"Shakti: you weave into your hypothesis the New Age Anthrops. as an influence on Transition on the one hand and Halliburton, Big Oil and the Far Right on the PO community, but Im not sure you have demonstrated any connection between the two: is Halliburton run by Anthros do you think? The plot thickens! But most likely Colin Campbell, for example, has never even heard of Rudolph Steiner."

- I doubt Halliburton is run by Anthros. I don't necessarily see a direct structural connection between TT/triodos/Steiner and the Halliburton/ASPO element. The main link is that the propaganda put forth by Heinberg, ASPO, Simmons, etc. has been eagerly devoured by Hopkins and used to form the philosophical/political basis of TT.

"And, again, that ASPO is funded by oil companies is hardly surprising- it was started by retired oil geologists who had spent their entire lives in the industry. Who else are they going to ask funding for conferences from, the local WI?)"

-So you can't see how ASPO, a consortium of drillers and explorers, might, just MIGHT have a political/economic bias on these issues? And aren't there many NGOs around the world interested in climate change and oil dependence? Why not go to them for money? Also, you are assuming that these retired geologists just randomly decided to start this group, rather than that it was a top-down decision from the drillers/explorers themselves. That is like assuming that the Tea Parties just randomly popped up from the grassroots.


"No wonder Shakti, your ally JD, an EARLY peaker ("I personally think we're at or very near peak production now, on a plateau that will probably not be enough to satisfy the newly industrializing countries while supporting our wasteful usage.") decries the PO "doomers" agenda as "Marxism dressed up in radical environmentalism."

-That was his take in 2006, I don't think he felt the same way in 2009, by the time he stopped blogging.

"Why? Why should TT or any group debate Anthroposophy or homeopathy? It's their group, it's a free society, they talk can about whatever they like. "

-Yep, they can talk about whatever they like, as can we on this board. However, if they are going to be moving into the public sphere and taking actions that might affect those who live near them, then they will have to face public scrutiny, including on boards that are FAR meaner and more negative than the posters on Rick Ross.

" We don't expect Republicans to ask themselves "hey, maybe we should think about being Democrats" or cat people to start all of a sudden liking dogs. "

Again, they can do what they want in their meetings. However, if they want to appeal to a wide spectrum of people, they would be smart to disassociate from some of the strange groups they are involved with, like Anthroposophy.

"I wonder: are there any threads on this site where people examined the evidence and concluded that a group was NOT a cult? What is considered appropriate evidence of non-cultishness?"

-Yes, I have read several. However, oftentimes, in the process of discussing them, one often finds things that while not indicating "cult" status, still indicate something fundamentally wrong or unpleasant about the group in question. Personally, I think that most sane, objective people reading this thread will not come to the conclusion that TT is a cult, yet they will come to the conclusion that it is a fishy group and that their interest in sustainability will be better served by joining up with a different group addressing those important concerns.

margarets:
"no one should allege that any group is a cult"
in the same post you quote me from I clearly state that TT is NOT a cult- but it is apparently wide open to influence from and possibly even a take-over from Anthroposophy, who clearly already have a strong influence -see the Triodos quotes for proof.
And TT claims to be something it is not- see Rob's "Critical thinking Pattern" which is actually a cover for New Age "Holistic Science" nonsense. TT actively promotes quack medicine, something that should concern anyone who wants a
Yes of course a group like TT should be having clear and open discussions about scams like homeopathy, pseudoscience and even cult awareness, but these discussions are not welcome and are not taking place. And you, as a TT apologist, also seem to take umbridge at such criticism, suggesting you see nothing wrong with pseudoscience.
Peak Oil and Climatre change remember are supposed to based on science. Other groups like the BNP also have addressed PO, but they would most definitely raise more thyan just an eyebrow were they to suggest a collaboration with TT, for obvious reasons. Anthros on the other hand just walk right in.
That's a little odd isnt it?
Also, I had intended to object to Rob being called a lie-er re his Steiner education, but once I read about the Triodos connection it doesnt seem such an unfair comment. Clearly TT and Anthros are happy working together.
TT isnt just a single-issue group, remember, I think it is obvious many or most who join are also looking for a more equitable and just society also, that is why the BNP would be problematic even though it addresses PO.
I have tried many times to raise these very same issues with other transitioners, inc. Rob, to no avail.

