Quote
shakti

Quote
margarets
It's tough to find a spokesperson who will appeal to everyone. Sometimes you have to go with what you've got.

I think you can do better than that, Margaret. Nice try, though.

"Nice try", as comebacks go, is pretty weak. And you ignored my other points.

But anyway, you have strong views on the subject, you could always be the spokesperson for your movement or point-of-view. So far I don't think you have expressed an actual point of view or an opinion, just attacks on a few individuals with very tangential connections to things you find questionable (on those grounds, everyone on the planet is guilty by association).

There is nothing stopping you from making your own YouTube videos or a blog or whatever to warn people of the dangers of the Transition Towns movement. Go for it, do it. Most people don't know about this forum let alone read it, so get your message out there. Of course you would have to be prepared to have your personal life and associations scrutinized in the same way you have scrutinized Heinberg et al. By the same standards, meaning that if anyone anywhere found fault with anything remotely "off" in any aspect of your life at any time, all your opinions on any subject would be rendered totally invalid. Open-and-shut case, with no court of appeal. Few adults have lived lives that are beyond reproach in the eyes of any beholder, but if you have, be a champion for your cause.

Oh, just to clarify, I didn't say that everyone at the TT meeting I went to was white, just that they were all the same race. However, it was not a homogenous group - several different nationalities were represented there. I think the race distribution at this meeting is just how things worked out and I'm positive that truly anyone from any racial or ethnic background would have been welcome. This is a very multicultural city, no one bats an eye at racial differences here.

(Perhaps I should point out that I do not live in the USA, in case anyone is making that assumption.)

margarets:

"Most people don't know about this forum let alone read it, so get your message out there"?

If that's so then why are you so concerned about posting here?

"Of course you would have to be prepared to have your personal life and associations scrutinized in the same way you have scrutinized Heinberg et al."?

Are you warming up for a personal attack?

That's against the rules you agreed to before posting here.

Hi
Graham here, permaculture teacher in Ireland. I am quoted on page 3 of this forum by Corboy, having debated anthroposophists on my blog www.zone5.org.
What is most notable for me from this forum is that conspiracy theories cut both ways: Shakti seems just as cultish and pseudoscientific as Transition is claimed to be. The idea that all peak oilers are part of a grand conspiracy, somehow linked to extreme right wing views; or that people who warn of potential "die-off" scenarios due to overshoot and resource constraints are actually hoping for such a thing to happen; and that all this is somehow backed by the oil and coal industries themselves- does seem to me to have a lot in common with David Icke-style paranoia, with little evidence to support it.

"There is no reason for radical ecologists to join debates over the esoteric timetables for the decline of world oil production, which should be bracketed as irrelevant to the socio-political imperative of democratizing the economy and creating a new energy infrastructure that is based on post-capitalist norms of sustainability, sharing and community democracy. We must find ways of making the urgency of that transformation a motivation in people's lives and in their self-conscious anti-ideological politics. The dangers posed by global capitalism to human life and nature itself are all too real. We need to reject the posing of imminent danger as panic, as Chicken Little's alarm over the Falling Sky."

Why not Shakti? What is esoteric about these debates? Hubbert got US peak pretty much correct; maybe it is useful to have an idea of the timescale we have to create this new energy infrastructure. Isnt this part of what Transtion is doing? What form do you see this taking? How much time have we got? How much can we reduce consumption? Surely all these are just the debates we should be having- and Transition is doing a great job in facilitating them.

Peak oil is a reality- most oil producing countries peaked a long time ago (the US in 1971) and individual oil wells also follow well analyzed depletion curves; clearly it is just a matter of time before the world peaks.
There are dozens of engineers and geologists who study the timings and consequences of this, for example on the Oil Drum. It is not just Heinberg et al.
However, I didnt know about Heinberg's connection with Velikovsky (who I had not previously heard of)- pretty weird stuff, thanks for pointing that out. This does not counteract the basic peak oil theory, however- to do that you would need to produce some actual evidence of flow rates, oil reserves etc- the work that ASPO etc do. If their figures are so completely wrong, where do we get accurate ones?
Shakti, you say you have no interest in the science of Peak Oil, yet your whole thesis is based on the assumption that it is incorrect; at the same time you quote official sources that put the date for world peak at around 2030. (Arent they the same official sources you imply are part of the conspiracy? You did rather lose me there...)
Doesnt this make you a "late peaker"- ie your disagreement is not whether oil will peak, but when; and presumably you think that the consequences of world oil peak will not be a die-off. Let's hope you are right- these are the kinds of issues debated for years throughout the PO community. Merely taking one position within those debates does not discredit the basic thesis.

