There is an interesting documentary - Crude Awakening - which is (to my mind) a must-see discussion of peak oil and our dependence on the black stuff. Its available through Netflix.
Caren On 10/24/07 6:10 PM, "WENDEE HOLTCAMP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd say 2 reasons - one is that global warming is something that ecologists > can study. Such as Lucas' study of the impact of global warming on pika and > marmot. I'm not sure how you'd study peak oil in the same way, except maybe > some theoretical models. Second -- An Inconvenient Truth catapulted the > topic to national prominence and acceptance even among skeptics. I don't > know of a similar effort on peak oil. In fact I know basically what it means > but I don't know much more than that. Probably a lot of us are the same. > > W. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Wendee Holtcamp, M.S. Wildlife Ecology > Freelance Writer * Photographer * Bohemian > http://www.wendeeholtcamp.com > http://bohemianadventures.blogspot.com > * 6-wk Online Writing Course Starts Nov 24! * > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joseph gathman >> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 11:37 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Denial * 2: Climate Change and Economic >> >> Speaking of denial, why does Global Warming always >> generate so much response on this list, while Peak Oil >> doesn't? To my mind, they are both profoundly >> important, both are "ecological" in some way (PO may >> be more so), and both are happening now. >> >> Maybe ecologists just don't know about PO, or haven't >> considered what it really means (it's likely to be a >> paradigm shift in human history with not-yet-explored >> ramifications for the planet in general). Certainly >> there has been MUCH more buzz (and funding) about GW, >> while PO is under the radar. Is ecology really so >> trend-driven that we can't see a huge issue in front >> of our noses? >> >> Joe >> >> >>> (While this is no place to elaborate, I have to at >>> least note that, with= >>> a >90% fossil-fueled economy, and ceteris paribus, >>> economic growth simp= >>> ly =3D global warming. And also that, with economic >>> growth - increasing= >>> production and consumption of goods and services in >>> the aggregate - pri= >>> oritized in the domestic policy arena, dealing with >>> climate change means= >>> not conservation and frugality but rather wholesale >>> onlining of nuclear= >>> , tar sands, mountaintop removing, etc., because, as >>> Woolsey pointed out= >>> , renewables such as solar and wind won=92t come >>> anywhere near the level= >>> s our currently fossil-fueled economy needs.) >>> = >>> >>> So perhaps we could view "denial science" as lying >>> on a spectrum, where = >>> endpoints might be defined either in terms of >>> hardness/softness of scien= >>> ce (e.g., physics hard, climate change science >>> medium, ecological econom= >>> ics softish), or else in terms of political economy >>> (e.g., from little t= >>> o big money at stake). Denial would tend to be >>> motivated pursuant to pr= >>> incipals of political economy, and gotten away with >>> in proportion to the= >>> softness (or alternatively, complexity) of the >>> science. >>> = >>> >>> = >>> >>> Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor = >>> >>> Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University >>> Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences >>> National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center >>> 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 >>> Falls Church, VA 22043 = >>> >>> = >> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.com ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Caren E. Braby, PhD University of Oregon Oregon Institute of Marine Biology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