Shakti:
"how can you reconcile an economic collapse which will reduce Oil demand with the notion that PO has caused it or that said collapse won't mitigate Peak Oil?"
Speculation, as Campbell has described. Its not so clear as a cause-and-effect, more that the two issues are inter-connected because of the way the markets work. Its a circular process: speculation causes price hikes, which prompts recession, demand destruction and price collapse.
Price collapse will of course mitigate shortages, but only because noone has any money by now. The PO thesis is, we cannot live without oil, cut backs and economy can only be made once; after that you are in a state of real hardship= collapse. It is a vulnerable system that operates beyond the control of the average person or even gvt; so better go for community resilience.
Campbell has described to me the markets as behaving like a pack of wilderbeasts. Once one trader starts to move, they all rush one way; they stop, sniff around, and then all run back again.

"why is it that the PO people rely on the same sources over again, including right-wing racist cranks like Campbell?"
"Also on board of advisors of racist Carrying Capacity Network. You really know how to pick 'em, peakers! Are you on the right, GrahamS, I didn't get that from your previous posts? "

I think you are merely betraying your own political bias. The concept of Carrying capacity comes from well-established ecological science. I humans are in overshoot, this is an issue we will have to deal with one way or another. They dealt with it in Rwanda in one way. The argument would be, there might be preferable ways of dealing with overshoot, but we have to accept its reality first.
This is the sort of healthy debate that takes place all the time within PO circles- see Sharon Astyk's "The Tragedy of the Bathroom". They are important debates, and this particular one is one Rob for example has always shied away from -why do you think that is, Shakti? That's right- he thinks it is potentially racist to even discuss immigration. He wont go there at all.

Your reasoning is ideological and circular: any talk of immigration is racist.
Immigration talk is a result of concerns about overshoot.
Therefore overshoot is wrong, and anyone who is even remotely concerned about it is a racist.
None of this helps us understand whether PO is going to happen sooner or later.



"-They also have the most to gain from a perception that oil is running out rapidly, right?"

Not if the popular result of this perception is voluntary demand destruction! Doohhhhhhhhh
Even outside Transition, Gvts in the US since Carter have emphasized the need to move away from oil.
The reason there is still pressure to drill more is that of course in reality it is very very difficult for us to move away from oil. We dont really know how.

"As for "wide range of sources", sorry, I have not found that to be the case."

You're not looking are you? My bookshelves are heaving with other writers; there are also many many films at this stage. Even RTE made a series a couple of years ago. Try Hell, even YOU dont deny PO because, wow, NOONE denies it! It's just a question of when.
Try :
[www.withouthotair.com]

Try Paul Mobbs "Energy Beyond Oil".

Oh sorry, of course they're all neo-fascists, as is anyone who even goes near the issue of resource depletion.

And I still dont get why it's ok for your main (only?) source to be JD who is himself a Far Right looney who thinks peakers are all Marxists?? It is really very curious. (JD's debunking points are absolutely trivial. Even a PO beginner could debunk THEM without really trying- havnt time to do so myself right now, why dont you have a go?)
Marxists have in common with New Agers and Nazi Mystics of course that they dont believe in natural resource constraints or ecological explanations. It's all about ideology for them as well Shakti- maybe for you to?

"So you can't see how ASPO, a consortium of drillers and explorers, might, just MIGHT have a political/economic bias on these issues? And aren't there many NGOs around the world interested in climate change and oil dependence? Why not go to them for money? Also, you are assuming that these retired geologists just randomly decided to start this group, rather than that it was a top-down decision from the drillers/explorers themselves."

Shakti, this is just a whacky conspiracy theory, on a par with 9-11 Truthers. Most oil companies and oil producing nations have been completely opposed to the PO hypothesis until very recently.
You are saying that the most powerful industry in the world- which already had the entire US Gvt in its pocket in the Bush era has to go the elaborate lengths of setting up a 2-bit organization like ASPO which by ever more devious means has resulted in the formation of Transition which is made up of a bunch hippy crystal- dribblers who basically campaign for....MOVING AWAY FROM OIL... so that ... wait for it!! people will be so scared of oil dependency they will call for more drilling in all those really hard to get places that are, like, the only places left to drill because, you know like, there isnt so much oil left anymore and we might be approaching Peak....

