It's still not the policy, stupid

For what it's worth, I'm one of the NDP supporters Scott Tribe is giving a shout-out to here, in the sense that if asked whether I support or reject the Liberals' carbon tax, I'd lean more toward 'support' than 'reject'. I don't like some of the specifics of the plan (Cam's concerns about muncipalities are worth mentioning), but I think it would be much, much better than what we have. And as for the "carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade" issue, well, I'm no economist, but I believe Duncan, Mark Thoma, and Environmental Economics when they say that both categories of plan are pretty much equally efficient. It's intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise.

The thing that the gleeful voices from Canada's political centre don't seem to realize, though, is this: there's a big difference between saying that you don't hate one of the Liberals' policies and saying that you'd be willing to vote for the party. In my case, all it means is that I've regained some of the appreciation I had early on for Dion as a thinker, but I still have no intention of touching his party with a ten-foot pole. In fact, even if I were a swing voter, liking a policy that the Liberals came up with would only bring up the age-old concerns about the fact that their track record on keeping their promises when in government isn't all that stellar. I mean, it's a nice fantasy to think that all Canadians have to do is elect a Liberal government and the planet will be saved, but like I said back in 2006, Liberal policies may well be "good enough" in a pragmatic approach to politics, but those policies are no good to anyone when no one bothers to enact them once the Liberals assume power.

They're kind of like the little kid who, after a whole year of goofing off, finally comes to school with a finished homework assignment and thinks he should be given an A for the whole term for his effort. And I'm a tougher grader than that.

Where are the Greens?

Some people are dubbing the recent climate change confidence motion, put forward by the NDP, as an attempt to trap the Liberals on an issue they want to own. It's hard to argue that this wasn't at least one of the origins of the motion, but it's equally hard to argue that the Liberals shouldn't have been able to vote for the text of the motion without even thinking. And the fact that they refused to do so has been cause for plenty of criticism among Liberal bloggers, to their great credit.

Perhaps understandably, the more high-profile Liberals haven't been quite so candid. But it's more than just Liberal MPs and candidates who have been silent on this issue--the Green Party of Canada has also been completely mum, despite the environment being their raison d'être. There's been no official statement from Green leader Elizabeth May on the subject of this motion, and there's nothing at all about it on the party website. And if you don't think that sounds at least a little bit strange, just imagine for a moment how different things would have been if the roles had been reversed. If the Liberals had put forward a confidence motion about the Conservatives' poor record on climate change, and the NDP had abstained on it, can you imagine for one second that the Greens wouldn't have been all over it? "Parliamentary games" or no?

The point of this post is bigger than a New Democrat whining about how the Greens attack the NDP while sparing the Liberals, though, so I'll cut to the chase. Both Stéphane Dion and Elizabeth May have been utterly insistent that their non-compete pact is limited to each of them not running in the other's riding. If that's the case, then, why on earth is the Green Party so silent on this matter? I can understand that they wouldn't want to help the NDP, but an election fought on climate change would arguably have benefitted them far more than the NDP anyway. I've been racking my brain trying to think of a reason why they wouldn't want to address this, and the only thing I can come up with is that they don't want to damage the Liberals. Which is very odd behaviour for what is ostensibly a completely separate political party trying to compete with the Liberals.

I have no proof that there's anything hinky going on, of course, but it makes me wonder. And I can't help but think about how all the former Liberal voters who are now turning to the Greens are going to feel if it turns out the two-riding non-compete pact really was a prelude to something a whole lot bigger.

Activism, self-righteousness, and individual differences

Let me get one thing straight upfront: despite not being wired for outrage, I really do think activism is important. This is especially the case in areas like the environment where making people aware of alternative ways of doing things could well make the difference between the future of our species and no future at all. But it drives me up a tree (no pun intended) when activists are so self-righteous about the choices they make that they fail to take individual differences into account before encouraging other people to make precisely the same ones.

I'm talking about:

...people whose friends and relatives are all local encouraging people with aging parents in another part of the world not to fly--because refusing to use airplanes would be more environmentally sound.

...people who live in cities with adequate public transportation tsk-tsking people who live in the suburbs or in rural areas for owning and using a car--because taking the bus would be more environmentally sound.

...people who have never wanted children anyway encouraging people who really do want children to make the childfree choice--because their way would be more environmentally sound.

