Why The Capitol Remains Ignorant

Checking in on a seemingly innocuous local story, we find good reasons why the truth about peak oil remains hidden in plain sight. Ostensibly about the now becoming widespread practice of US motorists close to the border obtaining their liquid fuel from the "other side," thereby taking advantage of the lower (somewhat subsidized) price of our southern neighbor, the article delves a little deeper and even interviews some semi-local experts to give some context (emphasis is Chaos'):

"But [Mexico's] proven oil reserves are shrinking, and it lacks refining capacity, particularly for low-sulfur diesel being phased in under the North American Free Trade Agreement. (This mysterious phrase enables the author to dance around the fact that Mexico oil production has peaked and is in rapid, irreversible decline.)

"So even while the nation still exports crude oil, it imports about 40 percent of its fuel"

Further:

"Pemex has been having difficulties. According to the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration, Mexico's net oil exports dropped from 1.7 million barrels a day in 2006 to 1.46 million per day in 2007. A 28-year graph of proven reserves shows a sharp downslide." (Yeah, a 13% yearly decline in productions of one's largest oil field tends to produce a few "difficulties." And again with the proven reserves language. Did the author pick that up from some expert or what? Keep tapdancing...)

Concluding with some nods to the impact of higher oil prices on the poorer citizens of Mexico, the article ends on a slightly confused note, i.e., was the point the cheap Mexican gas, so attractive to American motorists close to the border, the declining production (although this word appears nowhere in the piece), the impact (and potential riots) on the poor, or something else?

Well. Chaos has many thoughts for such an article, most strikingly that it somehow left out some rather important facts about Mexico, one of the top 5 sources of oil for the US. How an article concerning itself with this subject could somehow fail to mention Cantarell, one of the largest oil fields in the world and source of a majority of Mexico's oil production. The field has peaked and entered a rapid decline such that Mexico is on track to move from an oil exporter to an oil importer in the next five years. New discoveries may slow the decline but will not affect the end result. Be assured, readers, that these facts are not unknown, or obscure in any way; a few seconds of "googling" will call them up. In Chaos' humble opinion, when the one of the top ten oil producers peaks and begins a catastrophic decline, it should in fact be a front page headline for pretty much the entire nation. The fact that it is not, and further, that this muffling by the so-called media "watchdogs" continues, serves to reinforce Chaos' view that, for whatever reason, the facts will not be faced in the US until they are so blatantly obvious that they can no longer be ignored, even by the most somnolent of the public. Want more proof? Check out this ridiculously irresponsible opinion (by a "business columnist") as to why $200 oil just won't happen. Really. It just won't. Look for the Faux News "kill the messenger" fallacies, the Las Vegas-style gambling that apparently constitutes the current corporate culture, the ad hominem attacks, and (get ready) even a reference to the viability of shale oil. Yikes! This columnist's solution for the public? "At a minimum, we'll buy a more fuel-efficient car or even go the extra step and car pool!" (Chaos cannot help but be stunned at this person's energy illiteracy, but then again, it's quite obvious that most folk in the Empire are equally delusional).

New York Times Columnists Are Fed UP!!

Seems that some of our newspaper brethren have gotten a little disenchanted with the somnolent American public, since, well, nothing seems to really wake them up (wonder why?). A few weeks ago, Tom Friedman exclaimed, in relation to the obdurate refusal of anyone in the country to do anything in response to the problems of crumbling infrastructure, ridiculous visa entry restrictions and aging technology: "9/11 has made us stupid...we can't afford to keep being this stupid!" (Actually, we've been this stupid for quite some time, Tom.) Last week, Bob Herbert described the process that elected George W. Bush over Al Gore thusly: "In the race for the highest office in the land, we showed the collective maturity of 3-year-olds."(And not just in the last couple of presidential elections, either, Bob). Then today, Frank Rich decides that the American public is as complicit in the continuing torture/slaughter that is Iraq as the German public during the Nazi era (a little hyperbolic, yes, but that would also assume anyone here is paying attention to the Empire's little outsourcing dilemmas, wouldn't it, Frank?) Chaos sympathizes, but wonders why it took these gents so long--Chaos figured it out long ago. Look, guys, there's a reason why things are done a certain way here in the Empire; figure it out, can't you? Here's a hint: take a glance outside the borders of the nation every so often and wonder why other nations seem not to have trouble facing the looming problems of energy dependence, global warming, environmental destruction, and the like. Most of them have a rational healthcare policy, and quite a few of them don't actually start unprovoked wars or torture people as a matter of national policy. Think about it.