Excuse me while I pick myself up from the floor. Im not assuming anything Shakti, Im just using all the information I have to make an educated guess about what is more likely. I think that you just might be assuming rather a lot though, how about a little evidence, just a tinsy bit?
Full disclosure: I live near Colin Campbell and contributed to a booklet he wrote called "Living Through the Oil Crisis", available from www.zone5.org for a very reasonable price, in which I call for a culling of all conspiracy theorists to save energy, and for which we received a 6-figure advance from Halliburton.
You might not agree with Colin Campbell's politics, but if you met him I think you would agree he makes a very, very unlikely conspirator. You really should come and visit Ballybehob some time, it is a charming place:)

OK I have looked at some of the stuff on the Carrying Capacity Network, which also includes on its panel of advisers Bartlett, Herman Daley, Catton.
It is a weird website, clearly promoting far-right Christian agendas, inc. alarmist anti-immigration and homophobic propaganda. I certainly wouldnt support it; I rather think though that it is using the valid human-ecological issues of overshoot to promote an ideological agenda.
The odd thing is though that I have never come across even a hint of this in the writings of those authors; same applies to Heinberg- they might have some very dodgy associations but that doesnt discredit their overall work which has at least some scientific credibility. And what is Amory Lovins doing there? He would generally be considered by peakers as a "techno-fantasist" ie he thinks the energy crisis can be solved with renewables and efficiency (so, no need for over-shoot strategies then).
In Campbell's books as I have quoted, he absolutely does not come over with a far-right agenda; why does he raise ethical issues of inequality and fair distribution of resources?
To look for alternatives to the "die- off" perspective I would recommend Stewart brand in "Whole earth Discipline".
I think you are asking a lot of important questions, Shakti, but I'm far from sure you have the best answers.

Vegans Deserve to Know the Full Details of What Biodynamic Farming --and Biodynamic Winemaking entail.

If a project is to do outreach to the general public, the actual differences between organic farming, permaculture and biodynamic farming should be spelled out clearly out the outset so that persons of conscience can make an informed decision to participate or choose a different project.

For there are at least two points that persons of conscience unfamliar with Biodynamics need and deserve to be told:

* Use of animal product (cow horn) in extracts BD 500 and BD 500
* Use of astrology and moon phases to guide application of these and other extracts and procedures.

Vegans might have concern about animal products and many Christians, Jews and agnostics would not want to live guided by astrological principles.

Here are three articles that raise the vegan question in relation to Biodynamics making it of the utmost importance in public outreach to make clear and helpful distinctions between permaculture and use of anthroposophic principles as expressed through biodynamic farming and gardening and winemaking.

Quote

Beyond organic: discovering the secrets of biodynamic foods

[findarticles.com]

Quote

Something unique to biodynamics is the use of eight specific homeopathic preparations, two of which are sprayed on crops and six of which are added to compost. The preparations are believed to increase the "life forces" in the soil and plants. Since they are difficult to produce, many farmers buy their preparations from the Josephine Porter Institute and other producers. The remedies are mostly herbs, usually stored in an animal organ, and are buried underground to ferment for a time period coordinating with cosmic cycles. The specific organs are thought to enhance the life forces of each material.

The two spray preparations, manure and grounded quartz, are stored in the horns of a cow. Small amounts of the manure or quartz are then mixed in water. The compost preparations include chamomile and dandelion flowers and oak bark, and are stored in a variety of organs such as animal intestines, skulls and bladders, and then applied directly to compost. In Steiner's view, the preparations are both natural and spiritual.

Some people, especially vegans (who refuse to eat any animal-derived foods), may object to such use of animal parts in farming.

One practitioner replied, "Biodynamics works in harmony with nature and, with experimentation, it may be able to evolve to be more animal friendly" .

Quote


Biodynamic grapes, and the wines they make

Post category: Low Impact Wine • Our Wine Blog
by Neil on June 30, 2008

I always thought that biodynamics was just some sort of French organic gardening system similar to biointensive gardening, but there was a lot I did not know.

Rudolf Steiner, the father of biodynamic agriculture

It turns out that Biodynamics, or more specifically biodynamic agriculture, was developed by Rudolf Steiner. Born in 1861, Rudolf Steiner was a philosopher, writer, lecturer, and perhaps the leading occultist of his time. He was the founder of Anthroposophy, which he described as “a path of knowledge, to guide the spiritual in the human being to the spiritual in the universe”.