...people who don't take that much joy in food and drink anyway looking down their noses at the gourmets down the street who buy imported mangoes from Mexico and imported malbec from Chile--because eating local would be more environmentally sound.

I mean, sure, all of these forms of environmental activism are great, and necessary, and I applaud the people who find a way to fit them into their lives. I find a way to fit some of them into mine. But come on, can't we manage to promote our good ideas while recognizing that a minor sacrifice that rolls off the back of Person A might very well make the life of Person B immeasurably less attractive?

They mean it. They really mean it.

I get CPAC's Prime Time Politics on podcast, which means I end up listening to it a day or two after it airs. And on the way home from work today, I got to hear a great interview with NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen and Liberal MP David McGuinty that aired on the Tuesday edition of the show.

Now, I have little time for hyperpartisan rhetoric of any shade, so if you've ever seen this show, you probably aren't surprised that I regularly roll my eyes during the MP panel. It seems to be near-impossible these days for any of our parliamentarians to sit in a room together with a camera in it and refrain from slamming each other. But this time they spoke with a unified voice about the importance of working together. Cullen did mention that the NDP had been on board with this since the beginning, but he didn't waste any time slamming McGuinty and the Liberals for having dragged their feet. And rather than just turning the whole six or seven minutes into a venomous bash-the-Conservatives-fest, they both expressed doubt that the Tories would join them, but said they still hoped they would. They didn't pull any punches, but it was about more than just partisanship and a chance to toot their own horns--it was real. Which is pretty refreshing, if you ask me.

Anyway, the full interview is [here] for download.

Oh, and for any Edmonton-area locals who would be interested in hearing Cullen speak in person, he's going to be here to do a panel discussion together with Edmonton-Strathcona's own Linda Duncan on Saturday, March 31st. Cullen will be fresh from the Clean Air Act Committee's final report the day before, something Duncan can comment on as an international environmental law consultant, former Chief of Enforcement for Environment Canada, and former Assistant Deputy Minister for Renewable Resources for the Yukon government. Should be an interesting afternoon!

Finding common ground

Last fall, when NDP leader Jack Layton first browbeat the Conservatives into striking an all-party committee to rewrite the Conservatives' crappy "Clean Air Act," criticism from the Liberals was swift, harsh, and frequent. Though all of the parties were taking part in the committee, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff still dubbed it a "marriage of convenience" between the NDP and the Tories, and later accused the NDP of "propping up" the Tories through that committee's work. Never mind the fact that the NDP had voted against the government on every confidence motion--something the Liberals themselves couldn't claim--the NDP were willing to venture beyond their own partisan fiefdom, and were therefore evil, evil, evil. And the Liberals stalled and obstructed the committee's work every step of the way.

What a difference a couple of months can make.

Not only have the Liberals now finally come on board with their own amendments to the Clean Air Act; they're also now proving willing to unite with the NDP and the Bloc to try and push a joint set of amendments through. The David Suzuki foundation say they're "ecstatic," and I have to agree. If passed, these amendments would produce a multipartisan piece of legislation that includes Kyoto targets. And while the Conservative cancellation of a Tuesday meeting of the committee has led to some speculation that they might vote against their own bill and use it to trigger an election, others are suggesting that even they might be convinced to come along for the ride.

Now, while it's hard to deny that the Liberals are Dion-come-latelys on the Clean Air Act committee, I have to say that their new willingness to jump on the bandwagon has softened my skepticism about their commitment to the environment. This kind of cooperation is a political risk for any party in an antagonistic political culture like ours, but this is especially the case for the Liberals. If real progress on the environment happens under a Conservative minority, after all, it will be much harder for them to argue that the planet is doomed if they don't get back into power post haste. But those who insist that we don't have any time to lose aren't wrong, and the Liberals' willingness to take that risk indicates a real commitment to the issue that's above partisan politics. That's worthy of anyone's respect.

But as a New Democrat, I also have to say that I couldn't be prouder right now. When Ignatieff and the other Liberals were breathing down their necks for daring to even sit in the same room as the Conservatives, the NDP stuck to their guns. When it comes to an issue as crucial and as time-critical as climate change, they have proven to be the one party that can not only put aside blind partisanship, but convince the other parties to do the same. The ultimate result of all this is still up in the air, of course, but if the current parliament proves willing to pass this bill, this country could very well get some real emission reductions right away. How's that for "getting results for people"?

