Random Notes  

There are quite a lot of good peak oil related articles out this weekend - in no particular order - "Getting ready for the last oil wars ... writing on the wall" by Andrew McKillop at VHeadline, "Peak Oil: Russian Style" by Joe Duarte at RigZone and "Social justice and the path forward from peak oil" and "Clinton" by Dave Roberts at GristMill, who notes that Greens and social justice activists should be using peak oil as an opportunity to alter the status quo in positive ways (personally I'm surprised they haven't been preparing for the event for a while).

Part 5 of Kevin Drum's series on peak oil is out. In it, he turns from describing the phenomenon to considering what should be done about it. It's at once the most interesting and frustrating entry in what is, I should say, an excellent overall series. (If you know someone looking for an easily-digestible primer on the subject, you won't find better.)

Before I get into the weeds, let me say why I find this last entry frustrating.

As the era of cheap oil ends -- and it's already happening -- a great deal of power politics will be going on behind the scenes. There are lots of very large, entrenched financial and political interests involved in the oil game, to say the least. It is to their benefit that the transition to a post-oil world happen with as little disruption (for them, that is) as possible. If there's one iron law of socio-politics, it's that power's first imperative is to preserve power.

However, the path of least resistance for those powerful interests may not be the healthiest or safest path for the rest of us.

Greens rightly view the end of cheap oil not only as a threat but an opportunity (and no, the chinese character says no such thing). There will be some big changes. Ideally, some of those changes will meliorate things about how we live that are harmful, either materially or psychologically, and others will open up new ways of living and interacting.

Greens -- no, humanists -- should view it as their mission to advocate, early and consistently, for the kinds of changes that will do the most good for the most people, over the long term. Sometimes that will overlap with the changes advocated by the powers that be, sometimes it won't. But we should be the voice of the people; the post-oil transition is as much a populist, social-justice issue as it is environmental.

We should "look seriously" at [nuclear power], and it's clear "we can run safe nuclear power plants." However:

* Will we get enough benefits in the short run given the enormous capital requirements, or would it make more sense to use that money building up renewable energy?

* Should we build 40 new nuke plants before we know what to do with the waste (Yucca was chosen for political, not environmental reasons)?

* Is nuclear more more cost effective than "letting 1000 flowers bloom" with small-scale wind, solar, biomass, etc. projects?