Using anthroposophy and his extensive agricultural observations, Rudolf Steiner developed and delivered a series of 8 lectures to a group of farmers in 1924. These 8 lectures and 4 additional lessons were combined into a book entitled Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture, which became the foundation for biodynamic agriculture. Shortly after Steiner’s death in 1925, an English version of the book was published under the title of An Agricultural Course.

While the principles of biodynamic agriculture parallel organic farming practices in many ways, biodynamic practices are set apart by the metaphysical aspects of anthroposophy. Steiner’s farming methods are a combination of “biological” practices which are based on well-known organic principles and “dynamic” practices which are intended to influence both the biological and metaphysical needs of the farm.

Composting, crop rotation, companion planting, and green manure are some of the important biological components of biodynamic agriculture. Biodynamic preparations, “teas”, and a planetary farming schedule comprise some of the important “dynamic” biodynamic practices advocated by Steiner.


What does all this mean for the wine drinker?

Biodynamic certification and to a certain extent common biodynamic practices are more about the vineyard than they are about winemaking. A BD certification does say that the grapes were organically and mystically produced. It does not, however, guarantee a vegan wine or a sulfur free wine.

*If you are vegan, you should use other resources to determine if a wine meets your dietary requirements.


[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

A member of the general public would be unlikely to know about the connection between anthroposophy, use of cow horn in biodynamic extracts # 500 and # 501
unless he or she already possessed some information.

Now...if one wishes to take this to the outside public one, it is only courteous to be aware that many sincere persons participating in sustainability projects are vegans or have taken formal vows of no-harm (ahimsa).

If given the full details about Anthroposophy as expressed through Biodynamics, some might find no problem while others might prefer to participate in permaculture
projects that do not utilize Anthroposophical beliefs as expressed through Biodynamics.

One person two years ago raised the issue on behalf of vegans:

Quote

This issue is raised in this discussion on another site-Permaculture Forums
on April 02, 2008, 11:22:29 PM

[www.permies.com]

Has anyone here heard much about/tried biodynamic gardening? I went to part of a workshop on it today and was pretty turned off by the whole burying cow horns based on astrology thing....but there must be more to it than that. What is there in biodynamic gardening that is useful to people who don't believe in their understanding of how energetic forces work in food?

*And is vegan?

One respondant replied

Quote

Sounds like you were turned off by the "cosmological" part of the course you took. "Cosmological" can mean different things to different people - for example, the fact that you are still interested in this form of sustainable organic practice after being "turned off" indicates that biodynamics are important to you as a biodynamic being in the world. Maybe you just didn't get the right class for you the first time around. Try to find another course that better represents your idea of "cosmic" - one that involves veganism. Also, consider that the Hindu religion venerates cows and also incorporates veganism into its practices so burying cow horns is not necessarily against vegan practices. Consider it a way to recycle parts of cattle butchered by the practice of others in honor of the realtionships in various earth biodynamics - which cattle are part of in three stages (alive and feeding themselves, butchered for food to feed otehrs and as carcasses to feed the earth). Earth biodynamics involve all living beings and all dying beings and also all dead beings which I add here to maybe help reconcile you to something that made something you are interested in exploring seem negative. Just try to find a program that better reflects your personal interests in religion and life and you will probably find something you like.

Here are some websites with a lmore neutral natural approaches to check out.

"Biodynamics (literally: life forces) is an agricultural method developed from indications given by Rudolf Steiner in a series of 1924 lectures. The Agriculture Lectures were his response to concerns of farmers and veterinarians about the deteriorating health and vitality of their crops and animals. Rudolf Steiner laid the foundation for a new way of thinking about the relationship of the earth and the formative forces of nature. The practical methods he outlined were intended, above all, to revitalize natural forces which are depleted by modern agricultural practices. Thus, Biodynamics became the first organized organic approach to farming.

The underlying picture of a Biodynamic farm is that of a self-sufficient organism. Although impossible to fully attain, it is the goal of the Biodynamic farm to provide for all of it's own needs. Any external input brought onto the farm is considered medicine for a sick organism. At the heart of the Biodynamic method is the use of compost made with homeopathically applied herbal preparations and the use of mineral- and manure-based spray preparations for the land and plant life. The Biodynamic practitioner enlivens the farm by applying the Biodynamic compost and spray preparations in cooperation with the natural rhythms of the earth and of the cosmos.

