Goodstein, "Out of Gas"

[gold_bug]

I just finished reading his short book. In the conclusion he takes a very pessimistic view of the future of energy; here's a few quotations.

There is no doubt at all that the essence of the Hubbert's peak view is correct. It is possible, of course, that the quantitative predictions are off, so that the crisis won't occur until the next decade or even the one after.

In the long run ... (t)he real challenge -- the challenge we would set for ourselves if we had courageous, visionary leadership -- would be to kick the fossil fuel habit altogether as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, our present national and international leadership is reluctant even to acknowledge that that there is a problem. The crisis will occur, and it will be painful.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. This is exactly why I support Kerry

He seems to have the greatest grasp on this issue. And yes, the next few years are going to be very interesting since this isn't simply an US peak but a global peak.

[Dissenting_Prole]

2. Go ahead...

and support any candidate you want. The reality is that any leader who tries to promote change and conservation will quickly be removed from office by corporations and an entitled public. When push comes to shove, most Americans (and some Canadians too) will say, in their own coded way, "I don't care who you have to bomb, I'm not giving up my lifestyle."

We are too far buried in what James Howard Kunstler calls "consensus trance" - the idea that this way of life is normal and will continue to be.

If you think about it, Dick Cheney and his crew are the only group of people taking any kind of action on this crisis, albeit the wrong course. But I think this is what selfish North Americans would ask for if they knew how bad it is really going to get.


http://www.brant.net/gvmr/electric.htm

[RainDog]

3. Coining the terms of the debate

rather than presenting fuel conservation as a constriction, Bush, for instance, because of his skewed worldview, wasted an important moment after 9-11 to call for a national fuel conservation effort, for instance, to "deny funding to terrorists."

in the same vein, alternative energy sources could and should be touted as "freedom fuels" --a slap in the face to terrorists who draw their funding from people in Saudi Arabia who make their money off oil.

in order to actually achieve manufacturing jobs, rather than pretend that making a McBurger is manufacturing, the govt could provide incentives for retro-fitting existing bldgs to use alt. energy, and tax fuel guzzling items...rather than give Hummers a break...

in order to undermine the repuke accusation about big govt, and in order to actually implement these things in feasible ways, allocations should be made at local levels, via state govts, for small scale bizzes which can implement alternative energy programs.

like the WPA, energy work programs could be the way to revive the U.S. economy and fight the war against terrorism on the home front in a way that makes actual sense...

if you remove our need to take oil from the middle east, you remove the motive for Islamic fundamentalists to generate more recruits...because, face it, our embrace of the repressive Saudi regime has done more to ever fuel terrorism than Hussein could or would have ever done.

If the Saudis cannot hold our energy dependency over our heads, then they will be forced to initiate reforms in their own countries because they will know that they will then become the focus of terrorism, as they rightly should be, if Osama is anything more than a red herring.

[Kolesar]

4. Please give the conservation ethic more credit

I think that there are a lot of Americans who would support conservation of natural resources, and that we can develop a message that could influence many, many more Americans (and Canadians!).