Friedman Savaged By Carmudgeon Realist: A Study in Contrasts

Just the other day, a long and detailed piece by the NYTimes international columnist Thomas Friedman appeared in The Magazine (a weekly feature, for those unfamiliar with the nation's paper of record), the subject of which was how development of "green energy" would lead the US out of its increasing dependency on unstable Middle East countries (which would in turn eliminate the so-called "oil curse"), put the productive capacity and brainpower of the nation to work to produce more "clean technology," which developing nations (China, India) would purchase, and simultaneously enable the US and the world to make progress on global warming.

Well.

There are many objections someone who is familiar with the issues of the end of cheap energy, global heating, and the effects of exponential growth on finite resources might make; language like this, for example, not only gives one pause but tends to undermine whatever value the rest of the article might contain:

"After World War II, President Eisenhower responded to the threat of Communism and the 'red menace' with massive spending on an interstate highway system to tie America together, in large part so that we could better move weapons in the event of a war with the Soviets. That highway system, though, helped to enshrine America’s car culture (atrophying our railroads) and to lock in suburban sprawl and low-density housing, which all combined to get America addicted to cheap fossil fuels, particularly oil. Many in the world followed our model.

Today, we are paying the accumulated economic, geopolitical and climate prices for that kind of America. I am not proposing that we radically alter our lifestyles. We are who we are — including a car culture. But if we want to continue to be who we are, enjoy the benefits and be able to pass them on to our children, we do need to fuel our future in a cleaner, greener way."(emphasis Chaos')

The effects of the continuation of ridiculously wasteful American lifestyles is obviously not going to be addressed by Friedman; why not? Perhaps Friedman's audience would find that too disturbing to consider. What soporific effect is meant by "we are who we are"? In fact, transportation uses quite a bit of energy, but simply stating that citizens may have to drive less is "beyond the scope" of this article; why? Another interesting question might be: how does an optimist like Friedman expect to handle the energy needs for the "extra" 100 million citizens of the US who are projected to "arrive" by 2050? In fact, the overall tone of the article seems calculated to induce a pleasant sensation: just a little old-fashioned American ingenuity and government incentives, and these problems will just go away. Overall, the piece is disturbing, in that it contains a bedeviling mixture of facts and delusions that together give a much more optimistic tone than is reasonably warranted by the nature of the looming multiple catastrophes. (Chaos is adopting a more strident tone in preparation for the introduction of the next writer).

Chaos will now leave off the criticism of Friedman or, more properly, turn it over to James Howard Kunstler, who addresses this piece in his weekly blog, Clusterfuck Nation. Besides being screamingly funny, the man has put it all together, in such works as The Geography of Nowhere, and The Long Emergency, both highly recommended. Chaos thinks that it might help readers to get a sense of just how large the problems are by reading Friedman's piece and Kunstler's response to it. Further, what lurks behind the NYTimes article (and many others like it in the MSM) is the plain fact that it is impossible to tell the truth to the American public. Any solutions proposed will have to account for this "energy ADHD" aspect (hint: few, if any of them do).

New York Times Columnist(s) Reinvent the Wheel!

Good morning, gentle readers. In the news today, Tom Friedman, (sorry, pay site) former cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq, has discovered that there might actually be another reason the Empire has been so overly involved in one extremely flammable region of the planet for the last, oh, say, fifty years or so. Let's see, what could it be? It's...wait for it...BECAUSE WE'RE ADDICTED TO OIL!!! No, really. The extreme gullibility of this columnist cannot be measured with any devices at this moment known to man. Likewise, his lack of memory and sense of history perfectly reflects the extreme ignorance one finds in the MSM today. But keep it up, Tom: your readership at the Times is probably now aware of its own culpability in ruining the planet, but keep on beating this drum and you may find some success in battering down the stone wall of denial that exists outside your bubble. Well, no, not really: somehow, the idea that the unlimited operation of 6000 pound monstrosities are wrecking the planet and contributing to Islamic resentment is not one that the wasteful citizens of the Empire are prepared to embrace. The only saving grace for Tom is that he is not alone in his ignorance: last week Bob Herbert (once again, the greedy NYTimes, sorry) discovered that most citizens of the Empire have no truck with Iraq, and are only concerned with shopping. Chaos thinks that it must be nice to wake up every morning to a brand new world.