As a practice, Biodynamics heals and balances the land, the individuals that work it, and the community it supports. As a philosophy, rooted in Anthroposophy, Biodynamics offers a spiritual path that moves the practitioner beyond physical labor into a deeper, more intimate connection with themselves, the earth and the cosmos."- Biodynamic Gardening

Rudolf Steiner College
Pfeiffer Center

and

Quote

Following is from The London Independent's Country and Garden: Heaven Help Us by Duff Hart-Davis

AS AN organically minded gardener and vegetarian, I'm open-minded on most things alternative. But my eyebrows rose recently when a conversation turned to gardening in harmony with the heavens, tilling the soil to open it up to cosmic forces, planting according to the position of the moon, the stars and the planets, and burying manure in a cow's horn to draw in the earth's strength.

Yet far from being greeted with incredulity, heavenly horticulture is gaining a sizeable following in this country.

This is biodynamic gardening, a philosophy which claims to predate the organic movement by some 20 years. In the UK there are now 60 farms and gardens registered with Demeter, the biodynamic certification authority. Two years ago there were 40. Karen Elliot is one of them. She gardens biodynamically on the quarter-acre plot surrounding her house in Forest Row, East Sussex, which she shares with her husband Roland, three children and two chickens. It is a productive garden, providing a continual supply of fruit and vegetables

[skip]

"This is not muck and magic," says Karen. "It is the next step on from organic gardening, and ties in with man's relationship with nature and the universe. In conventional gardening you try to kill everything that moves and gardens can be pretty dead. But that is not necessary with biodynamic gardening. When we moved in here the garden was just grass, no insects or birds, now it is alive and flourishing. You have to think of your garden as a whole entity. It makes so much sense that now I would not garden any other way."

The biodynamic approach says that plant life benefits from a soil that is alive with cosmic forces, vigorous micro organisms and is well nourished with compost. Biodynamic gardens mean beautiful, longer-lasting plants and vibrant vegetables with good storage qualities and fantastic flavour, say enthusiasts.

The biodynamic philosophy also states that as the light of the sun, moon, planets and stars reach the plants in a regular rhythm then, within that cycle, there are ideal times to sow, nurture and reap.

For purposes of biodynamic gardening, the zodiac constellations are grouped into flower days, leaf days, root days and fruit/seed days. And you sow and tend according to the part of the plant you want to be stimulated. For example, carrots (root vegetables) sown and hoed when the moon is in Taurus (root days) will have a good shape, yield and taste; but sow and hoe when the moon is in Cancer (leaf days) and the crop will be puny. The time of day is important too. Harvest lettuce (above-ground vegetables) in the early part of the day when plant-forces and sap-flow stream up, and onions (below- ground vegetables) in the afternoon and evening when forces and sap stream down.

To help with the gardening routine, the Biodynamic Sowing and Planting Calendar shows favourable and unfavourable days for garden duties. It is published each year and drawn up by Maria Thun, a biodynamic expert living in Germany, who has spent 48 years involved in research and trials. But Biodynamic growing does not have to be large scale. "You can garden a window box biodynamically," says Jimmy Anderson, one of the first inspectors for the Biodynamic Agricultural Association. "The aim is quality not quantity. If the conditions are right, the flavour, colour and aroma will be excellent."

According to Anderson, the cosmic effect on plants is quite discernible. But he admits that there is a certain amount of cynicism, especially when newcomers learn that manuring efficacy comes with burying dung in a cow horn in winter, and an enlivening plant spray is produced by burying quartz in a cow horn during the summer. "People identify this with magic," he says. "But the horn is used as a container - nothing else has been found to have the same effect."

For details of biodynamic farming and gardening groups and the planting calendar, contact The Bio-Dynamic Agricultural Assoc, The Painswick Inn Project, Stroud, Glos GL5 1QG (01453 759501) www.anth.org. uk/biodynamic. `Gardening for Life the Biodynamic Way' by Maria Thun is published by Hawthorn Press, pounds 14.99 The illustration is taken from `Kitchen Gardens of France' by Louisa Jones (T & H, pounds 18.95)

Good luck

An article giving differences between organic, permaculture and biodynamics written for concerned Christians--'Toward a Christian Response to Alternative Farming

by SP Carruthers

[www.agriculture-theology.org.uk]

Research Resources

Rudolf Steiners lectures entitled The Agriculture Course

[wn.rsarchive.org]

A Glosssary for Ecological Terms

[www.terrapsych.com]

Extensive and detailed. Look up Biodynamic, Organic/Organic Farming and Permaculture.