Both Rob and Margaret have answered most of your other points skillfully I think.
However, as to the influences of New Ageism and anthroposophy on the Transition Movement, I think you are closer to the mark, and I feel Rob is a little disingenuous here.

It seems to me that New Age beliefs, including anthroposophy, are found throughout the Transition movement, and are likely to be having an influence. It doesnt matter than they are not overt "official" positions: Transiton is wide open to them, but this is not a conspiracy; rather, I see groups like Transition as being very much part of a wider post-modern culture which simply has no defences against the spread of such ideologies. Permaculture is in the same position- my view is, it has been hijacked by the new age beliefs, rather than conspiring to promote them.
In the case of alternative therapies however, these are overtly and explicitly promoted in the Transition Timeline:
[transitiontowns.org]
Despite the whole basis of Transition being based entirely on "reductionist" science of PO and Climate Change, few people in Transition seem to able or interested in grasping fully the scientific method; critical thinking is not evenly applied, and skepticism in general is viewed with mistrust and even hostility in my experience.
Many Transition groups seem to have adopted Joanna Macey's "Despair and Empowerment Work" - the feeling I get is that this is becoming common currency in Permaculture as well, promoted uncritically as if it is "fact" rather than the ideology it clearly is.
So these beliefs may not be official policy, clearly if I try to promote, say, biodynamics through a transition group it is unlikely to raise an eyebrow- while if I came representing the BNP this would cause a lot of controversy!
(The Organics movement is pretty much the same: Biodynamics always closely associated, with alternative therapies not far behind).

Much of this ideology seems to come from an essentially urban mind-set that yearns for a lost paradise and thinks (dangerously) that "natural" is "better" and we should distrust the technology that has allowed us to escape (temporarily?) the callous competition for survival in nature. This does seem to me to be an elitist western view when most of the world's poor would just love to have a fraction of the technology we have to make small improvements in their lives. (See Stewart Brand "Whole earth Discipline").
The Schumacher College does not explicitly promote Anthroposophy either, but it does include Goethe on its syllabus, which is closely associated. Read through the Holistic Science MSc.: this is a very good distillation of New Age thought, with an impressive line-up of speakers including Deepak Chopra, King of Woo. The whole course looks to me like it is promoting the new Age religious view of intelligence (consciousness) in Nature- really just another form of Intelligent Design, and the belief that "nature" cares about humanity (it doesnt). In fact, the scientific view is that a reductionist universe is entirely consistent with observed reality. (see the work of Victor Stenger.)
So I think that there are "cultish" aspects of Transition, but it is clearly not a cult; there is no conspiracy. For the most part, New Age beliefs are quite obvious and no attempt is made to hide any of it, because many people involved actually believe this stuff. They are not conversant with science and regard rational thought as somehow old-fashioned and oppressive.
This puts transition as part of the wider post-modern resurgence of religious views in the west. Worrying? Reactionary? Unfortunately, in these aspects yes, but this has to be balanced against the really valuable work that many Transtion Groups do, and is really just reflective of wider cultural memes. (Transtion is nowhere near as influential as say much of the mainstream media, also anti-science and reactionary.)
Let's just work everywhere to promote science and critical thinking and maybe the Transition Movement will start to be more wary of cults that may try to attach themselves to it.

* Schumacher College has no, to the best of my knowledge, connection with the Steiner community. Look at their programme of courses, nothing remotely Steinery.

-Check GrahamS's post before mine. He covers it fairly well. If I have time I will break down the Schumacher stuff. My research is on different computer, so I apologize for delay.

*I think I need a bit more confirmation of that than the fact you claim he was "anti-Western", an easy label to throw at anyone who questions the economic growth model, and argues that society needs to become more sustainable. I could be labelled 'anti-Western' by that criteria, if by that you mean believing that a different approach to economics might actually make our economy more sustainable as well as leading our our quality of life actually improving.

-He made it clear that he saw Marx, Einstein, and Freud, as the source of the world's problems. That is generally typical of a "Traditionalist" viewpoint that wants to roll back the enlightenment, end science, and as always, get rid of the Jews. It's not a coincidence that Marx, Einstein, and Freud were all Jews.

