The problem with doomers on a progressive website

[bananas]

is that, while most of us are fighting for things like social security, universal healthcare, unemployment insurance, clean air and water, healthy food, workers rights, etc, etc ... the doomers are, in effect, saying don't bother fighting for those things, you can't have them, civilization is going to collapse because of y2k, or peak oil, or global warming.

Y2K came and went, and civilization didn't collapse; peak oil supposedly happened several years ago, there were supposed to be massive blackouts and food riots by now; and Al Gore knows that "We have more than enough solutions for three or four climate crises", as he said on Larry King: http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0911/12/lkl.01.html and at the Clinton Global Initiative: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x211474

[zbdent]

1. It is fodder for RWers who believe that Obama's election was the last sign

of the Apocalypse and the end times being upon us, so "live it up!" ...

[Extend a Hand]

2. really??!! are you seriously denying global warming?

really?

[bananas]

3. No, I'm not denying Global Warming and neither is Al Gore.

Try reading it again.

[Nederland]

4. I didn't read it that way

There is a big difference between saying "global warming is real" and "global warming is going to cause civilization to collapse". Intelligent people don't deny that the world is getter warmer and that CO2 increases are the chief cause, but there is a great deal of disagreement on how much warming we will see and what effect it will have. There is nothing in the IPCC AR4 report that translates into "global warming is going to cause civilization to collapse".

[Subdivisions]

5. Peak oil is now. We are on the "bumpy plateau" now. And who said

there was supposed to be massive disruptions by now? And are you completely dismissing the effects Peak Oil has already had and is currently having on global economic systems?

Once oil production begins to decline in earnest, then you will get your massive disruptions. Until then (and no one is sure how long we'll be on the plateau, could be until 2015, could be sooner), make sure your ass is prepping for a massive disruption in the JITD system.

[bananas]

6. "by ca. 2007 most of the blackouts are permanent"

http://www.mnforsustain.org/oil_duncan_r_olduvai_cliff_revisited.htm

Olduvai Cliff Revisited

The Olduvai Cliff Event: ca. 2007

Richard C. Duncan
March 5, 2001

<snip>

The Olduvai theory states that the life-expectancy of Industrial Civilization, defined in terms of world energy use per capita ("e"), is less than or equal to 100 years. History: We know that the peak of "e" occurred in 1979 and that "e" declined from 1979 to 1999 (the 'slope'). Future: The Olduvai theory predicts that "e" will decline even faster from 2000 to the so-named 'cliff event' (the 'slide'). A previous study put the 'cliff event' in year 2012 (Duncan, 2001). However, it no appears that 2012 was too optimistic. The following study indicates that the 'cliff event' will occur about 5 years earlier than 2012 due an epidemic of 'rolling blackouts' that have already begun in the US. This 'electrical epidemic' spreads nationwide, then worldwide, and by ca. 2007 most of the blackouts are permanent. The 'modern way of life' is history by ca. 2025.

<snip>

edit to add: Here's his "too optimistic" chart with the "cliff event" at 2012 instead of 2007:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/08/31-whatever-happened-to-richard.html

Friday, August 19, 2005
31. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO RICHARD "OLDUVAI" DUNCAN?

<snip>

[Odin2005]

8. LOL, those Olduvai Theory idiots are hilarious.

[Subdivisions]

9. You're really citing Duncan?

Yea, I don't think the Peak Oil community hangs their hat on the Olduvai Theory.

[bananas]

10. LOL - In January, you cited Duncan in your post "Our slide into the OIduvai Gorge has begun..."

"From what I can see, the Olduvai Gorge Theory is playing out roughly right on schedule."
:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7541565

Subdivisions Thu Jan-21-10 11:38 PM
Original message

Our slide into the OIduvai Gorge has begun...

Of course I'm not referring to the Great Rift Valley ravine located in Tanzinia and known as the "Cradle of Mankind". I'm referring to a theory of de-industrialization that is now upon us and which is named for the steep-sided African gorge that is believed by archeaologists to be the location of man's earliest awareness.

No, I'm referring to the Olduvai Theory which holds that industrial civilization is destined to a lifespan limited to just 100 years and that the range for those 100 years is 1930-2030. Here is an introduction to the Olduvai Theory:

...snip...