Compare and contrast.

"I think you are merely betraying your own political bias. "

-Sure, I'm clear on my political bias: moderate left, not dogmatically "anti-gubmint", don't like extreme anarchists or racialist Nazi types.

"This is the sort of healthy debate that takes place all the time within PO circles- see Sharon Astyk's "The Tragedy of the Bathroom". They are important debates, and this particular one is one Rob for example has always shied away from -why do you think that is, Shakti? That's right- he thinks it is potentially racist to even discuss immigration. He wont go there at all."

-Well, good for Rob! What does immigration have to do with anything? What difference does it make if people overconsume resources in Africa or in a quaint little Welsh village? Either way it will contribute to the "Peak" and the depletion of the Earth's resources, right? So it should be a non-issue for those interested in sustainability. Unless, of course, they think they can wall up in isolated "Transition Towns", cut off from the unwashed, dark-skinned, "non-eco", masses?

"Your reasoning is ideological and circular: any talk of immigration is racist.
Immigration talk is a result of concerns about overshoot.
Therefore overshoot is wrong, and anyone who is even remotely concerned about it is a racist.
None of this helps us understand whether PO is going to happen sooner or later."

-Huh? That didn't make any sense.

"The reason there is still pressure to drill more is that of course in reality it is very very difficult for us to move away from oil. We dont really know how."

-In reality, we do know how. However, it will take massive government interventions, decline in corporate profits, higher taxes, and many other things that make the corporate Right's heads spin. As well as Libertarians.

"You're not looking are you? My bookshelves are heaving with other writers; "

-I don't have access to your bookshelf nor do I care to. I'm specifically referring to the Transition Town primer, which relies on... Heinberg. ASPO. Hirsch. Maybe YOU could point out some more credible sources for them to put in their primer? I'm serious about that, not just being negative.

" Hell, even YOU dont deny PO because, wow, NOONE denies it! It's just a question of when. "

-Absolutely. I am not denying that there will be a peak. I'll go with the USGS date of 2037. But that won't sell as many doomer books will it? As I've said MULTIPLE times in this thread: I am supportive of ending oil dependence. I support harsher measures to get there then Transition Town is suggesting. Nothing in this thread has convinced me that Transition Town will be effective in what they wish to achieve.

"Try :
[www.withouthotair.com];

-Interesting book, thanks for tip. Mackay is much closer to where I'm at: yes, there is a problem, yes, it can be fixed, yes, it will take a lot, yes, we have the time. This is NOT a "doomer" perspective, like that of say, Ruppert, racialists, or Matt Savinar. Note that he takes on the deniers AND the "doomer" extremists.

[www.newstatesman.com]

"For too long, he argues, the climate change debate has been disastrously polarised: between those who think the point of "peak oil" is imminent and those who insist we are not heading for an energy crisis any time soon, and between proponents of renewable energy and supporters of nuclear power. He cuts through all the noisy polemicising by settling on a simple unit of measurement that allows us to calculate a country's power consumption. If we know how much power is consumed by land area, then, because most kinds of renewable energy are harvested on land, we will be able to "quantify the potential power production from renewables".

MacKay does the maths and makes an empirically watertight case for the use of energy crops, windfarms and solar power. He calculates that if Britain adopted a mixture of wind, solar and nuclear power, 10 per cent of the country would have to be covered by wind turbines; the area occupied by solar power stations would be five times the size of London; and the 50 nuclear power stations needed would occupy some 50km². "The effort required for a plan like that is very large," he says. "But [it is] imaginable." The argument over energy will never be the same again."


"GrahamS: Oh sorry, of course they're all neo-fascists, as is anyone who even goes near the issue of resource depletion."

-Sigh. Once again, somebody on this thread puts words in my mouth. Where did I say that "anyone who goes near the issue of resource depletion" is a neo-fascist.? That is directly opposite of what I believe. I think that the vast majority of people concerned with resource depletion are anti-racist, anti-fascist. That is my point: I am merely pointing out those within the "movement" who are NOT anti-racist, anti-fascist, yet are like wolves in sheep's clothing preying on the naive and uninformed. A good comparison is the Larouchies: they come across as "good FDR liberals" who hate Bush and the GOP, support large-scale public works, yet in the end... they are fascists. Ron Paul is another one: because of his pro-pot legalization, anti-Iraq war, positions, he has fooled thousands of left-leaning Americans into thinking he is "on their side", when in reality, he is as fascist as they come.