* You question the accuracy of peak oil predictions by people like Colin Campbell, but predicting oil prices is notoriously difficult. Arch cornucopian and peak oil sceptic Daniel Yergin has similarly been wildly off with his predictions. Yes the oil price is now lower than before, but you neglect to factor in the bursting of the debt bubble and this crippling recession which has dampened demand for oil.

-EXACTLY! It is "notoriously difficult". Yet that has not stopped Campbell, Ruppert, Savinar, Heinberg, from making prediction after prediction, and getting it WRONG every time. Not a good track record. Also, when do the Peakers EVER factor in anything but their own dogma? They certainly didn't factor the bust correctly, yet as doomers, you think they would, as many were actually RIGHT about the housing bubble and saw that we were heading for dark economic times. But I'm not giving them that much credit, anyone with a brain could see the economic meltdown coming. Another thing I find very odd about Peakers is that they never mention OPEC. For example, I will read in a business section "OPEC votes to cut production" and within a few weeks prices soar. Yet that article won't appear on Peaker sites. But they WILL start yelping about hitting the "peak". It is poor analysis. And the Fatih Birol you quoted in a previous post, disgracefully now at a high position at the UN, was an OPEC man for years. Gee, you don't think that OPEC has an interest in keeping the perception out there that oil is scarce?

* You state, on the flimsiest of evidence (do you not suspect that a website called 'Peak Oil Debunked' might not, perhaps, have a particular agenda on all this?

-Certainly he has an agenda. But he doesn't appear to be getting anything out of it. He certainly won't be invited to "TED" anytime soon. And I think he comes at this from a solid point: he was a doomer himself and will tell you all about the evolution of his thinking! And he stacks his arguments with DATA and most importantly, the words of Peakers themselves. Read it, read the whole blog. It will be worth your time. And he's funny! That counts for a lot in my world.

[peakoildebunked.blogspot.com]

* that all of the early promoters of the peak oil are not only right wingers, but hold dangerously fascist leanings. Let's take that as being a correct assumption (which I don't).

-You keep using "all". I don't use "all". I have no evidence that Hubbert or Deffeyes were right-wing. But Campbell and Laherrere publicized this stuff while working for a Thyssen subsidiary called Petroconsultants. Campbell has made clear his right-wing leanings by his editorial policy in the fascist crap he puts in the ASPO newsletter and then DEFENDS. Matt Simmons was the Bush-Cheney energy policy creator. Remember the "secret Cheney-organized energy meetings that excluded non-oil, non-coal, non-natural gas voices" that were widely criticized during the first term of Bush. That was Matt Simmons. Heinberg is into Shambala, "Emmisaries of Light", Hyperborea, and writes for "New Dawn", a Russian New Age/fascist magazine.

Just check out their homepage. Sorry, man, Emperor Heinberg is wearing no clothes...

[www.newdawnmagazine.com]

*.. the question for me would be did those people come up with the peak oil hypothesis because they are right wing, or did they come up with the peak oil hypothesis and they're right wing.

-My suspicion is because they were WORKING for those who are right wing (Thyssens) and just doing their job.

* As an organisation that draws together valuable research on peak oil, ASPO is a very useful and effective organisation. As a think tank for the future direction of humanity, forget it....

-Agree on the second sentence and glad you would notice that. As for the first sentence, I would remind you that this is a group funded partly by Schlumberger and Halliburton, at least in its early years. I would take their observations with all the sincerity that I would take observations from the Cheney Energy Task Force. Also, I feel like many people who got sucked into the Peak Oil cause did so as they were concerned with the buildup to the Iraq War. I wonder how many of them know that much of the data they were taking in was coming from a thinktank taking money from Halliburton?

* Hirsch- It has no understanding of climate change, and its findings would lead to climate chaos. That doesn't, however, mean that every single piece of analysis in his report is useless.

-No, I'm just implying that he does very incomplete work, and that he has an agenda himself and sees Peak Oil panic as a means to an end: more exploration, more drilling, more CTL, and GTL. But other than that, he's great!

* You ask why the book, and also the talks I give, are heavy on peak oil rather than climate change... the book says, and I always say, that Transition gives equal weighting to the two, but peak oil is less familiar to people which is why I give it more explanation time, that's all.