History

The Olduvai theory was first introduced by Richard C. Duncan, Ph.D. in 1989 as the "transient-pulse theory of Industrial Civilization".<1> The theory was backed up with data in the 1993 paper "The life-expectancy of industrial civilization: The decline to global equilibrium".<2>

In June, 1996, Duncan introduced a paper titled "The Olduvai Theory: Sliding Towards a Post-Industrial Stone Age" where the term "Olduvai Theory" replaced "transient-pulse theory" used in previous papers.<3> Duncan further updated his theory in "The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge", at the Summit 2000 Pardee Keynote Symposia of the Geological Society of America, on November 13, 2000.<4> In 2005, Duncan extended his data set to include up to 2003 in "The Olduvai Theory Energy, Population, and Industrial Civilization".<5>

Details of theory

<snip rest of that excerpt>

<snip to the bottom of your post>

Like our friend robertpaulsen, who earlier this week offered his review of the movie Avatar in which he provides a qualifier to the effect that he views the world through a Peak Oil filter, I have to confess that I too consider Peak Oil when thinking about things and, just as much so, Climage Change. It can be debated that we've been on the downward side of the Olduvai Gorge scenario for several years now. But taking the theory into account while also considering the dual dangers of Peak Oil and Climage Change and seeing clues, such as the one in the Bloomberg report above, should for anyone who thinks that anything other than a contraction of civilization, for example...let's say...economic growth, is imminent may be setting themselves up for a big disappointment when their futures don't turn out quite the way they had hoped.

From what I can see, the Olduvai Gorge Theory is playing out roughly right on schedule. From the sorry state of infrastructure to the transformation of our former manufacturing economy into our current (and faltering) service economy, the clues are everywhere that perhaps Dr. Duncan had it right. Which means that we're already way behind in preparing for what is dead-ahead.

[Subdivisions]

12. You got me. I was wrong in January.

Since you've done your best to embarrass me and you've had your gotcha moment and you've had a nice laugh about it at my expense here in front of everyone, I will no longer post in the E/E forum and I'll no longer post about Peak Oil anywhere on DU. You've sufficiently damaged my credibility here.

But, before I go and fyi, though Duncan was right about some things, overall his Olduvai Theory misses the mark both on timing and by degrees. Duncan was much too pessimistic and a little hurried and too catastrophic. A while after making that post I ran across an examination of Duncan the caused me to rethink my position on Olduvai. Too late to do anything about the post you cited.

I am, however, sticking to my position that the Peak Oil community doesn't live or die by Duncan and the Olduvai Theory.

My butt sure does hurt. Glad you enjoyed your little gotcha moment. I won't be giving you another chance to do it again.

[kristopher]

13. It is difficult to face the idea that one's cherished beliefs might be wrong.

Why not take the opportunity to question where you went wrong instead of doubling down on failure?
The doomer scenarios related to peak oil are shown by pretty basic economics to be highly unlikely. To understand why would require you to also look into technological alternatives to petroleum. All the doomer visions are predicated on the single and erroneous belief that there ARE no substitutes when in fact the real problem is picking which alternative/s we should direct our efforts towards fostering.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[Subdivisions]

14. Nope. bananas pwned me. I'm no longer worthy of the topic. Alternatives and

technology will save us from oil depletion and we can continue business as usual. That's what I'm going to do anyway. I was just going through a phase.

Off to start chipping away at my preps. Got a lot of beans and rice to eat.

[joshcryer]

29. I think the verdict is still out on that one.

It depends on how bad the decline is and how much we have built out our recharagable infrastructure.

I think a more likely outcome is that we'll just go after oil shale, thus delaying the inevitable yet again (at an uncompromisingly terrifying cost to the environment).

[NickB79]

31. The Olduvai Cliff hypothesis is regarded as radical even among Peak Oil theorists.

Siting it is like siting someone who believes in global warming but worries we'll turn into another Venus, complete with 900F temperature. They took a real problem and ran off a cliff with it into a world of unsuportable woo-woo.

[Odin2005]

7. All Doomers suffer from the same problem, a severe lack of imagination.

The great 18th century physicist Lord Kelvin said that heavier-than air flight was impossible. Back in the 30s people said that humans would never leave Earth's atmosphere. Back in the 50s the president of IBM said that there would not be a need for any more than 5 computers.

[GliderGuider]

15. Doomers suffer from

the inability to believe in fairy tales. They're the atheists of the environmental scene - realists adrift in a sea of "Good News" doorknockers.

