C4CC (4): The problem of Peak Oil, part four
This is the last bit of chapter one, where I work through what the implications of the preceding analysis might be. To be honest it will be a relief to get away from the specifics of Peak Oil etc and start engaging with the more fundamental questions. But we had to start somewhere!
~~~
So how are we to react to this information?
One reaction might be to question the underlying analysis about peak oil and to say: there is no such thing as peak oil, the oil supply has been increasing for many decades, in the face of several different shocks, and it will continue to increase. It is difficult to know what to do when this is seriously argued for as all common standards of logic and evidence-based reasoning are thereby abandoned. Such an argument would have to give an account of why, when particular individual oil fields, regions and continents have been observed to 'peak', the earth as a whole is somehow different and should not be expected to 'peak'. In essence, this argument postulates 'the earth', understood separately to the continents constituting the earth, as an infinite resource. This argument tends only to be advanced by those who also have a significant material stake in it being true, and, as Upton Sinclair so pithily observed “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” Such an argument is rooted in a spiritual flaw; it is a form of idolatry (see Chapter Four).
Another reaction might be to accept the existence of peak oil but to say that the timing of peak oil is still decades into the future and so we have time to make plans for it. There is room for argument about the precise date of the peak, not least because it would not be finally decided until many years after the event, but in practical terms the consequence of this position ends up being rather similar to that of one which holds that the peak has come and gone – we need to get to work in preparing our economies for a different pattern of organisation, and the sooner we get that achieved, the better.
There are other possible reactions. One might be to say 'something will come up'. This particular something could be: an alternative energy source which can produce liquid fuel more easily than before (there is some interesting research in algae for example). Or the something could be a new form of combustion engine which is orders of magnitude more efficient than existing ones. Or something else might be invented. These are technological solutions – our inventive nature will meet this problem and come up with something! Seen in this way, it becomes clear that this response is an articulation of faith – here, a faith in technology and what technology can achieve. If technology is to solve this problem, we could have done with the technology being accepted and distributed world wide 20 years ago.
Another choice might be to indulge in the 'descent of the SEP field', where SEP stands for 'Somebody Else's Problem', a wonderful description coined by the late Douglas Adams. One might think: 'those in a position to know and take responsibility for the government of our society will decide what is best and they will sort it out.' Often this is a sensible solution. It is centuries since any one person could know all that it was possible to know, and certainly life is far too short to engage over much in all the detailed comings and goings of government activity. Yet that is an abnegation of responsibility and the problem of peak oil is going to have some very direct and personal consequences – far more so than the great majority of legislation that governments enact. In truth, there is little to choose between this attitude and one of placing one's head into the sand and hoping that the nasty news will go away.
Yet another choice might be thought of as 'The Last Man Standing' option. This too has several variants. One might be: I am rich or prudent enough to have purchased land in a suitable area, and I have stocked up on alternative energy supplies and am able to grown my own food, so 'I'm alright, Jack'. Another might be: I have learned how to survive off the land, to shoot and hunt, and I am able to defend myself against all comers. Another might be: when things go to hell I do not need to have all the answers, I just need to be better than my neighbours at finding them (two men being chased by a bear, one pauses to put training shoes on – “I do not need to outrun the bear, I just need to run faster than you.”) This may or may not be viable; it is, if nothing else, an assertion of rugged individualism.
One last option might be 'suicide is painless'. The prospect of extreme economic hardship and poverty, of watching loved ones die due to lack of food or heat or medication, this may be overwhelming and the option of bailing out might seem attractive. Yet what this option most starkly reveals – and what all of these previous options have in common – is that they are all anti-Christian.