-Fair enough.

* The UKERC and the Peak Oil Task Force reports do not give a date of 2020-2030, as you say, both suggest 2015 as the time when the crunch will bite (as it were)

-I'm not sure which Task Force you're referring to, but the UKERC in its own words claims:

"A peak in conventional oil production before 2030 appears likely and there is a significant risk of a peak before 2020."

[www.ukerc.ac.uk]

A "significant risk before 2020" is not the same as 2015 is "when the crunch will bite". I will stand by my claim that the UKERC is positing 2020-2030 with a risk before 2020. They are hedging their bets, as should you.

* As for Heinberg and Campbell being 'nutcases'... we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one I think. Your accusations about Heinberg are for him to respond to if he so chooses....

-Guess so. I wonder what the Atlanteans and light beings will think, though?

* You ask what tangible changes have been seen in Transition initiatives beyond a few 'movie nights'. Here in Totnes were are soon to launch a community-owned energy company, we are trying to secure an 8 acre site in the centre of town to develop as a low carbon housing/green business catalyst development, we have linked garden owners to people who want to grow food (a project called 'Garden Share') so that 40 families now grow food who couldn't before, our 'Transition Streets' initiative is well on track to put PV on 5% of roofs in the town, and to turn the Town Hall into a net energy generator, in Lewes they have also set up an energy company and the Lewes Pound is doing a great job of connecting people to local traders,

-"soon", "trying", "well on track". That is stuff I've heard many times from groups trying to make change. However, the garden project sounds like a success, so kudos to you for that. I mean it, it's a good thing and am not being facetious. However, I would take exception to the comment on the Lewes pound.

[news.bbc.co.uk]

"Dozens of pound notes issued in an East Sussex town to encourage shoppers to support the local economy have been sold on an internet auction site.
The Lewes Pound, which was launched last week, has been selling as souvenirs for up to £24.99. According to the record of sales shown on the site, one UK-based buyer spent up to £173 on 10 individual £1 notes on Monday alone. Sellers have described the notes as "A little bit of English history".

One added: "Nobody is using them in the shops. First issue ones like this will be unobtainable very soon." The Lewes Pound works like a voucher, with one Lewes pound note worth the same as a pound sterling. Up to 10,000 notes have been printed. The currency is accepted in more than 70 participating stores and can be bought in four outlets in the town. However, traders have reported that people are not using the new currency as much as expected. Susan May, of May's General Store, said: "Some people are putting them online, I believe, and I think people are saving them for Christmas presents and just generally holding tight. "It's a bit like Lewes Pound constipation." Organisers of the scheme, Transition Town Lewes (TTL), are hailing it as a success, however, and are planning to print thousands of extra notes. "

-So, in other words, it just got grabbed up by speculators.


* If, however, you choose to regard anything faintly unconventional as 'New Age' then there's not much I can do for you on this one.... If, for you, Transition needs to be an entirely conventional model with no space given to exploring why we do the things we do, exploring less confrontational, more consensus based approaches or acknowledging that there is an inner aspect to the changes a move towards sustainability will necessitate, or else you label it 'New Agey', then I sense we will not converge on this one.

-Probably not. And I'm not that closedminded. I've been involved in my share of strange thing over the years. But it is those firsthand, personal experiences that have made me wary of people claiming to "explore new spaces". It is why I'm a regular on these boards.

"exploring less confrontational, more consensus based approaches"

-Important passage here. Isn't this exactly what the big corporations would want? After all, we wouldn't want to BLAME anyone for the world's issues like poverty and pollution... like say the world's multinationals and governments? I mean, isn't it really wrong for us to BLAME BP for the situation in the Gulf? Gee, that would be hurtful and so impolite!

" or that people who warn of potential "die-off" scenarios due to overshoot and resource constraints are actually hoping for such a thing to happen; and that all this is somehow backed by the oil and coal industries themselves- does seem to me to have a lot in common with David Icke-style paranoia, with little evidence to support it."

-ASPO was funded by Schlumberger and Halliburton, among others. FACT.
-Hirsch report calling for expanded drilling. FACT.
-Petroconsultants, employers of Laharrere and Campbell, owned by Thyssen. FACT.

