Comments on: Peak Thinking Revisited

By: Macleans agnostic

Macleans agnostic — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:19:26 +0000

As a geologist who has studied energy for decades I am dismayed that journalists such as Mr. Potter get any print on these issues. In my extensive travels lecturing on these issues and meeting thousands of people I find that the scientists concerned about the issue of non-renewable resource depletion are predominantly geoscientists that have actually studied them, and the blind-faith believers in technology and silver bullets are classical economists, politicians and journalists such as Mr. Potter who have little firsthand knowledge of the issues. Mr. Potter's idle speculation is dangerous and the fact that it gets covered in a national magazine where it stokes hope in an infinite growth business-as-usual future makes it even worse.

Posted at the original article and repeated here.

By: PhilCP

PhilCP — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:23:39 +0000

Nice one

By: SeanStok

SeanStok — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:29:33 +0000

Oh, I think we've all found ourselves under the influence of too many beers, close to last call, finding that solar panel or windmill irresistable.

By: PhilCP

PhilCP — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:58:49 +0000

Interesting analogy…to carry it a little further, sometimes energy is available in a high quality form, but the desired quantity might be hard to obtain; other sources provide low quality energy but the quantity is relatively limitless.

By: PhilCP

PhilCP — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:44:25 +0000

Either directly or indirectly it can always be converted to a dollars and cents number.

By: Adrian

Adrian — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:28:45 +0000

Mr. Potter makes a comparatively neglected point, but it's not a valid argument: The fact that we've innovated to solve problems before doesn't mean that we will in the future.

Doubtless, Mr. Potter recognizes this and his main motivation is to mitigate the rampant declinism prevalent in contemporary culture.

That being said, my only concern is that Mr. Potter's observations should not be a prescription for apathy and nonchalance – not known to be catalysts of innovation.

By: CPF

CPF — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:00:36 +0000

Part of the news media's decline is attributable to the hyperventilating it does when it comes to problems and issues. Writing "no, the sky isn't falling" articles throws our expectations for a loop, and the results can be seen in most of the comments above.

By: Two Hats

Two Hats — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:37:52 +0000

But hasn't your life changed since "Peak Christmas"? Haven't your outlook & behaviour changed dramically since then (although I grant probably not because of it)? Isn't the more rational response to Peak Oil to say that we will change our way of life without really lowering it, instead of to imply that things can go on as they are regardless?
After all, the fact of peak oil is not in dispute. Oil is, for all intents and purposes, a finite resource (the earth produces it on a geological timescale; from a human perspective we're not getting any more than what's there). We may extract it more efficiently, but we're using it up and absent an alternative we will run out of it, some day. The only dispute is whether that happens sooner or later.
By some measures, you are worse of for the changes in your life that have happened since Peak Christmas; I suggest those measures are a flawed indicator of your well-being.

By: Bailey

Bailey — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:39:28 +0000

The other day, I was looking at Jeff Rubin's book while in an Indigo store and I thought to myself that comes across as declinism and wondered if you (Potter) would write a blog post or column against the book. Looks like I was somewhat right.

By: NPT

NPT — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:37:45 +0000

I think some of the commentors here are misinterpreting Andrew’s point. I don’t believe he is denying that peak oil is possible or a real threat…rather that the general dystopian approach for all “peak” theories seems to discount some of humanity’s positive traits. We have proven we can change our behaviour and overcome obstacles in the past, so why should our current dependance on oil necessarily mean THE END?

Besides, his “peak rocks” comment in the article made me laugh…

By: SeanStok

SeanStok — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:44:01 +0000

One can generally secure a fresh source of sex, if desired. The same cannot be said for oil.

And while I agree that we shouldn't be too doomsdayish about things, there remains the disquieting possibility that alternative energy sources will only amount to the equivalent of 'self-pleasure', to put it delicately.

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:28:37 +0000

With this effort, Let's add "peak mediocrity" to our list.

By: TJCook

TJCook — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:36:30 +0000

"I see no reason why peak oil is the end of our way of life, any more than peak sex is the end of marriage."

Are you kidding? Oil IS our way of life – our world runs on it. It feeds us, it makes globalization possible, it enables our prosperity. The technological advances that deniers point to (such as feeding an ever-growing population) are frequently just new and unanticipated ways to apply oil to a growing problem.

For me, the scary part of learning about peak oil was not coming to accept that a rapid decline is inevitable, but discovering how pervasive oil is in our lives.

By: John Hepworth

John Hepworth — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:34:05 +0000

As much as I am always the last to admit it, parties do end.

While there have always been handwringers and triumphalists, pointing out that there's no beer in the fridge is best down at 5 minutes before 11, and for the ROC God help you.

I certainly hope for the best, but may just plan a little for the worst.

Sorry to hear you've reached peak sex.

By: dhalvers

dhalvers — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:16:44 +0000

After reading your last column and now this one, I suspect you are not serious and, having taken a few philosophy courses, trying to be clever. Sadly you are not serious in dangerous way about a vital issue. If you wish to get serious I suggest you read Chris Turner's current article in Walrus, "An Inconvenient Talk: Dave Hughes’s guide to the end of the fossil fuel age".

By: finn

finn — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:52:04 +0000

"That’s the moment in a relationship after which the frequency of sex goes into terminal decline, and the cost of actually getting some gets steadily dearer."

Cost?–as in dollars and cents?