I began last week’s post with a variation of these questions:
How do optimistic projections from ExxonMobil’s “The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2040” report—which I highlighted in that post—square themselves in the face of the oil production challenges suggested by the news excerpts which were also included in that piece? How long do those opposed to climate change and peak oil implications dance away from the unpleasant truths?
What is the benefit beyond avoiding painful discussions today? At what point do those contrarian viewpoints give way to a recognition that there is more than enough evidence already in play to make those challenges both very real and quite formidable now?
How does postponing not just acknowledgment but any and all efforts to come to mutual understandings and a commitment to work cooperatively in addressing these matters make it any easier or better for anyone?
At what point does the single-minded pursuit of any and all efforts to oppose, deny, or obstruct the efforts of one’s political opponents give way to a recognition that repeatedly shooting oneself in the foot has limited benefits? A question I’ve raised numerous times in the past is just as relevant today: if you have to mislead, misinform, distract, omit, or even lie outright to support your opposing viewpoints or policy proposals, how valid are they to begin with?
What’s the point? What happens if you “succeed”?
Today’s reality about fossil fuels—oil in particular—and production thereof is no different than it was several months ago and no different than it will be in the days ahead: it is still a finite resource. Production of conventional crude oil, responsible for most of our technological marvels and economic progress over the course of a century-plus, peaked a decade ago.