This is a real-world example for Canadians of how politics works in most of the democratic world, where laws nearly always get written through multiparty cooperation. Canada's a latecomer to that ballgame, but you know what they say--it's better late than never. And watching the way the parties are managing to turn lead into gold on this file, I can almost have faith that our toxic political culture could someday change.

[Update: My fellow oxymoron over at Accidental Deliberations rains on my parade by pointing out that the Liberals have introduced several last-minute amendments that are almost certain to slow down, if not outright stall, the committee's work. But I've managed to successfully resist the pull of cynicism so far today, so I'm going to chalk this up to poor planning instead of deliberate strategy. Here's hoping they don't prove me wrong by next week.]

[March 28th update: CanWest is now reporting that the opposition has, in fact, teamed up to force through major changes to the bill.]

How not to write polling questions

Like at least one other blogger, I have been participating in the Innovative Research Group's Canada 20/20 online political surveys for over a year. Their most recent survey, which I filled out a few weeks back, focused on Kyoto and the environment.

I often find their questions somewhat difficult to answer, but there was one on the last survey that took the proverbial cake: choosing between "Canada must do its part to fight global warming, and implementing the Kyoto accord is the best way to do it" and "Canada must do its part, but implementing the Kyoto accord is just one way we can do it". If you believe, as I and many others do, that Kyoto is important but not nearly enough, what do you check?

After some deliberation, I finally checked the second unsatisfactory option. And what do we find today? A headline in the Ottawa Citizen (hat-tip to Political Staples) declaring that "Voters will forgive PM for ignoring Kyoto" (!) because "59 percent" say that Kyoto is "only one possible way to go."

*throws up hands*

Climate change: a challenge to skeptics

Over at Conservative blogger Greg Staples' pad, I got into a bit of a spat the other day with some hardline Tories about climate change. I was told that "the scientific process is still not settled," that "advocates use every weather formation as an example," and that "when everything is climate change nothing is." When I asked for specifics on what environmentalists are saying that they think are based on spurious scientific conclusions, hecklers on the sidelines informed me that the entire premise of the question was faulty, and that my mind had been "polluted" by environmentalists.

Greg himself finally addressed my question by saying that it's a simple matter of the scientific method, and that until there's a single agreed-upon "Theory of Global Climate Change," then nothing is settled. At this point I agreed that they hadn't reached that stage in environmental science, but added that reaching that stage in any science is awfully rare. (I mean, by that standard, science "isn't settled" on the notion that fossil fuels exist, either.) So I asked whether he really believed that our public policy should wait until that stage to act on scientific findings. His response was as follows:

You act on the best information you have. But something [sic] the best action is to wait for more information. It is vital in this public policy example that we have confidence in the models and projections. They are not robust enough (in my opinion) to decide whether we need to adapt, try to get back to 1990 levels or even 1900 levels or somewhere in between.

All of this sounds superficially quite reasonable, of course. But what concerns me most about this discussion is the lack of specifics. What kind of information do we not have, which the Conservatives think we would need in order to act? What, precisely, is it about the models and projections that inspires a lack of confidence? What would make them "robust enough," and how do we get there? And perhaps most importantly, in the absence of that kind of detail, how can I not believe that these Conservative bloggers are just trying to muddy the waters on purely ideological grounds?

So I'd like to issue a challenge to anyone who's willing to address this lack of specifics and argue for the position Greg Staples and his commenters are trying to represent. This challenge has two parts: one, answer the questions I ask in the last paragraph, and two, address the findings environmental scientists are presenting as consensus (here's a nice summary from the David Suzuki Foundation) and detail why they're not. You can address either or both of those parts of the challenge, but in either case I'd appreciate any responses to be backed up by cited scientific data (either quotes from scientific articles or links to websites), since that is, after all, the point.

Now, I admit that the last time I issued a challenge like this, I stacked the deck--I know an awful lot about electoral systems, after all, and have a ready response for just about any argument someone might make. This time is different, though: I'm far short of being even a well-read amateur on the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment. I've read the overly simplified discussions in the newspaper, I've read the occasional essay on the topic and seen the occasional lecture, and that's it. I haven't even seen Al Gore's movie yet. Even if I were trying to trap you, I don't have the knowledge to do so, so go ahead and give it all you've got. I'm not saying that you'll convince me, but it's not impossible.