I think that one problem doomers have is actually too much imagination. We get one tiny glimpse of the realities of peak oil, global warming, ocean acidification, topsoil and water depletion, species extinctions and the fact that the structure of modern society and evolutionary psychology make it exceedingly unlikely that we will change course -- and before you know it we're imagining some kind of looming calamity. What silly gooses we are.

Now where did I put those special green glasses I have to wear when I'm in the Emerald City?

[kristopher]

16. Junk science and nuclear industry fairy tales are your stock and trade.

Anyone wanting an example specific to you can review the thread linked below where you embrace your routine use of truthiness.

The example is wonderful because it shows how your junk science does indeed grab the gullible unless it is subjected to scrutiny:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x261017


GG wrote

"The fact that I=PAT is framed as a mathematical equation seems to be throwing you off. While it can be used that way, and has been by the IPCC for CO2 measurements, by far its most valuable quality is as tool for reframing one's thinking about what's going on out there. I'm trying to strike a middle ground here between the purely qualitative, "gut-feel" approach and the purely quantitative approach. I'm trying to give the "gut-feel" folks a bit more substance to chew on, but my approach is bound to displease the numerologists."

Following that you attempted to redo your intitial effort - here is the response to that by your more logically thinking critic.

"You say "I'm trying to strike a middle ground here between the purely qualitative, "gut-feel" approach and the purely quantitative approach. I'm trying to give the "gut-feel" folks a bit more substance to chew on, but my approach is bound to displease the numerologists."

And then you dive straight into making numbers up from thin air, completely ignore anything whatsoever about units, and then repull your own happy "each one of us has the same estimated planetary impact as all the human beings alive 12,000 years ago" garbage conclusion out of the dark place you've been keeping it in.

Numerologists will be dancing with joy at what you're doing. You are worshipping digits, making up anything you feel like, and pretending you have some acquaintance with mathematics. You are a numerologist. There is nothing 'scientific' about your post above. It's so wild, it doesn't deserve the name 'guess'.

It's complete bullshit.

I'm wondering if this is all a complete wind-up - a satire on innumerate musings on the environment. But your past posts here indicate you are genuinely concerned about the environment, so I can't see why you'd pretend to produce such a load of rubbish.

You've achieved one surprising thing - I agree with guardian about something. Your post is a farcical embarrassment to DU."

Fairy tales are your stock and trade.

[GliderGuider]

18. Yeah, I didn't think that one through too carefully.

At least I didn't cut and paste any of it, though.

[kristopher]

19. On the contrary I think you gave it a great deal of thought

It is just that your objective isn't to produce informative analysis.

You gave it the appropriate amount of thought to support your goal of designing a piece of misinformation intended to push people into a fear-motivated embrace of nuclear energy.

That is where you ALWAYS end up.

[GliderGuider]

20. You give me far too much credit

Though I'm honoured that you impute such nefarious motives to me.

No, I pulled that "technology" business out of my ass with about 5 minutes' worth of thought. It seemed like an interesting idea to begin with, so rather than bailing on it when it was first challenged, I tried to defend it. It wasn't defensible, so I've given up on it (as you can see in my revisitation post). That's what happens when you rush to print...

[kristopher]

21. You've been "rushing to print" for years with the same outcome and intent

[GliderGuider]

22. And I will probably continue to do so.

[kristopher]

23. Clearly, since you are on a mission to prosthelytize for the Temple of Uranus...

why would you desist from trying to spread false understandings of reality?

[GliderGuider]

24. I love it when you talk dirty to me in the afternoon

:hug:

[joshcryer]

28. I'm not a doomer, because I believe the eventual outcome will be positive. But I am an alarmist.

Damn straight I am. Even on a progressive site I'm hearing people downplay the effects that we're having on the planet. This is what happens when you live in the west and cannot appreciate the suffering that is going on in the rest of the world. You just sit back in your nice cushy chair and pretend "oh everything is OK." While increased weather patterns fuck up countries, while drought increases, while sea level rises.

"Oh it's so small it's not a big deal."

Tell that to the people being washed the fuck out.

[Javaman]

11. I'm surprised at you. Why paint with such a broad brush?

While I firmly believe we are experiencing peak oil, I don't believe that we are doomed.

We will only be doomed by inaction.

I support all that you mentioned plus a rapid switch to alternative fuels.

However, the longer we delay, the harder it will become as resources become more scarce.

