How should progressives respond to the end of the Oil Age?

[4dsc]

Thus McKibben joins the chorus of alternative energy optimists as they make yet another thoughtless plea to the government to “get us off of oil.” Amidst these catchy and reassuring, though mind-numbing, refrains, public discourse (even “progressive” discourse) is once more steered away from pondering any initial and basic calculations about our current levels of consumption and the energy and fuel that makes it possible This should be our starting point as we map our course and consider Klare’s question, “how should progressives respond to the current crisis.” For the difficult and frightening truth that readers of Energy Bulletin understand, but which has failed to make its way into a broader conversation, is that it is highly unlikely that the cheap, easily accessed, highly portable, relatively safe and stable and, most importantly, highly dense and concentrated fossil fuels upon which we have built our entire world, can ever be reproduced by any other source.

This serves as a valuable reminder that like most modern people, self-described progressives are also accustomed to technological fixes for nearly every problem and challenge, and the very possibility that some breakthrough technology or solution isn’t just around the corner is scarcely fathomable; that alternative energy might not be able to replace fossil fuels is so alien and so far removed from popular consciousness that this possibility need not even be discussed or rise to the level at which it is worthy of being dismissed in “The Progressive”: apparently it “goes without saying”-- the presumed untapped riches of renewable energy is, after all, “the only way”

http://energybulletin.net/stories/2010-08-29/how-should-progressives-respond-end-oil-age

There is not going to be any easy road to another fuel source as the supplies of oil decrease over the coming decades.

[zipplewrath]

1. Heck of an assertion

"For the difficult and frightening truth that readers of Energy Bulletin understand, but which has failed to make its way into a broader conversation, is that it is highly unlikely that the cheap, easily accessed, highly portable, relatively safe and stable and, most importantly, highly dense and concentrated fossil fuels upon which we have built our entire world, can ever be reproduced by any other source."

That's one heck of an assertion. As someone who has been involved in advancing technology, and its applications, for the last 30 years, I'd be very careful about suggesting that something "can't be done". A QUANTITATIVE expression of this concept might help a bit. I am aware of the nature of the issue of the "highly dense" nature of fossil fuels. But it is one heck of a presumption that a "synthetic fuel" can't be designed to replace fossil fuels. We will have to think of it as an "energy storage" medium, as oppose to a commodity that is harvested. And it may change the economic dynamics of fuels a bit. But that is a highly dynamic economic and technological landscape that is being discussed and suggesting that it "can't be done" is really a leap.

[Raster]

2. In addition to the shift in thinking from a commodity to an energy storage vehicle comes the change

in thought from a profit-yielding enterprise to a more altruistic "benefit-of-all" approach. Too many view the upcoming necessary changes to our energy infrastructure as incompatible with the current "for profit" modeling, which it is, and should be. For too long energy has been a private economic enterprise, yielding fabulous wealth to a privileged few. This must change. It's notable that while the fabulous wealth and high-end benefits of petroleum energy are only enjoyed by the privileged few, the entire planet must suffer the consequences and repercussions. Witness global climate change and pollution, directly attributable to the use of fossil fuels. And now the cost of mitigating the damage will be borne by the users of the fossil fuels, not the wealthy purveyors.

[zipplewrath]

3. Well, or even alternate economic metaphors

Without going to a completely "nonprofit" model, converting from a fossil fuel to a synthetic fuel makes it a manufactured commodity that is available to "anyone" as oppose to a resource to be captured/controlled/contained. Nor more fighting over oil fields, one now just has to establish the factory to manufacture it.

[Raster]

4. It's somewhat of a Catch-22 situation. The Petroleum Mafia and Cartels will do everything they can

to make sure petroleum is the prime planetary energy source as long as they control the majority of said resource. If SkyGod came down from the heavens bringing efficient and cheap fusion power for all, the Petroleum Mafias and Cartels would do everything in their powers to hijack and control the energy source.

[4dsc]

5. Sorry but technoloigy won't save the day

and neither will you beloved synthetic fuel. This is a very well written article because most people are in denial about their own future. A future that involves less oil, a lot less oil.

[RainDog]

6. we already have another fuel source available: hemp

hemp is also a replacement for anything made out of plastic.

hemp is a replacement for wood pulp (and was used for paper long before wood pulp - and is a better form of paper - more durable, less acidic.)

hemp is a replacement for gasoline-powered cars - both the car bodies and the fuel to run them.

hemp is an annual that is, literally, a weed and, as such, requires much less in the way of pesticides, whether organic or synthetic.

hemp contains soil erosion.

hemp may be used as biomass.

I would LOVE to see farmers revolt, en masse, in states across America and begin to plant hemp - seeds for hemp have such a low thc content it's worthless to harvest as marijuana. but it is incredibly useful to harvest for, literally, thousands of manufacturing uses.