I look forward to the discussion.

Party like it's 1984

Let's have a look at what some Conservative cabinet ministers have been saying about the environment these days:

Under the former Liberal government we could have seen up to $600 per Canadian family in taxpayer money shipped overseas to countries like Russia and China with no accountability to the environment here at home.

-- Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, May 8th Question Period

The Liberals were going to buy billions of dollars in international credits from Russia and China when we have our own air and water pollution problems right here at home.

-- Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, June 8th Question Period

Not only does the old Liberal Party want to spend billions of dollars buying hot air credits in Russia, to add insult to injury it wants to impose a new carbon tax on Canadians to pay for Russia's hot air.

-- Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources, June 12th Question Period

First off, let's clear up one thing: this "shipping money overseas" thing that our esteemed ministers are so hot under the collar about is nothing more and nothing less than an acknowledgement that our environment doesn't stop at our national borders. Each country that signed the Kyoto agreement has promised to limit their country's emissions to the levels described in the protocol. Realizing that countries don't always manage to keep their promises, though, the agreement also has a provision for those countries, like Canada, who screw up: they can buy "credits" from countries that managed to keep their word. The Conservatives don't like this idea. They'd rather demarcate the air over our heads along our land borders and claim responsibility for keeping only that portion of the atmosphere clean. It's a good thing we've got border guards up in the sky, working hard at keeping the riff-raff pollution out.

Now, the text of these statements is merely a bit lacking in the logic department, but the subtext is downright retro. Most developed countries have managed to meet their Kyoto targets, so there are plenty of other places that could have been held up as examples of who could buy Canada's emissions credits. The United Kingdom, for example, has already surpassed its target by 12.5%. Germany and France have overshot their targets as well, as have Iceland and New Zealand. Sweden has not only easily met its targets, but has committed itself to being entirely free of fossil fuels by 2020. Poorer countries that have managed to meet their targets include Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and the Ukraine.

Why not mention any one of those countries, instead of always demonizing China and Russia? Apparently the Conservatives not only want Canada to horde its own air, but they'd also like to take us back to the good old days of the Cold War.

What we can't live with

If you read just one post on the new Conservative budget, it shouldn't be this one, it should be Declan's. But presuming you're able to stand just one more take on it, read on.

As a general rule, I'm too much of a pragmatist to be wired for outrage. What this means is that when I watch a government making bad decisions, my first reaction is always: "okay, this is pretty appalling, but can we live with it?" Ralph Klein's trademark "prosperity cheques," in which the Alberta provincial government chose to give each Albertan, rich or poor, a cheque for $400, was a classic example. Sure, we all have to go on paying for our health care premiums ourselves, and severely handicapped people have to continue living in poverty, but it wasn't going to, say, destroy the world.

In this Conservative federal budget, there are a number of other examples of bad decisions we can live with. The GST cut is pure politics--and lousy economics--but it's not going to kill anyone. Aboriginal communities didn't get the Kelowna Accord, but they got more than they would have probably gotten had the Conservatives gotten a majority. We don't have enough of a surplus to seriously pay down the debt, but hey, maybe next budget.

Then we have the decision to cut the anti-global-warming programs by 80% and replace them with a tax deduction for public transit passes. First off, there's something pretty hypocritical about bringing forward a program that only works for urban lifestyles when you've spent the last umpteen months criticizing the Liberal and NDP child care programs for doing the same thing. But far more importantly than that, this is a decision we can't live with. If we don't act now to slow down global warming, it will have irreversible effects on our weather, on disease, and on our agriculture. And at this point we're not talking about the distant future, either--the effects are already being felt now and will only worsen in years to come.

Far more than anything else, this is the greatest threat facing Canada today. If Harper isn't going to take it seriously, how does he expect enough Canadians to take him seriously enough to give him a majority government?