"Why not Shakti? What is esoteric about these debates? Hubbert got US peak pretty much correct; maybe it is useful to have an idea of the timescale we have to create this new energy infrastructure. Isnt this part of what Transtion is doing? What form do you see this taking? How much time have we got? How much can we reduce consumption? Surely all these are just the debates we should be having- and Transition is doing a great job in facilitating them."

-I agree that the debates are important. But it sounds as though TT is past the point of debating. In their minds, Peak Oil within the next five years is a done deal and anyone who disagrees with them must be crazy. I am certainly not arguing that people bury their heads in the sand. In fact, my "plan" would be far more radical than the TT one. But it would involve international laws and treaties, massive government controls, huge tax increases on polluters, a Marshall plan to get us off oil and onto alternative powers. I don't see us getting there with the TT blueprint.


"There are dozens of engineers and geologists who study the timings and consequences of this, for example on the Oil Drum."

-No, you're right, it's NOT just Heinberg! It's guys on the "Oil Drum" like Richard Duncan...

[peakoildebunked.blogspot.com]

"Today, the Oil Drum is featuring an article by pseudo-scientist Richard "worldwide permanent electrical blackouts by 2007" Duncan, and the intro by Nate Hagens begins like this:

This is a guest posting of Richard Duncan's latest "Olduvai" update, which is also featured in the Summer 2009 issue of The Social Contract Quarterly www.thesocialcontract.com.

The uninitiated may not know what is going on here, so let me explain. The "Social Contract Quarterly" is not a scientific journal. It's a rag published and edited by overt white supremacists."

-The Oil Drum, like Heinberg, also has zero credibility.

" However, I didnt know about Heinberg's connection with Velikovsky (who I had not previously heard of)- pretty weird stuff, thanks for pointing that out. "

-Yep. Most people don't know that. Sure doesn't do much for his credibility does it?

"This does not counteract the basic peak oil theory, however- to do that you would need to produce some actual evidence of flow rates, oil reserves etc- the work that ASPO etc do. If their figures are so completely wrong, where do we get accurate ones?"

-Agreed. How about the USGS, which is predicting 2037? I'm not saying Peak Oil won't happen, but to discuss it without analyzing the cottage industry of doomers (and weird right-wing mystic freaks and New Agers) is incomplete analysis. How about university studies, who have far less at stake politically and economically than the corporate funders of the ASPO? That is what I find so alarming about the "movement": the small number of actual professors in this field from MAJOR universities that are ever cited. Meanwhile, with Climate Change, you've got thousands of the most respected scientists in the world having no hesitation putting their names on papers, petitions, statements, etc. Peak Oil? Not so much. In the Transition Town primer, there should be several pages of university academics in fields like petoleum geology with links to their papers. Instead we get... Heinberg.


"Shakti, you say you have no interest in the science of Peak Oil, yet your whole thesis is based on the assumption that it is incorrect; at the same time you quote official sources that put the date for world peak at around 2030. (Arent they the same official sources you imply are part of the conspiracy? You did rather lose me there...)"

-Sorry, I should have put that another way. I've long been interested in sustainability and looking for ways to end our dependence on fossil fuels for 20 years. You had me at "climate change" and "it's bad for your lungs and the planet to burn it". No peak oil panic required to get ME moving. I had always figured that we would run out someday, but my suspicion is that climate change is going to cause for more problems for us FASTER than Peak Oil will. That is where our focus should be. In my opinion, linking together "climate change" and "Peak Oil" causes credibility problems for climate change people every time some crackpot like Ruppert or Heinberg predicts "massive heating shortages in American cities by Christmas 2005". It makes it easier for the climate-deniers to trash global warming. I became interested in Peak Oil, not because I thought one day "hmm, I'm really interested in reading a bunch of oil depletion charts", but because I was interested in the large number of fascists hiding within the so-called "911 Truth movement", which in a direct line spawned a bunch of fascists hiding out in the Peak Oil movement.

As for "official sources", I have never claimed that the USGS is part of any sinister conspiracy. I know people who work for them and they are some of the least political, least agenda-driven people you'd ever meet. They like rocks. That's about it. I trust them far more than ASPO, Matt Simmons, etc. And "government" is a big place. In a democracy, you will always have one segment of government competing for different interests. For example, the Dept. of Commerce and the EPA.

