"The 'free market', taken as a given by believers in the invisible hand, seems likely to turn out to be just another fizzer, an expression of the 'cargo cult magic' that I reckon will evaporate at the first real sniff of a market shortage."

The free market is a bit like democracy, isn't it? -- it's the worst possible option, apart from all the others that have been tried. But like Paul Keating, I will continue to back the horse Self-Interest above any plans to get our unimpressive governments even more involved than they already are in providing us with the essentials of life.

What happened to peak coal, confidently predicted to be not later than 1925 by Jevons (1865), but even Garnaut (2008:71) puts its exhaustion off to 2147 or so? Anyway if we do run out of coal and oil that solves the emissions problem! In reality, proven reserves of oil are always 30-50 times larger than the current rate of consumption (BP Annual Reports since the 1970s).

3- to 4-year election cycles mean that our politicians are more interested in keeping their jobs and privileges than dealing with longer term issues that cannot be popularly spun. We need to have generational election cycles of say, 15 to 20 years.

The three short comments above underscore Sam Powrie's idea that many (if not most) people have no idea about energy supply and demand, and the production and consumption of fossil fuels.

Any person who can remember back to growing mold and/or germs on a Petri plate, in high school science, ought to take a moment to put themself in the shoes of one individual germ (yeh, yeh, germs don't have shoes, I know) and use his or her eyes to see the edges of the Petri plate, which of course the germ likely knows nought about.

IMHO, free-market economists and energy growth proponents have no more vision than a germ. Like the Petri plate, the earth has limits to growth. Sooner or later, said germ may briefly and unconsciously swim in its own self-created cesspool, before turning into something else's stop-gap nourishment. There is only so much agar on the plate, and likewise, only so much in the way of sustainable resources on our planet.

I could have a good laugh about it all, except that I have to share the planet with these very ignorant people. The best of these write short daft comments to essays like Sam's. The worst of them pay millions of dollars to undermine the work of climate scientists and others who understand and model and carefully argue the subtleties of energy and materials flows in a finite world.

See
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism?newsfeed=true

and
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3807130.html

Gee it must be great to be one of those rare & privileged people who can actually understand how all that petrol gets into that little pump at the service station.

Come off it Sam, anthropology is not such a high tech science [science?] that its practitioners, or it's drop outs are burdened with any extreme knowledge mate. I think you will find quite a few who know a hell of a lot more than you.

One thing many now realise is that petroleum is not actually squashed up old dinosaurs. It is percolating up from the core, & may in fact be inexhaustible in practice, although not necessarily available at the rate we would like. Just why is it that academics in particular rarely keep up with the vast knowledge developed since their graduation? Could it be a certain smugness?

Then we have all this gas. Practical people have developed economic ways to harvest over a centuries supply of energy from fracking alone, or haven't you noticed? How can people be still bleating about peak oil?

Sir Vivor, there are two types of "very ignorant people", those who don't know, & those who don't want to know, in case that knowledge interferes with a preconceived idea. I guess we all know which you are.

I don't like conspiracy theories, but with the number of light weight academics crying wolf about things like peak oil, one starts to wonder. Is it that they want to share their superior knowledge with the peasants, or do they really want to set the scene to restrict access to much of modern comfort by the "common" people?

Sam if the latter I've got news for you, & it's not good. The modern world could function perfectly adequately without anthropologists, & even speech pathologists, but can no longer get by with out plumbers. Get used to it.

Dear Sam, this might have been an interesting article on generic energy issues about ten years ago, but with the recent discoveries of colossal fuel reserves in CSG, Shale oil and natural gas, your case, its topic content and its conclusions are hopelessly out of date.

Europe and the UK have announced massive reserves whilst the USA has announced,

“Total US recoverable natural gas resources (includes conventional, unconventional in lower 48, Alaska and offshore) totals 4.244 quadrillion cubic feet according to the Institute for Energy Research: Enough natural gas to meet US electricity demand for 575 years at current fuel demand for generation levels - Enough natural gas to fuel homes heated by natural gas in the United States for 857 years - More natural gas than Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan combined. Plus: The US has three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia in shale oil”. --Gary Hunt.