Tories 1, environment 0

Just last week, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose made the announcement that it was going to be "impossible" for Canada to meet its Kyoto targets. At the time, her words only sounded defeatist. Today, in light of a leaked Cabinet document, that statement looks far more sinister:

The new Conservative government has decided to slash spending on Environment Canada programs designed to fight global warming by 80 per cent, and wants cuts of 40 per cent in the budgets devoted to climate change at other ministries, according to cabinet documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

The documents also say that the Conservatives' campaign promise of tax breaks for transit passes would cost up to $2-billion over five years, but would result in an insignificant cut in greenhouse-gas emissions because the incentives are expected to spur only a small increase in the number of people willing to trade using cars for buses and subways.

Federal funding for wind power, considered by environmentalists to be one of the cleanest new energy sources, "is also uncertain," the documents said.

Apparently, the federal Tories are taking a page from the slacker's playbook. If something is too hard to do perfectly the first time, then why try doing it at all? But when a government's only real goal--that elusive majority--is far more important than actually accomplishing anything of benefit to Canadians, the easiest way to get there is to cut spending to programs that nobody's going to miss until years down the road anyway.

Ms. Ambrose, by the way, had no comment. Hardly surprising, given that the Tory plans for the environment aren't among the things the Minister of the Environment is allowed to talk about to the media.

[Update: democraticspace points out that the programmes being cut are quite efficient and cost-effective, while the transit pass programme they are being cut to fund will be costly and won't cut greenhouse gas emissions at all.]

The addict and the pusher

At the end of January each year, the U.S. President gives a pomp-and-circumstance, sabre-rattling speech called the State of the Union. This year's was no different, and as ever, it was filled with items that had left-wing America giggling (a call for a prohibition against creating human-animal hybrids) or nervous (talking about Iran with very similar rhetoric once used about Iraq).

But for those of us who have spent any time at all considering the peak oil problem, there was only one true shocker: the moment when the most internationally out-of-touch, most ideologically right-wing U.S. President in our lifetimes admitted the U.S.'s powerlessness over its addiction to oil and proposed a twelve-step program to overcome it:

Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. Here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.

The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly 10 billion dollars to develop cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances. So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies; and clean, safe nuclear energy.

We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment … move beyond a petroleum-based economy … and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past.

"Cleaner, cheaper, more reliable alternative energy sources?" A new "Advanced Energy Initiative" with the goal of "moving beyond a petroleum-based economy"? I mean, sure, some of these ideas are patently ridiculous, like the so-called "zero emission coal-fired plants," and he's clearly thinking more of the security of the United States than he is of the future of the planet. But still, doesn't it just make your heart race? (Both in excitement and in fear, that is--because when an oil baron like George W. Bush starts sounding like an anti-fossil-fuel activist, you know the situation's got to be pretty dire.)

But every addict has his pusher. Like a crack dealer smelling the blood of a junkie with a tentative big toe on the path to recovery, Alberta's Energy Minister responded to Bush's cry for help with an alternative solution. You don't actually have to kick the oil habit, he said. If it's gotten too dangerous for you to venture into the ghetto for your daily fix, how about looking north instead? Why suffer through the inevitable withdrawal that would accompany a real commitment to recovery when you can just turn to your friends the Canadians? We're even located in a squeaky-clean part of town, so there's no chance of running into those ruffians with suicide bombs and funny accents!

And like any junkie choosing between the long, hard road of recovery and the easy way out, America responded. This morning's Edmonton Journal is reporting that the U.S. Department of Energy has changed its tune from the bold statements from the State of the Union: They're predicting that "crude oil from Alberta's oilsands -- not alternative energy sources such as biomass ethanol -- will help halve America's dependence on overseas oil within two decades." How delightful. Maybe this will mean Albertans can expect another $400 handout while the planet goes to pot.

It's a fine little story, really. George Bush is the brave junkie with dreams of a future without his addiction, and the Canadians are the dashers of hopes with nothing but profit in mind. Up is down, black is white, and the idealistic pragmatist who was thrilled to leave the U.S. behind almost nine years ago is hiding under her bed, wibbling, and wondering when the world is going to right itself again.

Peak oil perspectives

Anybody who's been a part of the left wing of the political spectrum for any length of time has always been at least dimly aware of the concept of an impending global oil shortage. Until fairly recently, though, it's been discussed as one potential environmental catastrophe of many. Maybe our landfills would overflow and encroach on our cities, maybe we would pollute the air until it became unbreathable, maybe we would run out of water, maybe the oil wells would run dry. Which one would happen first was never an issue because we could stave them off for a while by recycling, supporting green power, using low-flow shower heads, and driving less frequently. And besides, all of these horrible things would probably all happen after we were long dead anyway, so they wouldn't have an impact on us personally.