"And I still dont get why it's ok for your main (only?) source to be JD who is himself a Far Right looney who thinks peakers are all Marxists??"

-If you have actually READ this thread, you will know that I have cited multiple sources on every issue at stake. I have seen no evidence that JD is "a far right looney". Would a "Far right looney" post page after page EXPOSING far right loonies like Heinberg, ASPO, Campbell, Social Contract, Abernathy, Pimentel, etc.? He has one comment about Marxists several years ago and all of a sudden HE is "Far right"?


"(JD's debunking points are absolutely trivial. Even a PO beginner could debunk THEM without really trying- havnt time to do so myself right now, why dont you have a go?)"

-Nice copout. Why should I debunk things I AGREE with? What part of JD's debunking points are "trivial"? The USGS report? Be specific, please.

"Shakti, this is just a whacky conspiracy theory, on a par with 9-11 Truthers. Most oil companies and oil producing nations have been completely opposed to the PO hypothesis until very recently."

-So why is that the oil drilling and extraction companies support ASPO? Out of the goodness of their heart? So that governments can pay attention to their "cause" and limit their ability to extract? Why do YOU think that the ASPO exists? Does the fur industry fund PETA out of the "goodness of their hearts?" Does the whaling industry fund Greenpeace "because who better to trust about whaling issues than whalers!" Does that accord with your view of how corporations interact with the environment and society?

"MOVING AWAY FROM OIL... so that ... wait for it!! people will be so scared of oil dependency they will call for more drilling in all those really hard to get places that are, like, the only places left to drill because, you know like, there isnt so much oil left anymore and we might be approaching Peak...."

-I didn't say that Transition Town was a "conspiracy" by the oil companies. I think Rob is mostly a useful idiot who read the wrong books (or he may be more malevolent than I give him credit for). However, considering how ineffective TT appears to be, they might as well be "working for the man".

Quote
Graham S
OK I have looked at some of the stuff on the Carrying Capacity Network, which also includes on its panel of advisers Bartlett, Herman Daley, Catton.

I think you are asking a lot of important questions, Shakti, but I'm far from sure you have the best answers.

Thanks for being open-minded enough to have second thoughts about the Carrying Capacity Network. It is the dogmatically fixated Peakers, who simply attack ANYONE who disagrees with them, while ignoring data presented to them, who I dislike. You are clearly not one of them, even if we disagree on many points.

I don't claim to have all the answers, nor did the person who opened this thread in the first place. But I do find this a fascinating thread, and appreciate your contributions to it.

Shakti I'll have to ask you to clarify your views on a couple of things: I just dont get why the oil companies- who AFAIK have been denying oil shortages mostly- would start ASPO in order to support their interests of more drilling.
Firstly, I dont see any sign that anything ASPO says does encourage more drilling, even indirectly; they appear to me to be merely warning of near-peak.
Obviously, going full-guns to drill every last drop from ANWR etc would be a very irrational response.
Secondly, I dont see any reason why the oil companies would need ASPO to do this anyway: if they want to tell the world we are running out of oil, they can simply proclaim this loudly and forcefully; they are already far far more powerful than ASPO itself;
thirdly, I dont see that ASPO has any real influence beyond the PO fraternity;
fourthly, I dont see any real connection between ASPO and Transition; it really seems another very big stretch to suggest that the emergence of Transition is in some way a favorable outcome ("useful idiots") for the oil companies, since they are not in any way calling for more drilling and instead are predicting the end of the oil industry.
I dont have the references to hand, but one of Campbell's arguments is that the oil industry is rapidly contracting and failing to attract new investments;
peakers claim that this is an indication of impending peak;
a movement that says the oil is running out is not going to help attract investments (bare in mind there is a 30-40 year delay from discovery to supply).

Finally, I dont see anything suspicious or strange that ASPO would ask funding from their industry contacts; the contributions are likely very small- I do not see ASPO as some mega-corporative organisation. Why wouldnt the oil companies throw a few quid there way? It might be useful for them to get some data on, you know, when the oil might be running out by.
Nor is it surprising that the politics of oil geologists might be towards the right (we dont really have the homophobic Christian Right over here...).
Our distaste for some of their politics does not in itself discredit their data.
I agree that Transition should broaden its reference base, see below. (Rob's site is far more eclectic than the Handbook).


