Big Oil: Energy independence is "naive"

JohnT:

I was throwing you a nice softball to start a dialogue on what I thought would be a nice non-threatening thread. I was kind of hoping Rod would jump in and dialogue with us. Then you could have your discussion. I thought the energy topic would be neutral ground.

That's cool. To be clear, I wasn't criticizing any of the three of you for directing your posts toward me in particular (though Clark's didn't strike me as all that substantive).

I just didn't understand it. :)


To answer your question seriously, I do think the spread of the lifestyle that focuses on the local community would reduce our dependence on petroleum. I'm not sure this particular fact outweighs the negatives of such a lifestyle, negatives that are rarely addressed by the crunchies.

And, it begs all sorts of questions about the goal of society. Brent seems to think that the goal is integrating ourselves seemlessly into the ecosystem, I guess to ensure our survival. I think I understand and respect that goal, though I don't think Brent's pessimism about technology is justified, I don't think the ecosystem is all that fragile (it survived in conditions both colder and warmer than the present; and billions of years ago, the oxygen that plants produced was a waste product), and I honestly think that a more sensible plan for humanity's long-term survival is to colonize other planets, not to be really, really at home in this one.

But, at any rate, I don't think that individuals' lives should be ordered for the sake of society; society should be ordered for the sake of individual lives. It should provide an environment in which liberty can flourish, even if that means some people abuse their freedom, because that is the only environment in which the loving, symbiotic relationships of the family and the church can grow.

One problem (out of many) I have with Rod's sensibility is that it seems to prioritize a community that resembles the whitewashed past of Norman Rockwell -- a past that didn't exist quite that ideally, and a past that is probably truly in our past, given how technology has changed the cultural landscape -- with little regard for the individuals in it and their right to make their own choices and live their own lives. You see this more clearly with the vitriol with which Caleb Stegall wrote in the Crunchy Cons blog at NRO, calling those who move away from home selfish and those who live in the suburbs cowards, but the only thing I see that separates Stegall from Rod on this lines is tact, not principle.>

I thought I was done with this thread, but I guess not. :) That's cool; it's been an interesting discussion.

To clarify my original statement to Bubba, my comment that he did not know what he was talking about was specifically in response to his suggestion that I holding a bias based in ignorance (though I sense a certain amount of reluctance even to see if this is a problem technology can solve). In fact, my opinion is based on quite a bit of research.

We also have a difference of opinion about the role that technology can play in the solution, but that's a different matter. Sorry for being ambiguous.

As to other points:

Brent seems to think that the goal is integrating ourselves seemlessly into the ecosystem, I guess to ensure our survival.

Roughly accurate. I don't think our integration can be seamless. We will change the ecosystem, and that's fine. I just want it to be based on respect and responsible stewardship.

The goal here is more than survival. I believe that a respectful partnership with the planet can take us down the path to long-term equitable prosperity.

Humans historically have a negative impact on the environment, but it doesn't have to be that way. To quote Bill McDonough: "This idea that we have to have a smaller footprint is ridiculous. We need to make bigger footprints, but we need to leave behind wetlands."


I think I understand and respect that goal

Glad to hear it. Too many people (mostly, but not all, conservative) have sheer contempt for the natural world. I'm glad you're not one of them.


though I don't think Brent's pessimism about technology is justified

Maybe, maybe not, though I think I come by my pessimism honestly. I've done alot of R&D and prototype development work.


I don't think the ecosystem is all that fragile (it survived in conditions both colder and warmer than the present; and billions of years ago, the oxygen that plants produced was a waste product)

The living planet itself is quite robust. Nothing we are likely to do is going to wipe out life on Earth.

The current ecosystem configuration, on which we depend for life, is another matter. It is also quite robust and flexible, but its rate of adaptability is limited. Humans (especially technological humans) change on a much faster timescale than the natural world.

Of course, nature can adapt to catastrophic changes and has done so historically. But such circumstances tend to be really unpleasant for the dominant species on the planet.

This isn't about "saving the world" or "saving nature". It's about saving humanity (most specifically, technological human civilization). Secondarily, it's about not heedlessly destroying timeless natural beauty for the sake of short-term convenience.


I honestly think that a more sensible plan for humanity's long-term survival is to colonize other planets, not to be really, really at home in this one.

I share this dream too. I think humanity's destiny lies with the stars, and I always have.