" Doesnt this make you a "late peaker"- ie your disagreement is not whether oil will peak, but when; and presumably you think that the consequences of world oil peak will not be a die-off. "

-Sure, I can deal with the term "late peaker". I'm certainly not part of the "abiotic oil" crowd. But I'm also not going to sit idly by while people take at face value the word of a) an ex-LAPD cop b) a "catastrophist" New Ager like Heinberg or c) the guy who set up the "secret Cheney energy task force" over the scientific work of groups like the USGS.

"However, as to the influences of New Ageism and anthroposophy on the Transition Movement, I think you are closer to the mark, and I feel Rob is a little disingenuous here. "

-You think?

"It seems to me that New Age beliefs, including anthroposophy, are found throughout the Transition movement, and are likely to be having an influence. It doesnt matter than they are not overt "official" positions: Transiton is wide open to them, but this is not a conspiracy; rather, I see groups like Transition as being very much part of a wider post-modern culture which simply has no defences against the spread of such ideologies."

-Brilliant passage. Yep, "everything is OK, everything must be tolerated". We have gone so far in humanity's noble struggle to combat things like religious bigotry, racism, etc. that we are actually creating a situation where sheer thuggery can thrive. For example, where I live, I have seen the language of tolerance that was once used for truly disparaged groups like gays begin to be applied to groups like nazi biker gangs. "We must understand them, we must tolerate them, we must look at the violence that is also within us and thus our fault as well". Really? How about we just lock 'em up?

"Permaculture is in the same position- my view is, it has been hijacked by the new age beliefs, rather than conspiring to promote them."

-Yep. I'm very much in favor of Permaculture, but it has definitely been hijacked (your term is the only one that I could justify using myself) by Waldorf types. A friend of mine is a secular instructor in this area and it drives him nuts.

"In the case of alternative therapies however, these are overtly and explicitly promoted in the Transition Timeline:
[transitiontowns.org]
Despite the whole basis of Transition being based entirely on "reductionist" science of PO and Climate Change, few people in Transition seem to able or interested in grasping fully the scientific method; critical thinking is not evenly applied, and skepticism in general is viewed with mistrust and even hostility in my experience."

-Absolutely. For example, the USGS report was attacked, not with science, but with "YOU MUST BELIEVE" fanaticism. That is what I find so troubling: the lack of ability to consider that they just MIGHT be wrong. Hell, I might be wrong, I'll admit it. But I thought Campbell, Simmons, etc. were all wrong years ago when they were predicting "disaster" on dates that have already passed. Despite their knowledge in the field, and my admitted lack of professional expertise in oil and geology, I was RIGHT and they were WRONG. New York City did NOT lose access to natural gas in the winter of 2007, OK? And "scientific method"? Graham, you are so 20th Century! (sarcasm)

"Many Transition groups seem to have adopted Joanna Macey's "Despair and Empowerment Work" - the feeling I get is that this is becoming common currency in Permaculture as well, promoted uncritically as if it is "fact" rather than the ideology it clearly is."

-Thanks for the tip, will look into Macey.

"So these beliefs may not be official policy, clearly if I try to promote, say, biodynamics through a transition group it is unlikely to raise an eyebrow- while if I came representing the BNP this would cause a lot of controversy!
(The Organics movement is pretty much the same: Biodynamics always closely associated, with alternative therapies not far behind)."

-On the money. It was Heinberg's connections to Virginia Abernathy, and David Pimentel, known racists, that first clued me into something being wrong with him. And always remember: the Nazis had NO problem slipping into counter-culture movements like the Wandervogel, health food, vegetarianism, animal rights, then turning them for their own purposes. A lesson that we appear not to have learned.

"Much of this ideology seems to come from an essentially urban mind-set that yearns for a lost paradise and thinks (dangerously) that "natural" is "better" and we should distrust the technology that has allowed us to escape (temporarily?) the callous competition for survival in nature. This does seem to me to be an elitist western view when most of the world's poor would just love to have a fraction of the technology we have to make small improvements in their lives. (See Stewart Brand "Whole earth Discipline")."

-Exactly. Also, is it just me or is it hard to push the Kinks song "Village Green Preservation Society" or the movie "Hot Fuzz" out of ones' head when reading this thread? I certainly can't...

"Read through the Holistic Science MSc.: this is a very good distillation of New Age thought, with an impressive line-up of speakers including Deepak Chopra, King of Woo. The whole course looks to me like it is promoting the new Age religious view of intelligence (consciousness) in Nature- really just another form of Intelligent Design, and the belief that "nature" cares about humanity (it doesnt)."

