Rachel Neuwirth, December 4, 2004

A century ago our growing use of oil seemed like a blessing as it supplied an abundance of cheap versatile energy to rapidly build up our civilization. Today our growing dependence on oil now seems like a curse which threatens to collapse our civilization. Unfortunately, this subject is both complex and controversial making it much more difficult for people to fully grasp the potential danger it poses. In an attempt to draw needed attention, this article will: briefly highlight some of the main issues; explain our serious predicament; show how we arrived there; and indicate what needs to be done.

Our growing dependence on oil. At present the world consumes 82 million barrels of oil every day! America alone represents about a quarter of this total with half of our oil requirements coming from foreign sources. Growing populations multiplied by economic expansion, especially in India and China, are driving demand ever higher and experts predict global demand reaching 100 million barrels per day in the not too distant future. Natural gas is generally found along with oil and demand for natural gas is also rising. Coal is abundant in the world but is less versatile and more polluting than oil and hence it cannot fully substitute for oil. Our focus is thus mainly on oil. As long as oil is abundant, and reasonably priced, our civilization’s prime energy needs remain satisfied.

The "Peak Oil" dilemma. This term has become a label for a prediction that the supply of oil would rise until the early 2000’s and then go into permanent decline at the same time as oil demand is surging. This concept argues that abundant, cheap oil is steadily coming to an end and warns of dire consequences. Search engines retrieving information on "peak oil" return many reports including conflicting views. The majority view, however, argues that the world’s supply of oil is finite and that we are now running out of cheap oil because all the easily accessed oil has already been tapped and new wells will be progressively more expensive because they are located in less accessible places. One representative of the majority view is found at www.hubbertpeak.com, and named after the late Dr. M. King Hubbert, the geophysicist who predicted oil production would peak about this time and then decline. This website provides data, analysis and recommendations regarding the upcoming peak in the rate of global oil extraction.

Others argue strongly that the peak oil warnings are all a myth, tired wells can be rejuvenated and that the earth keeps manufacturing more oil deep underground. They also assert that there is abundant oil plus oil shale that can be processed to yield oil. Meanwhile actual production is already straining to meet rising demand and market forces are now driving prices higher for both oil and natural gas.

What of the ‘alternatives’ to oil? If we face a looming oil shortage why not simply invoke the many familiar alternatives such as wind power, solar, hydrogen, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, etc. Matt Savinar, a young lawyer, has done an extensive and amazing analysis of all the energy alternatives that many believe can solve our problem. He addresses just about every possible question and every proposed solution. His results indicate that the familiar alternatives, which do offer some benefits, all have significant limitations. And they all require lead-time to fully develop while the "peak oil" clock is rapidly running out of time. We should have begun seriously developing some of these alternatives decades ago.

On his web site, www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net, he begins his "Dear Reader" message directly with a dose of hard reality. (When viewing his web site, click on each underlined word or phrase to link to a full reference supporting up his claims.)

"Dear Reader,

"Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect or conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best-paid, most widely respected geologists, physicists and investment bankers in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global Peak Oil.

"The ramifications of Peak Oil are so serious, one of George W. Bush’s energy advisors, investment Banker Mathew Simmons has stated, "The situation is desperate. This is the world’s biggest serious question," while comparing the crisis to The Perfect Storm. "If you read The Perfect Storm, where a freak storm materializes out of the convergence of three weather systems, our energy crisis results from the same phenomenon." Simmons’ investment bank, Simmons and Company International, is considered the most reputable and reliable investment bank in the world."

Oil corrupts. The politics of oil began following World War I with the British and Americans seeking alliances and deals with Arab sheiks to secure access to Middle East oil. About this time the cozy relationship between the Saudis and the U.S. government was begun. Human rights and democracy were secondary to securing oil for western countries even in the early days when the U.S. was still enjoying self-sufficiency. And the League of Nation’s Mandate to establish a Jewish National home in Palestine quickly fell victim to the power politics of oil as Britain, France, and later America, acted to betray their international commitments to promote that mandate for the Jewish People. However, commitments to the Arabs were fulfilled.

More recently we have the likes of Saddam Hussein, Moamar Khaddafi, the Saudi Royals, the radical mullahs of Iran and even the Gulf States, all of them awash in petrodollars. That wealth purchased immense economic and political influence including in Washington where the term of reference was always "our Saudi allies" despite their anti-American actions. That petro-wealth became the Arab "oil weapon" to also purchase massive amounts of arms for use against Israel. Many of these regimes engaged directly and indirectly in supporting terror and terrorists plus seeking weapons of mass destruction to the point were we now find ourselves in danger. More recently we learn of the U.N.’s oil-for-food mega scandal involving the ‘diversion’ (looting?) of over $20 billion and involving even the U.N.’s Secretary General himself. It seems that Saddam’s petrodollars even bought governments, including members of the U.N. Security Council.

Would abundant oil for all solve the problem? For argument’s sake let us imagine that every country possessed an abundant supply of low cost domestic oil eliminating the need to import any oil. Would that be an ideal situation? For some the entire problem is that of simply finding enough oil. But the environment is reacting to the rising levels of all greenhouse gasses with carbon dioxide, CO2, being the primary gas. When fuels such as wood, coal, oil and natural gas are burned, one byproduct is carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere. For centuries, prior to pre-industrial times, atmospheric CO2 was relatively steady at about 270 parts per million (ppm). With the increased cutting of trees, (which normally sequester CO2) and the increased burning of wood, coal and later oil and natural gas, conditions began to change. Atmospheric CO2 began rising at ever faster rates of increase reaching about 375 ppm in 2003. Search engines seeking "graph of atmospheric carbon dioxide" will return multiple sites that furnish this information.

