A couple of things.
I believe Hubbert was a leader in a 1930s movement called
Technocracy. He had other concerns then before peak oil.
I attended monthly a Bay Area group meeting on peak oil. Quite a
fascinating mix. In the beginning I was almost astonished by them.
Many were almost gleeful in asserting that 100 million Americans
(North) would have to die soon because oil was running out. And of
course others would die elsewhere.
There was almost no political activism, though many were taking
personal actions -- permaculture, etc.
There was frequent turnover as new people joined the group, others
drifted away. Lots of talk about arming to defend a compound where
gardening or farming would provide subsistence. Many who came were
truly frightened and looking for answers to protect their families.
Individuals researched the amount of land available in Oakland and
environs for growing crops. The conclusion was that it would be
impossible to support the area on the available land. Some formed
groups to band together to purchase land to retreat to, though
whether any were able to act on that I don't know.
Eventually there was an offshoot of "re-localizers" -- people who
actually are taking steps to take action -- not political -- to have
resources developed locally, particularly gardens. They seem to be
thriving, doing things.
A very interesting experience.
On Jun 16, 2007, at 9:33 AM, sartesian wrote:
I don't subscribe to Carrol's theory. Indeed, there is an activist
streak among the "professionals" of the peak oil advocates-- Campbell,
Deffeyes, Laherrere, etc. Unfortunately it is a very conservative,
even
regressive, but lucrative activism.
Hubbert himself had a bit of activism in his life-- testifying before
Congress, drumming the beat for the rule of the technocrat experts.
I think the problem comes in ascribing to "nature," conditions that
are
so fundamentally economic, social, property based.
I also think it is a mistake to conflate the elite peak oil theorists
with global warming activists or fish stock analysts. Even without
global warming, declining fish stocks can be directly traced to an
overaccumulation of assets in large fishing vessels, destructive
"bottom
scrubbing" methods, the deployment of truly gigantic nets (a practice
that is most accurately called extinction fishing), in the attempt to
circulate, realize, the initial capital outlays. And this is combined
with impoverishment of localized, sustainable fishing communities
forcing more and more into more destructive fishing practices,
abandonment of self-subsistence practices in favor of commercial
fishing.
Anyway, I endorse fish supporters, and not the peak oilers.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Proyect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Peak oil warning
Carrol Cox wrote:
And worse -- it doesn't make any difference. I have never, _once_,
seen
a hint of a suggestion by peak-oil freaks of how the view can be
embodied in actual political practice. My own view is that those who
push the peak-oil thesis are actually quite frightened of doing any
actual political work and are desperately looking around for a quick
fix
which will take us to heaven without any effort. Even if the peak
oil
thesis is true it has no political relevance.
The people who write about peak oil tend to be geologists, so I am
not
sure how much potential there is for activism to begin with. In any
case, all of these questions from declining fish stocks to global
warming *do* have political relevance. They pose the question of how
society should be organized. Marx wrote about soil fertility in the
1870s. What was the political relevance of that?