So when you say that “Peak Oil is a geological and engineering reality not just a matter of economics. Its’ about the realities of production, not the elastic definition of what is and is not an economically defined reserve”. You might want to update your thinking a little before you suffer further embarrassment.

Even if one doesn't accept peak oil or man made climate change as dangerous realities that require major change in the way we live, I believe other dangerous tensions in social and economic realms are ample evidence in themselves that major change is needed - that the way we live is way out of kilter. Perhaps that belief stems from my holistic perspective on reality.

So having established that I agree with the thrust of your article (although not the plug for nuclear until disposal is solved), I want to focus on your central point - "It's pure defensive reaction against something they simply can’t stand to think about!". If that is the case, changing peoples' minds is not in the first instance about education but about addressing the fears that cause them to shut down.

I think many people are scared of losing what they have invested in - their home, their job, their lifestyle.

We should recognise and address those fears, especially when we know that when China and India come on board, resource and energy levels are bound to skyrocket. Wealth and jobs will have to be shared around much more equitably, so our wellbeing will not be able to depend on resources, energy and competition as has been the case since at least industrialisation.

It would be optimistic in the extreme to think that technology will save us by providing our consumer lifestyle for everyone on the planet.

We should respectfully face the fears people have first of all, then promote carefully thought through ways that we can all enjoy a good life.

In the interest of identifying the fears so we might then find solutions I have seeded some ideas on a public space where anyone can add to and vote. The address is http://www.allourideas.org/forclimateskeptics
Regards
Chris Baulman
@landrights4all

Sam Powrie

As Spindoc says and as Sir Vidor should know but apparently does not, peak oil was recently declared dead by Citibank oil analysts a couple of weeks back, thanks to recent changes in the technology for extracting shale oil.. Now the declaration has been kicked around quite a bit, and is by no means uncontested, but your learned analysis should really start from that point, rather than a doubtful (albeit interesting) anthropological analogy.

If you think Citibank is wrong very well, what are your counter arguments? If you think the extensive debate over oil reserves to date is lacking in some way what improvements would you suggest? If you can think of some alterantive to the market mechanism that would not make things worse then what would you recommend?

Please bear in mind that the original peak oil concept was never intended to apply to the total oil supply, only to easy-lift oil (the stuff in the big reservoirs), and even in that its application is very doubtful.

The Hubbert curve has also been kicked around quite a bit but with exactly one arguable success to its name, its only used by a few devotees these days..

Sir Vivor: "The worst of them pay millions of dollars to undermine the work of climate scientists and others who understand and model and carefully argue the subtleties of energy and materials flows in a finite world."

You do realise, I hope, that the sole 'incriminating' Heartland document has been exposed as a clumsy fake?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/the-heartland-institute-sends-legal-notices-to-publishers-of-faked-and-stolen-documents/

Hasbeen and Spindoc I see you are not only deniers of man-made global warming but also (not surprisingly) of peak oil. Why are you such passionate aplogists for the fossil fuel industry? Do you have connections with them? Or is it just that you can't envisage a world without that magic energy supply we've all prown up with? OK the changes we will have to make distress me too but we still have to bite the bullet and start making them!

Deniers can always find some 'facts' to support their arguments, but so can the scientific mainstream so I won't leave your assertions unanswered.

Try reading the January 26, 2010 issue of 'Nature', which is a reputable, peer reviewed intenational science journal. It will show you not only that not only are have we been 'bumping along a peak' of oil production for several years, production is inelastic in relation to price i.e. higher prices not longer mean higher production.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481433a.html.

To see the graph you'll have to get hold of a copy of the magazine or
or go to the ASPO website: www.ASPO-Australia.org.au

PS Who the hell is Gary Hunt? A Web reference please?

Protestations in the mainstream media that we need not worry about a peak in the rate of world oil production anytime soon are suddenly coming fast and furious.

I am reminded of Gandhi "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win."

So, it appears that we are now in stage three of a four-stage process.

The main problem was that the media was simply ignoring the issue. It just didn't fit any category which the vast majority of reporters recognised. That was followed by a period of ridicule from oil industry representatives, economists, and a few writers on blogs, like this site, but almost no one in the mainstream media.

