Peak Oil (and climate change) are--to those of us who do accept the evidence and expert assessments--serious, fact-based realities which will soon enough impose some rather unpleasant, widespread, and irrevocable changes on how we live and work ... all of us, even those on the Right who presently find almost nothing about either topic to be worth contemplating at all. That poses a dilemma....
When 'dialogue' about a contentious topic features facts on one side [coupled with] a genuine desire to find solutions, and fear-based irrelevancies and/or half-truths and/or misrepresentations on the other side, how can anyone expect meaningful exchanges and acceptable solutions? What's the benefit in not having solutions to urgent challenges because ideologies must be protected first...?
I'm willing to wager that almost all Peak Oil proponents would be delighted to be proven wrong so that we don't have to endure the inevitable magnitude of changes our beliefs suggest. I'm on record as stating that I am certainly not the poster child for Peak Oil advocacy. I take absolutely no delight at all that the comfortable lifestyle my family enjoys will be severely disrupted in the years to come.
I like optimistic assessments! But there are other facts which must be taken into account, and there's no reason why Peak Oil [and climate change] should be exempt from that fundamental concept.
I'd also like to know that we're all working together to find reasonable adaptations and develop sensible plans so all of us--and our children--can enjoy some semblance of prosperity and well-being in the days to come.
But what worries me and peers urging more awareness of Peak Oil is the fact that the problems will be of such scope, impact, and complexity that we feel an urgent need for planning to begin now--by all of us, both Left and Right. We're not seeing enough honest, intelligent, rational analysis from those whose contributions will be every bit as important and meaningful as our own.
The ideology sponsoring practical and effective adaptations and solutions won't matter to us if they work. We just don't think it's all that unreasonable to expect that the contributions are grounded in the realities of what we face. Optimism has a place, but it cannot be all that one side brings to the table.
I approach this notion with the recognition that it may be a fool's pursuit. Neither camp seems much interested in hearing about the perspective from the "other side", having long been convinced that the opposition [evil incarnate] has taken leave of its senses and reality itself. But until we shed more light on not only our point of view but on how we react to and interpret observations and viewpoints from those with whom we disagree--giving them the opportunity to teach us--stalemate ensues.
We've had more than enough of that, thank you very much. It's becoming increasingly risky to rely on that "strategy" and/or accept it as status quo, given the challenges ahead.
We need to learn how to listen to others with different viewpoints, and we all need to consider that the mere possibility of diminishing energy supplies merit much more serious and honorable conversations than we've demonstrated to date. Solving them together is the only way problems of such scope can be solved. Different conversations with different ground rules might be worth considering.
Not addressing them at all really should not be an option.
Adapted from a blog post of mine