That is only stating the obvious.

[TheWraith]

17. I think we agree completely on this.

There's just that certain sect that's not happy unless they're predicting the end of everything. It's not even just the end-of-civilization doomers, but the people who insist that democracy is dead in America, or that all Democrats are really just like Republicans, etcetera.

I think that liberalism (I'm not wild about the word "progressive" in this context) is fundamentally about an optimism for the future and making life better. That conflicts utterly with a pessimistic perspective that things are going to get nothing but worse.

[guardian]

25. Well said. n/t

[joshcryer]

26. How about alarmists? Are they OK?

[joshcryer]

27. Al Gore said, "Copenhagen next month will be a real turning point." Cause for alarm?

Or should we just roll the fuck over? We won't have another Copenhagen-style summit for at least a decade. Another decade of exponential carbon increase. Fucking yay.

[NickB79]

30. For some reason I'm reminded of the designers of the Titanic

Saying that it didn't need lifeboats, because everyone knew it was unsinkable.

A bit unsettling, that.

[kristopher]

32. Interesting...

I'd consider the fact that basic natural resource economics pretty much dispels 99% of the hyperbole underpinning "peak oil theorists" to eliminate using the unsinkable claim related to the Titanic as an analogy for a non-panicked view of the consequences of a constrained oil supply.

I'd suggest that the "unsinkable Titanic" is much better suited to describing the perspective that the weapons proliferation,waste, and safety risks associated with nuclear power are of no concern whatsoever.

Those are much, much more closely aligned circumstances.

[joshcryer]

34. "basic natural resource economics" = "anti-environmentalism"

In that I would agree with you. We'll go after oil shale next.

[kristopher]

35. Your ignorance about the subject of economics is again on display.

That is like saying a "hammer = anti-environmentalism". It is a Sarah Palin level thought.

Economics is a tool; sort of like some people around here.

[joshcryer]

36. Oh you think we'll spend 30% of GFC to make this happen?

Got anything to back such nonsense up?

Fact. We aren't building renewables. We won't build renewables to any significant extent. Renewables will remain a joke of energy production.

[kristopher]

37. You wrote that "basic natural resource economics" = "anti-environmentalism"

in a discussion about the believers peak oil. That is an absurd statement on its face; it is also an attempt on your part to falsely attribute to me a position I do not hold; and it is wrong.

The foolishness of your claim that a tool equals an ideology is evident on its face, but when called on it you attempted to divert the issue with yet another of your equally absurd and false rants on renewables claiming renewabes are not being built.

Aside the general incoherence of your post and it being factually incorrect, your stance ignores the fact that any money flowing to the energy sector produces more noncarbon energy both "per dollar" and "per unit of time" if it is spent on renewables than if it is spent on the right wing's darling nuclear power.

[PO Pops]

33. The problem with Doomers anywhere

is that they look at people who say "peak oil is no problem, They will think of something" and those doomers get nervous.

None of the good things mentioned in the OP were around before cheap energy and none of the hydrocarbon replacement "solutions" are being rolled out fast enough to replace cheap oil. In fact, cheap oil is 600% less cheap than it was 7 years ago but nukes or wind aren't getting built because demand is down in our recessionary economy (arguably in part a result of expensive oil) - but we keep using up hydrocarbons at nearly the same pace don't we?

I noticed the OP mentioned clean air and water, there is an increasing portion of hydrocarbons coming from unsavory places - like deepwater, mined kerogen, fract gas, etc, and unpleasant things are happening because easy oil is over. Oh and don't forget that an increasing amount of coal is being used to make up the inability of oil to keep up with population growth - and we know of course "clean coal"is a lie.


Someone mentioned Duncan, who, being an electrical engineer or some such, focused on electricity. His theory was the first thing to get me interested in depletion and in fact, total primary energy per capita did go down last year for the first time in 30 years, which is no surprise. But for the last few years I've been keeping updating my own version of his chart which is broken down into the primary energy mix:



That red line shows oil per capita at it's lowest level on the chart, in fact oil use per capita is at the lowest point since 1964 but what I think is most important, we're making it up with that cutting edge fuel of 2 centuries past; old King Coal. We are pretty lucky gas has come along to tie us over while we change... Right?


No, "civilization" won't collapse, it just won't be the same civilization you are clinging to and no amount of Doomer straw men can prevent that from happening.


Sorry, kind of a long post for a newbie... :^)