-Absolutely. While I have felt Rob H has generally been on the level, though perhaps a bit misguided, it was the discussion of Schumacher that made me start to doubt his honesty. This is a New Agey college, and Schumacher was a New Agey guy. No way around it.

"So I think that there are "cultish" aspects of Transition, but it is clearly not a cult; there is no conspiracy. For the most part, New Age beliefs are quite obvious and no attempt is made to hide any of it, because many people involved actually believe this stuff. They are not conversant with science and regard rational thought as somehow old-fashioned and oppressive."

-I don't think it's necessarily a cult, but I definitely feel there are people who will try to bring cultish aspects into it. They already are. As for a "conspiracy", I'm just asking questions and pointing out some uncomfortable realities.

Here's Macy's homepage. Excuse me while I go in for my diabetes screening. Too much sugary niceness for my brain.... Yuck.

[www.joannamacy.net]

Graham, what evidence do you have that Transition Town is using her as some kind of reference point?

"There is nothing stopping you from making your own YouTube videos or a blog or whatever to warn people of the dangers of the Transition Towns movement. Go for it, do it. "

-Nah, I've got other things to do with my time. Not interested in being a public figure anyway.


"Most people don't know about this forum let alone read it, so get your message out there. "

-Actually, this isn't true. A great many people know about this forum. And if anyone who has the slightest suspicion of anything "culty" about TT tries a search on "Transition Town cult", they will find this thread. That is probably troubling to the people involved with TT.

" Of course you would have to be prepared to have your personal life and associations scrutinized in the same way you have scrutinized Heinberg et al. "

-Yep. But you won't find any old articles by me supporting quacks like Velikovsky. The same could be said about any public figure. So, if I'm not willing to put myself in the spotlight to the degree that say, David Cameron or Gordon Brown, do, then I simply have no right to comment on their credibility? That doesn't sound very "progressive" to me, Margaret.


"By the same standards, meaning that if anyone anywhere found fault with anything remotely "off" in any aspect of your life at any time, all your opinions on any subject would be rendered totally invalid."

No, but if I were to make specific and WRONG predictions on the specific matter at hand, oil depletion, like Campbell, Simmons, Heinberg, Ruppert, etc. have, then, yes, I would expect my credibility to plummet. If they had been RIGHT in their predictions time after time, year after year, it wouldn't matter what other aspects of their lives I critique. They would be able to stand on their science alone. But they can't. And that is the problem.

Ive been reading the Peak Oil Debunked website- he doesnt seem to have updated it since Nov 2009?!
Im not convinced- his "4 whoppers" against LATOC are easily answered (and have been in any PO primer) eg:
-"Truth is, there is tremendous waste in our current use of energy....We could cut back a lot and not miss it. In an emergency, we could cut back even more, just like we did to win World War Two. It wouldn't be much fun, but it would be possible, and no one would have to starve."
That could have come straight out of Transition Handbook. Cut back, save energy, remember the spirit of the Blitz. No challenge to Transition there!
-"In an all-out emergency, rationing could be implemented giving first priority to food production, energy infrastructure, and long-distance transportation of goods, especially food. The annual road trip to see Aunt Tilly and the annual vacation getaway to the Caribbean would be below the line."
Ditto. This is all entirely concomitant with Transition theory- business as usual is not an option; we had better get used to thinking about alternative arrangements such as rationing. Now go to your local politician (or anyone not conversant with PO) and ask them what they think about rationing. They just might think you're a doomer...
"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 - "
well to answer this you need facts and figures, but the real problem is the time needed to make this switch; there is also the issue for example of oil being a liquid fuel and biofuels needing land that is currently used for food- you can dispute the actual figures on all this, but the point is, JD (the blog's author) is really saying everything that Transition is saying: things need to change, we need to cut back, we might need some rather drastic measures like rationing, but one thing is for sure, the Golden Age of Oil is over. We cannot just switch to another source of energy without encountering severe logistical problems and expect to carry on the way we have been, plus, it will prove very difficult to rebuild the infrastructure of the modern world that was entirely predicated on continuing sources of cheap fossil energy. So at the very least we need to start thinking hard about these rather difficult issues. I honestly cant see what he thinks he is debunking here.

The die-off scenario is more one that will arise if we do nothing, because it will take years or decades to change. Yes in the long run to it looks like world population will have to decline, because it would appear it has only reached the levels that it has currently because of oil.

