Thanx. Excellent read.

More thanks. Of the mostly humble and balanced presentation, I especially appreciate the hopeful "First" toward the end, with the reasonable caution: "...whatever ends up replacing petroleum will come in its own good time, later than we'd like but probably sooner than we expect...It will come with some tremendous benefits and some unfortunate drawbacks." Life finds a way.

Very, very Excellent!
DH, over 50 and self employeed with over 30 trucks, enjoyed your read and thought it should be a requirement for self employeed people to read in the USA.
We have been trying to purchase diesel trucks as we go and phase out the others. Even still, it is very concerning...come on ethanol and hydrogen fuel cells!

Again, thank you for one of the most well written and enjoyable reads in a long time.

Bow and applaud to Featherstone and Marshall

I also liked Featherstone ending on a hopeful note. For now, I just have a couple of quick comments on two points.

First, he ties the Iraq war in with insuring future reserves and contracts for select companies. While this may be part of the prize of the invasion, control of Iraq & world energy reserves has been a primary has been goal of US foreign policy since WWII. A 1945 State Department document on Middle East oil described it as "...a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." Access to the oil is secondary to the power gained from controlling the resource.

Then, I really should give this more thought, but I wasn't convinced by his statements regarding oil as a more environmentally sound source of energy than preceeding sorces. For example, he cites streets free of manure as a benefit, ie cleaner energy than horses, but doesn't acknowledge the attendent pollution associated with fossil fuel production and use. Messy streets have been replaced by messy air.

I believe you should include water pollution and general bacterial contamination. If we had to deploy enough horses to meet current transportation needs, we'd be overwhelmed. You forgot to mention widespread use of coal and coal-tar products (and firewood) in earlier periods. I grew up with coal heating and kerosene stoves -- heck of a lot less pollution (especially particulate) than natural gas and petroleum products consumed in efficient manners.

Having just gone through nearly 3 days without electricity and a day without a telephone, I can witness that we are not well prepared for a long term life like that.

As Marshall says, it takes a lot of "horses" to deliver...let alone build the infrastructure....all that we ALL comsume.

Yes, I think part of the reason our transportation needs have developed into what they have become is because of cheap, plentiful oil. Automobiles and busses displaced horses but also streetcars which we have previously discussed, and trains for mass transit. Those who had an interest in exploiting oil played no small part in the displacment. It is possible these other modes of transit could have developed into cleaner, more efficient, effective means of getting around had the oil interests not taken control of the development, limiting our choices.

Had the development proceeded along a different path, I'm thinking of the mostly forgotten Paley report of 1952 which advocated development of clean, renewable solar power, the US could have a high level of energy independence without the hyrocarbon pollutions associated with oil & gas, or coal, wood and other fossil fuel pollutants. I'm not intending to say that solar & wind power wouldn't have their own peculiar contributions to the pollutant load, however, there is greater potential for cleaner energy with these options. I don't think comparing one fossil fuel to another in a time when there are other options that should be given serious consideration, is productive. IOW, lack of oil doesn't necessarily mean we will have to go back to earlier energy sources. We likely won't be burning whale oil lamps ever again.

Featherstone is limiting his outlook to how to maintain the needs of current technology -- squeezing shale, and so on, with only a nod toward the possibility of other choices. I think we should realistically assess these needs and not continue to be blindly dependent on nonrenewable coal, oil gas & nuclear. I think the sooner oil peaks the better because there will be a greater incentive to look for sustainable alternatives.

You are being unfair. Featherstone is describing the realities of technology, economics, politics and geopolitics. History teaches us that humans tend to muddle along within the known limits of whatever only to be jerked in other directions by revolution in any or all of the above. His "as-is" review is very useful for its relative honesty.

wellllll...there's gonna be a revolutions welllllyou know
we all want to change the world...but when you talk about destruction, dont you know you can count me out! JL

It makes sense that to complete and use up resources that a population is so dependent on would create incentives to alternatives.

Of course, horses replacing cars in NYC could be interesting. Sitting in a restraunt, an owner of a horse that was tied next to a horse which impregnated it, the owner insisting on ownership to the new unborn colt, meanwhile horse manure collectors get trampled during rush hour, organic farmers must choose between raising horses, making compost, or marketing compost as full time jobs.
The most sought after degree is now in large animal vets, and urbanites are giving up green lawns for horse stalls.

What about cars that are motored by the physical activity of humans, such as like a bike or a paddle boat? Buses would move like crew teams.

