 |
| Are you talking to me? ... So, tell me a good ear |
Dear readers,
a couple of weeks ago I wanted to write this post but emerging issues did not allow me to stop typing. Suddenly, some events of a personal nature, and dressing the insistent urging of a newcomer on issues as varied and quirky peripintada give me a chance for the following discussion.
In my personal relationship with the problem of Peak Oil there have been several milestones that have marked the course definitely for my actions. 11 years ago I was where you might be one of the readers, a newcomer to these shores. A casual conversation, a link to dieoff.org , a first glance, an understanding of the problem that is described may be true, an initial repulsion how to count on that page but also the inconvenience of that fact .. . was the seed of concern. I had a second approach, a few years later, through LATOC (now after conversion of its author Matt Savinar to astrology, bizarre, or perhaps ominously-converted on a page that sells fraud). There the case was better presented, more structured, with links to reliable sources, with a thorough dismantling of all shelters where complacency seeking refuge, and for the first time I felt the palpable urgency. From that moment I was like, periodically, to know "what was the oil," how much was the price per barrel. When for the first time since I remembered the price passed $ 50 I realized that this would be precisely the type of sign would be expected if we were coming the zenith. I began to speak openly about my family and friends, only to insist a little more than has the closest, but spent weeks or months without thinking about it. I continued my life, my career progressed, and oil continued to rise and with it my concern, I began to see almost daily prices ... Reached 2008 and then I realized that there was no plan B in my heart of hearts that governments had wanted. Thanks to the insistence of a fellow I decided to investigate further, to learn more about the subject I studied books, articles, official reports ... and what I found left me cold. There was no plan B because you can not have plan B if they are to maintain the status quo, and our current path leads straight to disaster, a disaster that anticipated the current unrest in the Arab world and the growing instability in the world, from Latin America to the Far East. Then I prepared my first speech to introduce you to my colleagues in the department, I spoke briefly with Pedro Prieto-who was very kind during a conference organized by CADS , then set before my lab, and then through contacts and friends spontaneously began to repeat it in various forums, with the help of other colleagues who have joined in to what we call the OCO (in Catalan is more fun: l'OCO). Quim convinced me to start this blog , and gradually make disclosure of the issue of Peak Oil and its consequences, the Oil Crash, has grown into a sort of personal project, and also gradually , combining it with my usual business activity, I'm becoming the subject of energy in a research topic itself, with the invaluable help of my colleagues, especially Antonio García Olivares.
I did not know, but since the day I first read Peak Oil about my fate was sealed. I was actually like a marble slightly separated from my position of equilibrium, unstable without my knowing it at the top of a peak, and gradually, imperceptibly, I've been sliding toward the valley floor adjacent to the perception of a certain bleak future, to the questioning of social approaches for most of my life I gave - albeit with some criticism - for more or less valid, into consciousness, first diffuse and increasingly alarmed emergency in which they live our ecosystems essential to activism first reluctant, then ways and that increasingly tends to be belligerent. Simply a little bump initial a reasonable doubt, that has slowly dug into the shell with that clogs our perception and has begun to envision a future much more uncertain and less certain of what the media sweeteners persistently presented.
explain all this history to give context to the following statement: I have not much faith in the usefulness of what I do, in fact, I've never had. Let me explain. I am not the first to attempt to make disclosure on the energy crisis, and the clearest insight into the subject, or anything else. I'm just one more, with some training to understand and know how to explain, like so many others. For it will never I expected more successful than others individually. But individuality is a virus over the irrational consumerism that serve both our economic system needs to inflation, so it does not matter, the important thing is to augment a collective movement to help the needed change. What happens is that in that sense I do not think we get to anything useful. For decades been warning about the limits of the terrestrial biosphere to support our economic development model and such warnings have always been scorned as alarmist and defeatist. A little more than a decade, picking up the thread of the outreach work of Marion King Hubbert , reputable geologists Colin Campbell as , Jean Laherrère , Kenneth Deffeyes and many others have shown, with detailed analysis of the data, that sooner or later the oil could not continue our consumption curve. Shortly thereafter, physical and I at the University of Uppsala, led by Kjell Aleklett , began to make more rigorous analysis than would be expected from oil and other energy commodities, with disappointing results. All of them have been published in refereed journals have published press releases have appeared in numerous media, including national chains and global television. If we restrict ourselves to Spain, we have Mariano Marzo to study these problems for decades and is a recognized eminence in the field, also representatives of ASPO-Spain (AEREN): Pedro Prieto, Daniel Gomez, Marcel Coderch ... and many other promoters, among whom I am just a newcomer. Also they have made numerous public appearances in different media (try a Google search: "Mariano Marzo ). We have many associations (you can find a English census of some of these web pages in http://www.cenit-del-petroleo.info/ ). There are many public institutions concerned with the problem: addition to the public but not publicized information , there are some institutions more visible as the bicameral committee on U.S. Oil Peak , counterpart in the UK (higher executive capacity), and others in other countries, not Spain, of course, but here is the Advisory Council for Sustainable Development Observatory or the Energy Crisis and Catalan Society alternatives. But the latter instance no longer has an active website and surely (do not know their history, if any readers can tell us ...) has somehow ceased their activities (possibly assumed by the CADS) and that may be the future of many other initiatives pro bono born that remain as long as the enthusiasm of its promoters did not wane. And I have very clear from the beginning that this is exactly the situation of the initiatives that I promote and in which I participate, that their promoters may become demoralized and end up leaving ( what has not happened already, in some way? ). In fact, being aware of the problem, the company's enormous limitations is necessary but not sufficient to avoid abandonment.