JD goes on, after accepting we are at or close to Peak (this is PO debunked?!) that
"But if we don't change course soon, the way forward isn't going to be an agrarian utopia. It will be powered, at least in the US and for the remainder of my life, by coal."
Well it wont be utopia, but as any PO book or website will point out, from the point of view of the modern world, going back to coal is like going back to the Middle Ages. There is no way coal can replace what oil does for us right now. Your friend Heinberg has analyzed why coal-to-liquids cant work very well- it's all about flow rates. Too right most people are not going to accept this readily- that's why we have a PO community, and Transition trying to make it a bit more palatable while at the same time preparing for the worst. But the worst becomes more likely to the extent that people dont accept the need to change in time.

I do take the point that many in PO- myself included- want to head for the hills and lead an agrarian lifestyle. There are a lot of negatives about this, it's a lifestyle choice more than anything. That is exactly the point in "End of Suburbia"- you are better off in or near a small walkable town. This is all part of the ongoing discussion- it really is only a fringe survivalist group and nutters like Ruppert who think otherwise.

What about the energy content of our food though? How will we feed the cities? I personally lead a pretty low-energy lifestyle by design; I could cut out the van and really powerdown and still be doing well, but how far can people cut back before there is civil strife? Isnt that already happening in parts of the world? Oops, Im slipping into doomer mode, but it's hard not to when you think these things through. We really are dependent on oil in a very unhealthy way.

JD says:
"Scratch the surface of the powerdowner philosophy, and you'll find Marxism dressed up in radical environmentalism."
Now that's odd because I can only think of one Marxist I have met in years of PO debates; while your whole thesis is that behind Transition and PO is extreme right-wing fascists with dodgy New Age beliefs and cults. In fact, your previous comment which I quoted about no need for us to be concerned with the "esoteric" timing of PO made me think that you were coming from a Marxist perspective Shakti. Help! Im confused!!

I dont buy your idea that the Saudis, Halliburton, the oil companies etc are all in on the PO theory in order to gain support for more drilling. We all want more drilling if we are to maintain our current high-energy lifestyle. The oil companies have all been denying oil shortages until very recently when they have started to admit there could be a problem. There is no global conspiracy here either- OPEC has formed a cartel, but that cartel had little bite until US production peaked in the 70s sparking the first oil crisis. Prices have gone up and down, but they have been historically high for a while now: if this is all controlled by conspirators, why now is it high? Why was it cheap all through the 80s?

Your views on PO as a New Age theory dont add up to me. Young New Agers are just as likely to reject the idea, preferring to believe in free energy machines suppressed by the CIA and Big Oil.

You make a good point about climate change being backed by better science- there may be other reasons for that. Oil reserve figures are fudged by the companies (mainly to make them look higher than they really are). But JD at least does not seem to be disputing PO or even claiming the dates are way off- he is just being optimistic about the consequences.

You also claim that Campbell et al have failed to predict anything. But that is not really true- noone claims this is an exact science and it is hard to get reliable figures with everyone a vested interest in what they are. But depletion from the past is verifiable; as I said before, most countries peaked a long time ago. Discovery peaked over 40 years ago. North Sea fields are depleting at up to 10% a year. And of course demand is still rising. Put that all together, you have PO theory- so lets work on making that Transition without all the doom. That is what Transition is all about - trying to put a positive spin on what will be a painful process for many.

Campbell argues- persuasively IMO- that the crash is closely connected to PO. Hirsch told us: there will be price volatility. The age of cheap oil is over. Or do you think we will see $10 a barrel again? The wonder is, it is still around $70 in the worst recession in a generation. How come?

There are a lot of nutcases and doomers and New Agers and hangers on and all sorts around the PO world,and you are right to point this out, but it is basically a real phenomenon and I believe the evidence we have strongly suggests we are around world peak now. Your friend JD appears to agree with this.
And I think there are real dangers underlying much environmental "nature knows best" ideology which is doing real harm and may even be playing into the hands of darker forces like the extreme right.
But I think you are painting the PO theory rather simplistically, it is much more diverse and sophisticaetd than you are making out.

Re Joanna Macey: she is often referred to on Rob's blog, lot of Transition groups do Despair and Empowerment; Eco-psychology also, very popular. Same in permaculture Im afraid.