There seem to be certain memes that are taken for granted in any community, including the peak oil community. The most prominent appears to be: "there's nothing we can do, destruction is inevitable". In that community, no alternative opinions are accepted as anything other than pie-in-the-sky denial.
On the other hand, there are peak oil deniers who insist that it's all a load of bollocks, there's plenty of oil for everyone, and market forces will spur the painless development of economic alternatives on demand.
I remain unconvinced by either of these. I believe that peak il is a real phenomonon, but I'm not sure that the symmetrical Hubbert's peak is an accurate model; the tail end of the oil curve may be somewhat less steep, somewhat closer to linear.
I'm not disputing peak oil theory; I am however, unconviced by some of the conclusions that certain proponents have come to.
I don't believe ethanol is a viable alternative to petroleum on a large scale. Algae, however, is certainly no hoax, and is does not require that same degree of petrochemical intensive cultivation as conventional agriculture.
In end, I do not believe that peak oil is not a problem nor that it will be easily surmounted; it's going to be ugly. However, I do not believe that an 80% crash in population and a return to the dark ages is inevitable either.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, merely stating how I see things, which I know that you disagree with.
|