These days, though, an impending oil shortage has gotten a lot more press, and is being discussed as something that might well be imminent, if not already happening. For about three years, a growing group of people has been using the Internet to spread the word about what has come to be known as the "peak oil" movement and how it could change the lives of us all. A few Canadian bloggers have recently started paying attention to the issue, and I myself started sinking my teeth into it last fall. From what I've learned, there seem to be five major perspectivs in this debate, each of which has a very different outlook on the near future. This website, which does an excellent job summing up the differences between them, has respectively dubbed them the "Pollyanna scenario," the "optimistic scenario," the "plateau scenario," the "pessimistic scenario," and the "Head for the Hills scenario."

So what does this particular idealistic pragmatist think? Well, first off, I really don't think the Pollyanna scenarios--the ones that have the oil not running out and us living in a world full of ever-increasing industrialization and oil consumption without any immediate repercussions--seem terribly credible. Most of the online material I've read from these folks has been incredibly sarcastic, as if it were more important to make fun of the people who believed in the more pessimistic scenarios than it was to say anything of substance, and even the more serious stuff has an air of "la la la I can't hear you" about it. But leaving those scenarios out still leaves a pretty wide range of possiblities, each of which I think is as likely as any other to actually happen, ranging from the "we're going to be crunched, and the future is going to be hard, but we'll eventually make it through and maintain a high-technology, low-energy society" perspectives through to the "most of us are going to die, very soon, and those who survive will end up living in a post-industrial wasteland" perspectives. Mainly, I think we don't know, and can't know, exactly what's going to happen, and while the great minds of the world will theorize all they want, nothing they say is going to change that simple fact. When it comes to the peak oil question, I am deeply suspicious of anyone who claims to have all the answers, and equally suspicious of points of view which seem to be inexorably tied up with a particular ideology. Anyone who tries to predict the future from a knee-jerk political stance is going to automatically going to be granted somewhat less credibility from me from the get-go, even if I'm sympathetic to a lot of what they stand for.

In practical personal terms, this means that I don't believe in making drastic changes to my life based on potentially false assumptions about what we think might happen, but sticking my head in the sand isn't an option, either. I might not know precisely how the future is going to change, but I am convinced that it will change, and I believe that there are things I can do now to make some of those potential futures a lot easier on myself. I can decide to eat healthy foods and exercise regularly now, so that I won't be as likely to have any self-inflicted disabilities if life suddenly were to get a lot harder. I can learn skills now that could be of great benefit under a more pessimistic scenario and which wouldn't hurt me to have under a more optimistic one. I can list and develop skills and traits I already have that could be of use in a post-industrial economy. I can decide not to take on any more pets after my current ones die, so that I won't be responsible for any small furry beings who might live twenty years into an unknown future. I can decide to see the world and spend time with faraway people I love now, because someday it might not be feasible or even possible. But no matter how much thought I give this stuff, it still all boils down to the fact that we just don't know what's going to happen. If, like some of my friends, I could convince myself that the more pessimistic scenarios were right on the money, it would actually be freeing in certain ways, because if you know how things are going to go, you can actually make plans. You can decide to quit your job, sell your house, and live off the land in a commune to try to make the inevitable future a little easier on yourself when everybody else wants to join you in another ten years. You can decide to move to a warmer or a cooler climate where you won't need heat or air conditioning when the worst happens. You can decide to quit donating to and working for causes that matter to you, and stop worrying about conserving power because hey, no matter what you do right now, you're all doomed anyway. I really think that kind of thinking is a trap, though, because not only do you end up working yourself into an unnecessary frenzy, but you're virtually certain to be wrong about some pretty major things. And where does that leave you then, not to mention the rest of the world?

So for now, I'm just going to keep reading, keep thinking, keep learning, and most of all, keep enjoying the life I have, whatever that life ends up being. (While I go on recycling, supporting green power, using low-flow shower heads, and driving less frequently, of course.)