Now we have come to the point where there are open attacks in the mainstream media. There have been attacks before, mostly in specialised sites and blogs on the Internet. Now, we have the equivalent of that with the publication of a major piece in 'Nature', a respected scientific journal, but one that mere mortals are able to read.

The piece in question has the reactionary forces in full attack mode. Far from being discouraged by the rash of peak oil denunciations in the media lately, I am invigorated by it. I am now on offense; detractors are on defence.

The opposition has to explain why oil production has been flat since 2005 despite high prices and the twisted logic and demonstrably false assertions most of you offer will provide ever better opportunities to trump you again and again.

I suggest you all read our Federal Government’s recently leaked (BITRE 117) report which (optimistically) calculated peak oil around 2017, followed by permanent decline. Interestingly there was no reference to this report in the draft of the Energy White Paper which was released in late 2011.

Geoff your Gandhi quote is right on for the global warming fraud, & this is becoming more obvious by the day. The shrillness of their death throws are deafening.

Roses I have a very close connection to the fuel industry. It happens every time I fill a car, tractor or pump with fuel which is costing me more each time I do.

This is not because of any shortage, but because people like you have given governments like ours, yes the sort you like, an excuse to rip me off, each time I need fuel. Do they pay you well for this service? They sure pay their scientific lap dogs well.

Useful idiots do more damage to their fellow man, than any other class of people, particularly the sort who quote from once great, but now doubtful & dying sources. I include Nature & the ABC very high in such groupings. The Guardian doesn't make it up that high.

JonJ, You and others will find a far more coherent report of events in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/science/earth/activist-says-heartland-climate-papers-obtained-by-deceit.html

Interesting story, alright. NYT says:

"Dr. Gleick denied authorship of the most explosive of the documents, a supposed strategy paper that laid out the institute’s efforts to raise money to question climate change and get schools to adjust their science curricula to include alternative theories of global warming. The Institute asserted that document, which is in a different format and type style from the rest of the Heartland materials, was a fake, but implicitly acknowledged that others were legitimate and vowed to legally pursue those who stole and published them."

Meanwhile No-one's denying anything about Gina R and Lord M, are they?
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3807130.html

Keep me posted, JonJ. Thanks!

Curmudgeon, where did I say anything about peak oil? With your sloppy reading habits, it's no wonder you have no grasp of simple biological and ecological facts and processes.

Growth is not forever, Curmudgeon. All the fracking in the world will not change that - it only puts off the inevitable squeeze, and adds to the effluents in the environment. But if you're an aging curmudgeon, with no descendents, then perhaps you feel that doesn't really concern you.

Geoff of Perth

Never mind Ghandi, we're at that stage in scare stories where the scare part is exposed and the whole thing winds down..

Most of those who believe the scare material in this area still haven't heard that peak oil is dead, so how much longer will it take.. perhaps six months to a year??

Sir Vivor - no, go back and read your original post.. you're talking about finite resources and agreeing with the story, and calling everyone else ignorant.. you deserved to be pulled up.. People have been talking about limits for decades but reserve to production ratios keep on going up, not down.. its you who has to explain..

The Citigroup analysis that Curmudgeon refers to is interesting and seems plausible given what's happened to unconventional gas in the USA. Any of the POers care to comment:

https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEUNHGJJ.pdf
'

Curmudgeon, of course I am talking about finite resources.

Kindly list all the infinite fossil fuel sources you know of, and I will try to patiently explain your error(s).

Sir Vivor,

You're asking me to believe that a man who stooped giving a false name in order to steal documents -- and is now being stripped of his scientific posts as a consequence -- somehow happened to steal an faked document along with them; a document which incidentally bears a date and time stamp corresponding to the time that the other stolen documents were in his sole possession?

Peter Gleik poses as an expert in 'ethics'; I suppose he was just putting in some practical research in the field?

Pull the other one -- it's got bells on.

JonJ,
there is no new information in your update, only your opinions. Other readers may wish to compare your allegations to the NYT story listed above, as well as Peter Gleick's statement about the affair, which he published in the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

He says, in part,

"At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy. It contained information about their funders and the Institute's apparent efforts to muddy public understanding about climate science and policy. I do not know the source of that original document but assumed it was sent to me because of my past exchanges with Heartland and because I was named in it.

