What I'm curious about, and please critique, is the logical arguments regarding oil.
See, in global warming, there are two inductive leaps that need to be made.
One, that we are causing increase in global temperatures.
Two, that these global temperature increase of just 2degC is bad, real bad.
In the energy crisis, the two inductive leaps that need to be made are:
One, that of the resource/ reserve/ proven reserve/ what Saudi says it has is ~in reality~ equal to or more than what is claimed to be there.
Two, that not only do existing resource/ reserves/ etc. numbers have to pan out ~in actual production~, but there are still vast resources as cheap and energy-dense as oil.
Yes, some "proven reserves" may turn out to be more, some may be less. The discovery graph way above does show that even discovery, which leads to estimates of proven/ resource/ reserve/ whatever, has markedly dropped away many decades ago.
Even if people were faking discovery, they haven't been faking it much at all. So why the discrepancy between discovery and reserve estimates? If reserves are continually increasing, due to ostensibly, continuing new discoveries, then the discovery graph should reflect this. So either the discovery reporting is false, or the reserve reporting is dubious. Only if both the record of discovery and the record of reserve statements match, then we could say either is correct, or either is false. But at this stage, one of the two is false or true, but not both false nor both true.
To be honest, what I've uncovered here in this thread alone is clearly very, very significant.
Luckily at this stage all this peak oil information is out there in the open. Lest I be "Assanged". Also the documentaries are out there on iTunes Store, I've found it very enlightening. Just watching five documentaries on iTunes Store, and it's clear for the past 10 years most of what we've known is well, limited.
Yes, of course for some of us on the "left" for decades we've known, save the forest, save the trees, use bikes, cars are bad, rich people are evil, electricity is going to cause a hurricane to kill innocent African children.
Putting aside any moral argument, the facts stand for themselves. Either the energy is there, or it isn't. It's like downloading a new 3D game on your Mac. Either it's going to run, or it's going to crash, depending on the game and the hardware. We can ~hope~ the game is compatible, we can ~hope~ the Mac has enough specs to run it, but of course if we looked at the facts then we can know if it's going to run.
In the case of energy, we ~know~ what's there, and what ~may be there~ is ~hope~. Not that ~hope~ is bad, but, let's understand that it is ~hope~.
I think people just haven't "got" how critical the situation is.
For me, the penny dropped when I went through individual Middle East countries and looked at their situation and US/UK/Nato action with regard to their oil. When you see it, it is so blindingly obvious how important oil is in US/UK/Nato policy and "intervention", that any other reason given is ridiculous. Just look at Egypt, Syria, Saudi, Iran, Iraq and Libya. Given that all those regimes are all screwed up beyond recognition, cherry-picking who to help and who not to help seems confusing, but if you look at their oil situation, as I've outlined above, it is really quite simple.
Saudi has the most oil, so they are the West's best friends.
Iraq has a lot of oil, the rest is history anyway.
Iran has a lot of oil, next target.
Egypt, no more oil, who cares about them.
Syria, see above.
Libya ~ nice one, good opportunity to get rid of a dictator that became inconvenient.
Interestingly, no one questioned me on Afghanistan. I knew something was up with Afghanistan and oil.
Could it be ... an oil pipeline? I mean, the region is so messed up EIA has ZERO information.
Which is also suspect, the longest and most important region of conflict involving the USA in the hotzone of all hotzones,
and there's ZERO information on the oil use there? What about "rebuilding" the nation? I suspect that needs oil.
Anyway, it's all about the pipeline, or at best ~mostly~ about the pipeline. C'mon now.
All around you are countries producing oil, and oil needs to flow here and there. Afghanistan is a key region.
This is of course below a biased link, but it's an interesting kick-off point for valid research
I think this pipeline is the tip of the iceberg in the Afghanistan situation.
Even if it's not oil, the rare metals theory is interesting (I'm not backing this yet till I have more research but it is interesting).
Because with or without oil, the next thing you're gonna need is rare metals.
Edited by nvidia2008 - 6/5/12 at 6:29am