Although there has long been controversy over measuring methods and long-term implications of rising greenhouse gases, the consensus thinking seems to be shifting rapidly at this time to increased concern. One such example was an article in the February 9, 2004 issue of Fortune magazine with the blunt title of

Following are quotes from the article which described the Pentagon’s study.

"Global warming may be bad news for future generations, but let's face it, most of us spend as little time worrying about it as we did about al Qaeda before 9/11. Like the terrorists, though, the seemingly remote climate risk may hit home sooner and harder than we ever imagined. In fact, the prospect has become so real that the Pentagon's strategic planners are grappling with it.

"The threat that has riveted their attention is this: Global warming, rather than causing gradual, centuries-spanning change, may be pushing the climate to a tipping point. Growing evidence suggests the ocean-atmosphere system that controls the world's climate can lurch from one state to another in less than a decade--like a canoe that's gradually tilted until suddenly it flips over. Scientists don't know how close the system is to a critical threshold. But abrupt climate change may well occur in the not-too-distant future. If it does, the need to rapidly adapt may overwhelm many societies--thereby upsetting the geopolitical balance of power.

"Though triggered by warming, such change would probably cause cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, leading to longer, harsher winters in much of the U.S. and Europe. Worse, it would cause massive droughts, turning farmland to dust bowls and forests to ashes. Picture last fall's California wildfires as a regular thing. Or imagine similar disasters destabilizing nuclear powers such as Pakistan or Russia--it's easy to see why the Pentagon has become interested in abrupt climate change."

Following are selected excerpts from another review in The Nation magazine, March 1, 2004, titled: "A New Ice Age?" by Mark Hertsgaard:

"George W. Bush may not know it, but one influential part of his government is finally taking global climate change seriously. An extraordinary new report by an elite Pentagon planning unit has declared that climate change is a national security threat of the greatest urgency and demands an immediate response.

"Directly contradicting Bush and other right-wingers, the Pentagon report maintains that climate change is not only real, it could strike sooner and with much deadlier effect than is usually thought. By 2020, when babies born today will be in high school, climate change could unleash a series of interlocking catastrophes including mega-droughts, mass starvation and nuclear war, as countries like China, India and Pakistan battle over river valleys and other sources of scarce food and water. If the climate's tipping point is reached, change could come abruptly, within a span of three to five years, and ironically result in another ice age. A frozen northern Europe would become all but uninhabitable. The American Midwest would be rendered a dust bowl. Southern California would go thirsty. The risk of such outcomes is uncertain and "quite possibly small," the Pentagon report notes before adding,"but given the dire consequences, it should be elevated beyond a scientific debate. Action now matters."

"Bush and his allies in the fossil fuel and auto industries will find these conclusions hard to accept but also hard to ignore. The nay Sayers' usual defense--that climate change is more a theory favored by liberals than a reality proven by data--won't work against Andrew Marshall, the brain behind the Pentagon report. At 83, Marshall is a legendary figure who has done "big picture" strategic planning for the military for decades and been a trusted associate of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld since the 1970s, when the two men were among the earliest advocates of missile defense, the right wing's holy grail."

Please excuse the scary words but the above two excerpts capture the harsh realities of what we may soon be facing. The reaction of many will likely include shock, denial and even anger towards the bearer of bad tidings and accusations of promoting some sinister agenda, rather than cool reflection and seeking facts that lead to action.

The horns of our dilemma. Our dilemma is that the world must have more energy to meet rising demand but all of our options to achieve that appear inadequate. We could be running short of sufficient oil while the price soars and the energy alternatives come up short. But even having sufficient oil then runs into the greenhouse effect with its own dangers. And above all we may well be running out of time to come up with solutions.

How did we get into this mess and how do we get out of it? Simply put, for the better part of the past century our own government has suppressed the very advanced energy technologies that could have most completely replaced both fossil and nuclear fuels. These technologies extend far beyond solar, wind, hydrogen, etc. Most people do not even know that they exist. One excellent web site is www.seaspower.com. It is recommended to click on the Strategic Overview link and also on the Energy Papers link containing many excellent articles. Readers will learn about the tactics of suppression and the amazing technologies that have long been denied to the public and of efforts to end the harassment. Another question is also whether there is enough time remaining to turn things around even if we achieved the breakthrough today.

With all of this worrisome information, containing degrees of uncertainty, what reasonable conclusion can be drawn? Uncertainty can go both ways. Some people will translate uncertainty into an argument which insists ‘not to worry or even act until we are certain.’ In more conventional circumstances, uncertainty about such things as illness, accident, robbery, storm damage, etc. results in our taking out insurance and paying the insurance premium to gain protection. But with this uncertainty of ‘gambling you bet your planet,’ there is NO fall back position and NO insurance policy at this time. A more pro-active policy would be to urgently strive for a back-up plan. That plan would include ceasing all harassment of energy inventors and actively encouraging a global race to achieve and deploy the most advanced energy technologies and to pray that we have not passed the point of no return along the way.

Rachel Neuwirth is a freelance journalist/writer who resides in Los Angeles. She can be reached at rachterry@sbcglobal.net.

Copyright © 2004 Rachel Neuwirth