"I attempted to confirm the accuracy of the information in this document [about climate program strategy]. In an effort to do so, and in a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics, I solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name. The materials the Heartland Institute sent to me confirmed many of the facts in the original document, including especially their 2012 fundraising strategy and budget. I forwarded, anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues. I can explicitly confirm, as can the Heartland Institute, that the documents they emailed to me are identical to the documents that have been made public. I made no changes or alterations of any kind to any of the Heartland Institute documents or to the original anonymous communication."

JonJ, I find no evidence that the documents were stolen, as you claim,but readers are free to form their own opinions, and/or allege what they may.

Curmudgeon,
have you listed your infinite fossil fuel resources, yet? How many of them are non-polluting?

Local fallout from the Heartlands doco leak:

"Peter Gleick, a widely published US scientist and water researcher, said he emailed a staff member at the institute pretending to be someone else and was sent a set of eight documents that included the names of hundreds of companies that had donated to the institute, details of the group's strategies and a list of payments to bloggers and scientists, including an Australian, James Cook University adjunct professor Bob Carter."

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-admits-ruse-that-exposed-institutes-climatechange-agenda-20120221-1tlv1.html#ixzz1n4GmvPUA

I am wondering just what Bob Carter was paid for doing. Anybody know?

Curmudgeon you just don’t get it do you? If we have 250 years left of coal reserves and we turn to coal to replace oil, increasing our use by just 2% a year, a very modest rate of growth considering the huge amount needed to replace oil, then reserves would only last 85 years. If we liquefy it, it would only last 50 years, because it takes a lot of energy to do that.

Today, as conventional fossil fuels rapidly deplete, world energy flows appear set to decline. While there are enormous amounts of unconventional fossil fuels yet to be exploited, these will be so costly to extract, in monetary, energy, and environmental terms, that continued growth in available fossil energy supplies is unlikely, meanwhile alternative energy sources remain largely undeveloped and will require extraordinary levels of investment if they are to make up for declines in fossil energy.

Declining rates of energy flow and declining energy quality will have predictable direct effects, higher energy prices, the need for increased energy efficiency in all sectors of society, and the need for the direction of an ever-greater proportion of increasingly scarce investment capital toward the energy sector.

Meanwhile, despite much talk about the potential for low-grade alternative fossil fuels such as tar sands and shale oil, world energy supplies are in essentially the same straits as they were at the start of the 2008 financial crisis (which, it is important to recall, was partly triggered by a historic oil price spike). Without increasing and affordable energy flows a genuine economic recovery (meaning a return to growth in manufacturing and trade) is not possible. Thus financial pump priming will yield diminishing returns.

Pretty simple really, this scenario applies to all other energy resources, once you understand this simple fact you can then comment with some authority rather than spruik your own misguided mantra.

So, what does the future hold for those great-grandchildren and future generations?

That is, given that the world does survive reasonably intact after peak oil - and the current period of concerns of a potential nuclear winter arising from the present convoluted middle-east tug-of-war. My what a tangled web - as narrow self-interest reigns supreme - you would think we were different species in an interminable survival struggle. (God sure looks like losing His bet with the Devil.)

I'm thankful to be living in Aus, and far from the madding crowd - but we are far from immune. (And, to those who think oil is inexaustible - phooey.) Can't you see a time when air travel will be restricted to the elite? When sea travel will have to be by burning coal again, and hellishly expensive, (or wind power?), until all ships are nuclear-powered? Good luck to the small fisherman and the recreational sea-farer who can't handle a sail-boat! (Or can't row like the dickens?) And, how are they going to keep all that seafood fresh? Solar-electric, or ice?

I don't see anyone investing in enriched charcoal, or the new, improved Stanley Steamer 'with charcoal burner on the side'. So, we'd either better hope that global warming is indeed a myth, or start getting with solar energy in one hell of a hurry. (Has to be better than the ol' horse and cart.)

I'm sorry for those who believe in Armageddon or in hosts of virgins, but our finite small world really only has space for enlightened, neighbourly common interest, cooperation and goodwill. If ever there was an ideal time for a great humanist philosopher, it is now.

Saltpetre, great precis, here here

Absolutely