The article about peak oil employs ridicule and hyperbole to deflate a serious issue. The point is that oil has proved unique in three key ways: it was cheap to extract, it was easy to transport, and it provides a lot of ergs of energy per unit of mass burned. No alternative comes close to providing the bonaza of cheap energy oil once provided (coal comes close but can't be used in its native form in internal combustion engines and pollutes like hell). Our civilization has been built on fossil fuels, and the cost of replacing the hydrocarbon infrastructure, along with unit cost of the new energy sources (the equivalent of at least $80 to 100 per barrel of oil) will make any transition difficult and potentially volatile. I'm not saying it's Armaggedon, but it sure as hell isn't an issue to dismiss or make fun of.

I'm not saying it's Armaggedon, but it sure as hell isn't an issue to dismiss or make fun of.

-- James P. Levy

Nobody here is dismissing the issue - just criticizing the idea of the necessity of armaggedon. As far as I'm concerned, the environmentalists who claim that we shouldn't push for new technology are just as bad as the oil tycoons who argue for the exact same thing from the opposite perspective.

Anyway, I think this ties into what I wrote earlier about a technophobic element in the environmental movement. I think these people really want us to go back to the stone age. I see a lot of overlap (in ideals and individuals) with the groups that lionize ancient subsistence cultures.

Good post. One thing: I'd like to introduce you to the BLOCKQUOTE tag. Makes it a lot easier to separate that quoted material from your own words. Allow me to demonstrate:

James P. Levy wrote:

The point is that oil has proved unique in three key ways: it was cheap to extract, ...

Oil has become cheaper to extract due to research and economies of scale. As alternative energy sources gain traction, they'll benefit from the same factors.

...it was easy to transport, ...

Due to a massive infrastructure. Yes, I'm counting the highway system, along with the oil pipelines, as part of the infrastructure. One huge benefit of many alternative fuels is that they can be produced closer to home. In many instances they may not need to be transported at all. (Remember, oil is used for a lot more than just our cars.)

...and it provides a lot of ergs of energy per unit of mass burned...

This is a serious obstacle, but it's one piece of a larger puzzle. If the other pieces fall into place this won't be as big of an obstacle down the road as it is today.

...Our civilization has been built on fossil fuels, and the cost of replacing the hydrocarbon infrastructure, along with unit cost of the new energy sources (the equivalent of at least $80 to 100 per barrel of oil) will make any transition difficult and potentially volatile.

On the contrary, oil prices of $80 to $100 per barrel will help ease the transition from oil. It will make several other sources of energy competitive. As for the "hydrocarbon infrastructure," well, who said it had to be replaced? It will be supplemented. Over time that may lead to its eventual demise, but that's a long slow process.

While I don't disagree with most of what Mr. Leonard writes, he does not address so-called Peak Oil at all. The coming energy crisis will be about the high cost of producing oil more than how much remains in the ground, as well as the immense capital required to develop well known, but largely ignored, alternative energy sources. Peak oil is not so much about the end of resources as it is about man's inability to seriously plan for the future.

Strange as it may seem, I am well acquainted with the BLOCKQUOTE tag, and I used to use it all the time, until we were banned from using it because it didn't work well with one of our new design elements, after a redesign that dates back so far into ancient history that I can't for the life of me remember what the actual reason was.

But thanks for the comment!

The truth is, the existence of 6.5 billion people is the direct result of fossil fuel usage and way past the natural carrying capacity of the earth. It's as if we were all on life support, but foolishly believe the lifeblood of that very support system is infinite. Yes, conservation could slow things down; and yes, biomass and other low-yield energy systems are possible and in use today.

There is next-to-zero political will to get people to conserve, since conservation doesn't keep capitalists in the green (Bush talked about Americans' "addiction to oil," but didn't say a single word about cutting back on our sloth). And we have built a global economic system dependent on oil, both in production and shipping and the money system itself. An economic system built on endless growth (Wall St., lending, commodities, etc.) is only possible when cheap energy (the true "invisible hand" of capitalism) makes the moving of atoms and the speculation of endless bounty possible.

I think it's dangerous and irresponsible for pundits and journalists to chime in on peak oil until they've really studied its implications in-depth. It takes a little while for all the pieces to fit together and show a picture of the bleak world to come, but to just say 'wow that's a dark prediction' and say technology or innovation will rescue us is human arrogance at its best.

We can watch two trains in different states on the same track heading for a collission for hours and debate whether or not there will be death and destruction; but I would suggest signalling a warning, getting off the train and building new tracks.

Please don't talk about peak oil if you don't understand it. Stick to what you do know.

-Steve

The truth is, the existence of 6.5 billion people is the direct result of fossil fuel usage and way past the natural carrying capacity of the earth.

That claim fails the most basic sanity check: oil use is inversely proportional to population growth.

Yes, conservation could slow things down; and yes, biomass and other low-yield energy systems are possible and in use today.

So, basically, you concede every relevant point. What, exactly, are you trying to say, then? It looks like you're far closer to Andrew Leonard's position than the position he's criticizing.

And we have built a global economic system dependent on oil, both in production and shipping and the money system itself.

It's not so dependent that it cannot adjust to different energy sources.

I think it's dangerous and irresponsible for pundits and journalists to chime in on peak oil until they've really studied its implications in-depth.

You could say that about anything. I don't see something special about peak oil predictions that should exempt them from scrutiny - and criticism.

...but to just say 'wow that's a dark prediction' and say technology or innovation will rescue us is human arrogance at its best.

How is that any more arrogant than claiming that technology won't be able to deal with the situation? I'll happily split the difference - I predict that new technology will mitigate (but not completely abate) the economic crunch caused by rising energy prices.

...I would suggest signalling a warning, getting off the train and building new tracks.

Well, Andrew Leonard is actively writing in favor of developing new energy technologies. What are you doing other than complaining about said writings?

Please don't talk about peak oil if you don't understand it.

Take your own words to heart.

There's a lot of energy sources that will become more feasible as prices rise. (Unfortunately, most will still be fossil fuels.) Similarly, a lot of our energy use is at a far lower efficiency than we already have the technology to achieve. Together, that does not make a formula for the sudden, catastrophic wall that the dire peak oil predictions herald. Rather, it suggests a gradual slowing of the global economy as prices slowly rise.

Off hand, I'm much more worried about global warming in general and the eventual rise in sea levels in particular.