The Economist had a story on Matthew Simmons titled:
The high priest of “peak oil” thinks world oil output can now only decline
Here is my comment:
The higher the visibility of this issue, the better, so I was glad to see an article on Peak Oil in the Economist. But the tone of some of the article was disappointing, starting with the headline referring to Matt Simmons as the “high priest” of Peak Oil, and concluding with “he and his disciples.” And these descriptions don’t even make sense – the article itself describes Simmons approaches as:
-learnt never to rely on wishful thinking
-prefers to rely on data rather than daydreams
-according to the American government’s own numbers
-he is an old and respected hand in the oil business
-long experience and deep knowledge of the oil industry
These are the approaches and credentials of someone who works with facts.
Finally, to say “someone who is so pessimistic about technology” is not true either; he is investing in alternative energy.
I think the tone of the article reflects the common human reactions to the issue of energy decline:
-it has never happened before (and therefore can’t)
-it would be a catastrophe if it is true (and therefore can’t be)
-someone or something will save the day (unbridled optimism)
These responses are natural reflections of the way our brains work. But they are not helpful responses in this situation, so we have to use rational analysis to figure out solutions. But we can’t find solutions if we don’t see the problem…
Posted by energypredicament 