"Drill baby drill" in the US seems to be motivated more by a concern over dependence on foreign oil; unfortunately for the US ANWR will not provide much oil for very long anyway;
peakers claim the Gulf catastrophe is a result of over-extension, cutting corners, drilling in much more difficult conditions; again, if there is still plenty of oil, we wont need to go into ANWR or deep oceans etc.. Peakers have always said, the easy oil is gone.
Similarly, your argument about the Saudis can also be seen as an indication that we are close to Peak: they are still the swing producers, and we are very vulnerable to their whims, and possible their internal conflicts; so, again the message is move away from oil

From PO Debunked:
[peakoildebunked.blogspot.com]

"First, doomers tacitly assume that anything short of our current energy consumption level would be catastrophic"
It could be, but the message of Transition is that it could be more like a party, and a welcome return to a simpler life. A more substantive criticism of this would be that it will be much harder to grow your own veg without oil than people think.
Campbell has always maintained it is not the timing of peak but the rate of decline. This is till unknown, but there is a danger it could be steep. The time we have to adjust is the crucial thing.
Much peaker thinking includes not just the sums that MacKay gives, but the political and social dimension as well, which is percieved as the real stumbling blocks to change: the last generation has grown up to a sense of entitlement to unending growth, the dominant cultural message is still "progress! onwards!" Five years on from the start of Transition, this has not changed- doesnt mean transition shouldnt keep trying , and it may be having some effect in shaping the cultural debate.

"Doomers are dead wrong about conservation..."
The point is that you can only make conservation efforts once; you cant turn off all the engines in an aeroplane. And again, because the warnings have been ignored, a country like the US for example will find it incredibly painful to start weaning itself off the exceptional state of oil dependency it has achie. We cannot just snap our fingers and change, it takes years and decades and no amount of time will be sufficient if we are still in denial.
I dont see that the peakers or even the doomers say there is nothing that we can do- of course there is lots of low-hanging fruit in energy savings, but then what? The Long Descent will continue, and there will only be fruit on the top branches left.

"The second flaw is in assuming that because we use oil to do something now, we have no other way to do it."
No-one assumes this. The analysis goes, it will be very difficult, very expensive, take a long lead-in time, and result in a dramatic change in society.
What peakers argue, which JD brushes over, is that changes like in WW2 took place rapidly because there was plenty of oil; if we are close to peak, changes and adjustments will be much more difficult and painful, because there will be far less suplus resources to draw from to actually make the change.
Again, the PO argument is to stress just how difficult it is to switch from liquid oil to any other energy source. It will take a long time, few people have considered these issues, there is an assumption in policy that "we will think of something" etc..

"Another example: we are today using energy to expand the infrastructure associated with oil consumption, things like roads, airports, and shopping malls. If things get as bad as LATOC says, we won't need those things anymore. That energy and construction equipment could be used to build power plants instead."

But all JD is doing here is agreeing with the doomers: "not needing" infrastructure such as roads an airports looks to me like a return to pre-industrial times. He is just brushing over the seismic changes this will entail, without providing any figures on where the energy will be available for, how much would be needed etc.. All he is saying is, "sure, we'll just cut back, walk to work, use less and make do" which sounds a lot like Transition to me.

"I've come to believe that no single energy source will take oil's place, but rather that by combining all the ones we know about, we can put together a workable solution that will be good enough to last 200 years or more - enough time for our descendants to come up with something else, or, if they can't, to gradually reduce their numbers without letting anyone starve."

But most doomer analysis claims the opposite, that no COMBINATION of alternatives can make up for the loss of oil. Everything we do will take time; we will be robbing Peter to play Paul; to keep one part of the system going we will have to lose another; all these are symptoms of incipient collapse.

I think JD is right to question the dogma of inevitable collapse, but in essence he is just saying, sure it wont be too bad, and that very much depends on who you are and what resources you have available. I dont find his anlyses very thorough or convincing. Bare in mind for many in the poor world the collapse has already happened, and even small price rises can lead to severe hardship.

Some other PO resources:

[www.lastoilshock.com]
[www.futurescenarios.org]
[www.jeffrubinssmallerworld.com]
The Final Energy Crisis by McKillop and Newman (2005)
[www.feasta.org]
[www.chathamhouse.org.uk]