But I also have a realistic sense of the challenges invovled. I've worked in aerospace, and I've designed rocket engine combustion chambers (for the late, lamented Rotoary Rocket). Cheap space access is no simple thing, until or unless we have the technology to build a beanstalk. (And that's a whole 'nother level of technology. A beanstalk failure could wipe out civilization.) And once we get out there, buildling a self-sufficient habitat is a challenge that we've barely begun to address. The failure of Bioshpere 2 makes that emminently clear.

Space is (hopefully) our long-term destiny, but it is not a solution to our immediate, short-term problems.


But, at any rate, I don't think that individuals' lives should be ordered for the sake of society; society should be ordered for the sake of individual lives.

Here, we are entirely in agreement. The challenge is to balance the individual's right of free action and choice against the effects that their choices have on other individuals, who must similarly be allowed to enjoy these rights. A growing population makes this increasingly difficult to do in a just and equitable fashion.


One problem (out of many) I have with Rod's sensibility is that it seems to prioritize a community that resembles the whitewashed past of Norman Rockwell -- a past that didn't exist quite that ideally, and a past that is probably truly in our past, given how technology has changed the cultural landscape

I can't speak for Rod, but this is not and has never been my vision. I do believe the clear path forward must be informed by some wisdom of the past. I think that, to survive and prosper, we will have to reconnect to things that used to be central in our lives and have more recently fallen away, like food production and community. But the future I hope for will be a creative marraige of low technology and high technology. It looks like nothing that has ever come before in human history.>

Back online after several days gone, I'm not sure anyone is going to see this, but I'll post it anyway.

Though, Brent, I would say that most conservatives do not hold the natural world in contempt; it is that we believe that no non-human organism enjoys equal rights with humans

Right. Non-human organisms aren't moral entities with self-consciousness and free will, and thus applying the concept of "rights" to them is not appropriate. However, I would assert that we, as moral entities, do have an responsibility (as well as a practical incentive) to respect these other organisms and their place in the web of life. That's not the same as saying they have rights. But it does place some appropriate restraints on people's freedom of action.

I think alot of the conflict between "liberal" environmentalists and "conservatives" hinges on failing to understand this subtlety.


and that we are deeply suspicious of modern, militant environmentalism as it may be rooted in philosophies that look at humans as a disease, and it may serve as a cover and justification for massive government expansion.


As someone who's right in the middle of the environmentalist movement, I would say that there are distinct differences of perspective on this. What I think of as "old school" environmentalism focuses on proscrptive regulation and tends to look at human activity as a problem that must be controlled. They also tend to focus on symptom-level issues rather than fundemental causes; e.g. individual species protection, rather than ecosystem protection. Much of our current environmental legislation is built on this way of thinking.

More recently, a different approach has been gaining ground. Adherents of this philosophy are more interested in measures that effectively address underlying causes, and are generally more willing to embrace the market as a potential force for good.

Bill McDonough, who notes that "[the need for] regulation is the first signal of design failure", is one of the chief proponents of this point of view. I highly recommend this video of his presentation at Bioneers, if you want to understand where this approach is coming from. They are in Quicktime .mov format, in small and large versions. (Use QT 7 to view the larger one; any version of QT works with the smaller one.)

But, anyway, if you do have a moment, could you write a word or two more about fusion, whether you see it in a sustainable future and, if not, why not?

Alot of good technical material on fusion is available at Wikipedia, including some discussion of the technical challenges.

If we can work out the technical challenges, I think that fusion could have a very significant role to play in a long-term sustainable future. Even if we maximize renewables and distributed generation, we will need some grid base load capacity. Currently our primary options for that are coal and fission; fusion would be much superior to either one.

However, I don't see fusion as being of immediate interest in addressing our energy woes, simply because there is no good reason to believe that it is going to be ready in time to help with the immediate crisis. Even if they overcame all the technical challenges to achieving sustained breakeven tomorrow, it would still take 10+ years to develop practical utility scale generation systems. And we've been bouncing off the barriers of breakeven and sustained reaction for decades, so they're not likely to get there really soon.

So fusion is great, but it's not going to help us address our immediate crises. And we do face immediate crises, make no mistake. There is more than ample evidence that we are approaching the world peak of oil production. This doesn't mean an end to oil, just an end to cheap oil. But cheap oil is precisely what our industrial system was built on, and adapting away from that resource is not a short-term process. SAIC's Robert Hirsch reports that it will take us 20 years to adapt away from our dependence on petroleum. Production peak may be occurring now, and will almost certainly occur within 10 years, so we're a bit behind the curve.

Even if you don't believe that peak oil is an immediate concern, our depedence on oil is intimately connected with all kinds of horrible human rights abuses, in the Middle East, in Nigeria, and elsewhere in the world. The stuff's a cultural poison.>