Brown/ the oil companies/ the Saudies. etc. for being greedy when the price goes up. Then forget about it. Boiling Frog scenario.

I dont thnk anything will happen re Peak oil politically untill there is a serious price spike or shortage in the retail market. The maybe even the govt, might figure it out. If petrol spiked up to ?5 a litre over a few months then we might see some serious thought and action in a larger section of society . Ditto $5 a gallon in the USA.

I dont thnk anything will happen re Peak oil politically untill there is a serious price spike or shortage in the retail market. The maybe even the govt, might figure it out. If petrol spiked up to ?2 a litre over a few months then we might see some serious thought and action in a larger section of society . Ditto $5 a gallon in the USA

I think you're right. In a way it's pointless and a waste of "energy" trying to get this message across because it is all going to come out naturally. You cannot hide a decline in output.

I think once the seriousness hits home, the Government's around the world will have to bring in quite radical measures very quickly. Maybe it will be a good thing. In a crises scientists really concentrate on innovation (just like in WW2). Things will change for sure, but it doesn't have to be all doom and gloom.

Also, a bit off topic, but I don't think running away is the answer (as some people seem to want to do). It will be everywhere and you can't run away from yourself. You need to be strong in your community and keep calm. If we all work together, then this could be an opportunity to create a better world.

mopo wrote: I think you're right. In a way it's pointless and a waste of "energy" trying to get this message across because it is all going to come out naturally. You cannot hide a decline in output.

What I do think is worthwhile is the work being done by the people like ASPO and others in elucidating the situation and working it all out. At least the knowledge is then , as it were, pre-positioned and pre-digested , waiting for people when they do come looking for answers. The body of work on Peak oil is growing all the time, both on the web and now in print, as for example Matt Simmons "Twighlight in the Desert" - which I enjoyed but found rather heavy going. I think he intended it to be a definitive reference work (as far as the info is available) on the Saudi fields as much as anything else.

I agree with you that trying to agressively proselytise people who are not ready to hear the message is both a waste of time and energy, and possibly even counterproductive. Have an honest message ready for people, including the uncertainties, who come looking., but dont try to develop a 'party line' and then go shoving it down peoples throats. Use the Quaker approach rather than the Mormon.

I've had a run-in with fuel protestor types at recent 'Energy Beyond Oil' sessions. What they fail to grasp is that, as fuel duty has ben fixed for two years, all the increases have been solely due to oil prices. However, because fuel duty is so high, our fuel has only gone up by about 25% to 30%. In the USA and parts of Europe, where taxes are much lower, the increases have been 100% to 200%!

High fuel duty HELPS to insulate our economy from spiralling oil prices!


Also, for at least a year now I've been running into anti-wind types who insist that peak oil is a 'zionist plot' (or something similar) and that oil bubbles up from the Earth's mantle and so will never run out (as I call it, the 'abiotic theory of forlorn hopes'). I even had an anti-wind dude in a session a few weeks ago who insisted (at the top of his voice) that "the laws of physics do not apply to energy".

Given there's a lot of cross-over between the anti-wind and fuel tax crowd, I wouldn't be surprised if you got a little abiotic nonesense in rpely to your efforts sooner or later.


P.

mobbsey wrote:I even had an anti-wind dude in a session a few weeks ago who insisted (at the top of his voice) that "the laws of physics do not apply to energy".

ROFL!

With regards to:

I think you're right. In a way it's pointless and a waste of "energy" trying to get this message across because it is all going to come out naturally. You cannot hide a decline in output.

This is certainly true in the long term. I'm more concerned with how it's perceived in the short term, and the implications accordingly. I was just now reading the Scotsman piece about the planned fuel protests and the Treasury indicated very clearly their intention to maintain 'pressure on OPEC to set their oil production at levels consistent with more stable and
sustainable prices.'

If OPEC - SA in particular - are generally perceived to be deliberately not increasing production (and they've set themselves up for it by making promises that can't be kept) then where will that lead us?