Featherstone's article demonstrated both a practical analysis of the current situation and an obvious reluctance to move outside any areas that aren't already well entrenched in the mainstream. But isn't he a Libertarian? Libertarianism isn't about progressiveness, it's about self-reliance and taking responsibility for your own actions in a capitalistic environment, both as an individual and as a country. Typically, it is the small, upstart companies that lead the way with cutting technology - the well-established have too much to lose to risk a gamble. Featherstone has been a journalist in his field for many, many years. I am grateful for his insight into where we are coming from, because I believe that if we don't fully understand where we are coming from (specifically, the pros and cons associated with the choices that were made, and perhaps more importantly, the motives behind those choices), then we have no hope of truly understanding where we are going. I see it as being to my credit, rather than his discredit, that I choose to ferret out the options that he skips over.

Althea and Marshall, I see you both as being correct in your assements of this article and I delight in your discourses (on many topics).

Althea, I do feel the need to respond to your comment about "the sooner oil peaks, the better." Two weeks before this last Thanksgiving, my father had three heart attacks within a four-hour period. My parents live 90 miles from the nearest medical center specializing in cardiac episodes, and don't forget the trip to the local emergency room as the necessary precursor. A helicopter ride literally saved his life. As it was recently pointed out to me, life is not black and white.

'Relative' honesty is a good description of the essay. Going back to his polluting horse vs. clean gasoline comparison for a minute, he fails to note that problems associated with animal wastes are first a local problem, local assuming the wastes are kept away from water which would easily transfer problems to other areas and it is a problem with a low tech solution. Composting operations would be able to turn the wastes into another resource. The wastes associated with burning oil as fuel can't be easily contained and the waste isn't converted to a more valuable product.

His first assumption, 'we are entitled to the worlds oil', should be re-examined. I've heard this line trumpeted by those who seek to gain power through control of the resource, but I have never personally felt I am entitled to all of the oil I can burn. He accepts this idea as doctrine and bases the rest of his essay on this foregone conclusion without evidence or looking at the underlying political motivation for believing in entitlement.

Sylvia, there are many more branches of Libertarianism than the US individualistic, market capitalist version. There are and have been very progressive libertarians whose motivations are not tied purely to self interest. Sorry about your father. My mother suffered a massive heart attack Thanksgiving day. Life certainly isn't black & white.

Sylvia,

libertarianism is first and foremost about freedom. Naturally it encompasses quite a few people who years back would have been called "conservative". Their party has either been hijacked or (more likely) shown its true colors. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't mind freedom from both the "Moral Majority" and the ACLU, both of which owe their existence to (and benefit from) an ever more intrusive State.

Ryan

see link

Here is a link that might be useful: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man:

The Perkins interview was good enough for me to listen twice. How many other people are listening to such truth-telling?

Perkins has been on Pacifica Radio several times in the past months ... he has important information that should be more widely broadcast, IMHO.

Althea, on Featherstone you say "His first assumption, 'we are entitled to the worlds oil', should be re-examined." ... actually, he wrote "I could point out that crude oil formations underneath the Saudi desert, or Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela, or wherever, aren't our property  even if they aren't private property per se  and therefore we are no more entitled to that crude than a ravenous fat man is entitled to a free meal everywhere he goes."

Toward the beginning of the article, Featherstone was pointing out that "People kill to control crude oil, largely because they believe they are entitled to own it and use it." ... not endorsing that belief.

I admit that I skimmed the article (it is LONG) and don't agree with all of his conclusions, I don't think it is fair to quote him out of context.

I don't like that he didn't even raise the harm done in many areas of the world by oil exploration and extraction (Nigeria being a prime example) but he did raise some valuable points.

Peace,

- Sequoia

Sequoia, I didn't directly quote Featherstone. Note I used ' instead of ", to designate the underlying idea presented in the article.

I read the Greg Palast article linked below which reminded me of this thread, specifically this quote and what followed.

"I doubt very seriously anyone at Exxon called the White House and said "invade Iraq for us so we can get exploration and production contracts.""

Although, there is no proof that I'm aware of, that anyone from any company made such a call and used those exact words, the oil companies were intimately involved in planning.

Here is a link that might be useful: palast

Well, let me play "Monte" here and toss in a bit of scoffing. First, no one goes to war in a region with more than half the world's remaining petroleum without bringing in the experts. Remember what Saddam's forces did to the Kuwaiti oil wells and pipelines at the end of the First Gulf War. Second, Iraqi oil revenues were supposed to finance much of the reconstruction, and so the formerly state-run industry needed to be replaced in theory by "friendly petroleum people." Finally, Palast is deeply committed to a variety of conspiracy exposes so I always take what he writes or says in interviews with some skepticism.

How did I do, Monte? :)