Web references:

• Summary of the five major perspectives on the peak oil debate (with many links and recommended writings from each of the sides of the debate)
• Oil Analytics (a bunch of general information put together by two Boston-based Cornell grads)
• From the Wilderness, the information site set up and maintained by left-wing activist Michael Ruppert
• Criticism of the peak oil movement (and again here) from the right-wing Center for an Informed America, run by a guy named Dave McGowan
• Russia proves 'peak oil' is a misleading Zionist scam (nothing like making those ideologies transparent right from the start!)
• Crying Wolf: Warnings About Oil Supply (a somewhat less ideologically based optimistic scenario)
• Life After the Oil Crash (a somewhat less ideologically based pessimistic scenario)
• Interview with Matthew Simmons, CEO of the world's largest energy investment bank
• Why doomsday scenarios are always wrong
• Criticism of the criticism of peak oil
• A Letter From the Future (almost certainly wrong, but even if only some of it is right, it's still chilling)
• Hubbert Peak of Oil Production (a site explaining the concept)

Books written for lay audiences:

• Deffeyes, Kenneth S. 2005. Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak
• Cooke, Ronald R. 2004. Oil, Jihad and Destiny : Will Declining Oil Production Plunge Our Planet Into a Depression?
• Darley, Julian. 2004. High Noon for Natural Gas: The New Energy Crisis
• Campbell, C.J. 2004. The Coming Oil Crisis
• Goodstein, David. 2004. Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil
• Heinberg, Richard. 2004. Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World
• Leeb, Donna and Stephen. 2004. The Oil Factor: How Oil Controls the Economy and Your Financial Future
• Mandel, Michael. 2004. Rational Exuberance : Silencing the Enemies of Growth and Why the Future Is Better Than You Think
• Savinar, Matt. 2004. The Oil Age is Over
• Deffeys, Kenneth S. 2003. Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage
• Heinberg, Richard. 2003. The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies
• Mason, Colin. 2003. The 2030 Spike: Countdown to Global Catastrophe
• Smil, Vaclav. 2003. Energy at the Crossroads : Global Perspectives and Uncertainties
• Vaitheeswaran, Vijay V. 2003. Power to the People : How the Coming Energy Revolution Will Transform an Industry, Change Our Lives, and Maybe Even Save the Planet
• Gold, Thomas and Dyson, Freeman. 2001. The Deep Hot Biosphere : The Myth of Fossil Fuels
• Mitchell, John V. and Selley, Norman. 2001. The New Economy of Oil: Impacts on Business, Geopolitics and Society
• Economides, Michael, Oligney, Ronald, and Izquierdo, Armando.2000. The Color of Oil : The History, the Money and the Politics of the World's Biggest Business

Academic papers:

• Bunger, JW. 2003. Peak oil production. Oil and Gas Journal, 101 (40), 10, October.
• Bunger, JW, Crawford, PM, Johnson, HR. 2004. Is oil shale America's answer to peak-oil challenge? Oil and Gas Journal, 102 (30): 16, August.
• Campbell, CJ. 2002. Petroleum and people. Population and Environment, 24 (2): 193-207, November.
• Duncan, RC. 2003. Three world oil forecasts predict peak oil production. Oil and Gas Journal, 101 (21) 18-21, May.
• Edwards, JD. 2001. Twenty-first-century energy; decline of fossil fuel, increase of renewable nonpolluting energy sources. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 74: 21-34.
• Kelleher, K. 2004. How long will the oil age last? Popular Science, 265, 2, August, 33-4.
• van Mourik, M; Shepherd, R. 2004. Investment incentive concerns overlooked in peak-oil debate. Oil and Gas Journal, 103(10): 18, March.
• van Mourik, M. 2002. Peak oil and economics: some lessons from offshore. Energy Exploration and Exploitation, 20-1 (6-1): 61-69. Special issue.
• Williams, B. 2004. Next big thing: peak oil. Oil and Gas Journal, 102 (15): 15-15 April.
• Williams, B. 2004. Peak-oil, global warming concerns opening new window of opportunity for alternative energy sources. Oil and Gas Journal, 101, (32) 18, August.

Web-board or interactive blog discussions on the topic:

• Peak Oil and Gas: Why We're All Dead
• Peak Oil is Here
• Peak Oil is a Myth
• Bill Maher board discussion of peak oil
• Zogby discussion board about peak oil