I think we have to keep getting the message out, over and over and over again. To hope that it will come out 'naturally' is to play into the hands of those who desperately want business as usual to continue, whatever the consequences...

I've been speaking to one of the people in charge of lesstaxonfuel about Peak Oil. I think he is taking the concept on board. Certainly more than the some of the others. Fingers crossed.

If OPEC - SA in particular - are generally perceived to be deliberately not increasing production (and they've set themselves up for it by making promises that can't be kept) then where will that lead us?

yup... well the Saudis have rather painted themselves into a corner there. It's fear , I think. All they have managed to produce over the last 40 years of oil wealth is a rich royal family with gargantuan Swiss bank accounts and a welfare state where 30% (guestimate - no official figures, could be a lot higher) of the population is on the dole. There's not much more to the Saudi economy than a huge oil export infrastructure. In that scenario they have to keep plugging perpetual oil production for fear of their own rapidly expanding and unemployed population. Imagine what a field day the radicals and Al-Q'aida would have if the Saudi Oil minister suddenly announced.

• "Sorry folks, the fields are collapsing and output is going to be down by 75% in a decades time. That means, allowing for population increase we'll have to cut unemployment benefit by 90% and also eliminate a lot of the govt. 'Makework' jobs... Oh yes ... and we might not be able to afford all those desalination plants we said we were going to build either, so the poorest of you will have to stop drinking..."

Recipe for revolution. Even if they can maintain current output or even gradually increase it, A growing population is going to absorb more and more of Saudi output.

Their own official claim is ( I think) that they will be able to raise production to 15million barrels a day and keep it there for 50 years. We'll see. Thats not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. Some Saudis in the Oil ministry and Aramco do seem to make wild off the cuff projections, or 'boasts' as Matt Simmons calls them. These can be ignored.

The Saudis themselves have pointed out that some of the 'required' increase in Saudi production projected by the US govt and others is just unrealistic.

I think we have to keep getting the message out, over and over and over again. To hope that it will come out 'naturally' is to play into the hands of those who desperately want business as usual to continue, whatever the consequences...

Yup... but exactly how and what is moot. If you tell people " Oh and by the way the worlds coming to an end next Tuesday and yer all gonna die" they wont listen. So theres no point saying that even if its what you truly believe. People have to be led in in stages. Gently. If you manage to earn, or get labelled by the 'business as usual' appologists as 'crazy bastards' you might as well give up now.

Give people the unarguable facts and an idisputable logical structure... but then I think its best just to let them work out the implications for themselves.

Apart from which, futurologists almost always get it wrong. The future is too complex and chaotic to predict. Like next months weather. You can pick out various individual strands and project them forward,and to a limited extent explore their interaction, but putting it ALL together is I think impossible. The human mind cannot cope. I think all we can do is what we think is right and neccessary, then keep our fingers crossed. I can see that change is inevitably coming, and have an opinion about what we ought to be doing now (promoting conservation, energy efficiency and diversification of energy sources, as fast as possible. A thousand and one little things will make the difference - including a thousand and one changes to the current tax and subsidy regime - not one big unknown technofix) but I don't know whats going to happen. Crystal ballgazers with precise doomday scenarios are I think both counterproductive and almost certain to get it wrong.

I even had an anti-wind dude in a session a few weeks ago who insisted (at the top of his voice) that "the laws of physics do not apply to energy".

I'd not waste time arguing with idiots. The people who need to be convinced are the business community and politicians.

A point I'd make about doomsday predictions is that they are often the "default scenario", i.e. "this is what will happen if no action is taken".

Doomsday predictions serve a purpose in that they are a call to action. Their scenarios have often not materialised because the mitigatory efforts they called for were heeded.

Bandidoz wrote:A point I'd make about doomsday predictions is that they are often the "default scenario", i.e. "this is what will happen if no action is taken".

Doomsday predictions serve a purpose in that they are a call to action. Their scenarios have often not materialised because the mitigatory efforts they called for were heeded.

look Lyne... I dont care if the world is coming to an end...I'm not driving a Mini Metro