And it is very easy to become demoralized. Years and years of outreach and awareness task (such as the Web makes Energy Crisis) serves to attract a few thousand maybe, but what about thousands of English are compared with a population of around 45 million? A one per ten thousand, a paltry 0.01%? And among them, are not those who live their majority status peakoiler in hiding, like a shameful fact, tired of the lack of understanding of his inner circle? Admit it: we can not fight the propaganda machinery of the unbridled consumption of the invincible faith in human progress and prosperity, understood as the exponential growth of GDP inevitable. We can not do as well, trying to use the channels that it controls: what good comes out of the world's foremost expert on television and explain in clear and understandable that we can not continue, they'll give us, and then cut the program to a television spot where we try to squeeze through the eyes a late-model car and a dishwasher efficient and quiet? The dissonance between the two message is clear: if what the expert had told the importance and seriousness that seems to describe then it would make sense to continue to spread a message of unrestricted consumption. Worse, trademarks and prostitute appropriated elements of speech pro-sustainability, and trivialize concepts that add, as another layer, its projects, creating more value by integrating new elements into their plans for diversification and market penetration ... in short, to continue the exponential growth. That leaves the viewer even more perplexed, reduced by the media to a consumer, that to reconcile the irreconcilable ends up believing that the tagline "eco-" green, "sustainable" that attach to these products are responding correctly expert claims cited above, and therefore there is nothing to worry about, everything is under control of superiority. Add to this a world where information - Actually, the raw data-flow in a continuous manner, leaving no time for people to assimilate, and the constant flow creep away, like water in the bilges, any concerns it had begun to wrap (it's for all these reasons Noam Chomsky never granted interviews on television).
Certainly we have internet, the panacea of \u200b\u200bfreedom of expression, but behold his grief in the same medium are turning absurd conspiracy theories and endless just causes, all stirred into a sea of \u200b\u200bpages about food, family recipes, motor racing, travel, hobbies, bird watching, the association National Pediatrics, the club of hunting enthusiasts and the association to protest the fourth ring road of Barcelona. In the midst of such gibberish, how to efficiently transmit a message tough but necessary to hear the anguished cry of what happens? The calling in this or other similar sites are essentially shipwrecked one day accidentally stranded on these beaches, simply because statistically there will always be some that do. In addition, the vice of our society, its complete shallowness, makes the lower level of care that entails a minimum and more difficult to convey complicated messages, as shown, a button: due to some action of mine - now and then do some-one old post on the feasibility of nuclear fusion energy has been more visited than usual during the past 24 hours. The usage statistics blog tells me that this page has had 16 views in the period with an average length of stay in it for a minute and a half. That's a post quite long and complicated, which is impossible to read in such a short time, and I know at least a couple of people have been there between five and ten minutes, which leaves less than a minute on average for the rest. I fear that what has happened is actually two or three people will be drawn between five and ten minutes to read, and the rest have jumped from there in seconds, even if they have reached that post was for a specific reference to the infeasibility of ITER elsewhere, ie, who had gone there on a voluntary and deliberate act of wanting to know more, but once they arrive at their destination has not been able to retain their attention fixed on what was discussed more than a few seconds. And so it is always, I am sure that less than 5% of readers absolutely (the percentage is higher among regular, no doubt) have not reached this point of this post as long. Therefore, this means little and poorly serves to convey this message.
is, of course, the issue of talks. From my own experience I know that more direct contact such as giving a speech favors a more fluid exchange of ideas so that more intense than the Internet, contrary to what might seem. However, many times I've completely dissonant attitudes at the end of the talks, people wonder if it is true that "oil is running out" (and look what I always say several times that oil will never end) , people ask me if it is not resolved all with electric and hydrogen cars (there is also a transparency to explain this) and then the faux pas of all types: one that asks me if I want to introduce some kind of choice (this is good: "Peak Oil Party: raise your arms and surrender "would destroy at the polls) that what I think of religions or trade in weapons or a local problem which I am not at all an expert, etc. And then, as usual, that if this is a cult, that if we are a disaster and if science will solve everything. Because that's the biggest problem: our system does not only promote consumption, but blown propaganda that causes its victims to accept uncritically truths that are not so certain, so as not to question the growth, and that explains the imagination that so often occurs (as in recent days with an anonymous caller) on alternatives magic, conspiracy theories and nonsense groups. Even those who own that comes the message of the talk (and which tend to be biased, if not already knew: there is clearly a selection bias in who is going to hear a talk as well) know all these things usually produce a substantial change in their lives, for the reasons described above: misunderstanding, high personal cost to change their habits, etc, which makes it more feasible that can step further and be active, if not activists.
All this I thought so before, and experience has confirmed what I sensed. Therefore, I am not disappointed with the results, on the contrary, I was waiting worse. But it is clear that all this effort is an exercise in futility before utility. Why do I do then? For two reasons.
The first is because it is my duty . It is a moral issue. There, each with their conscience.
The second, because there is a remote possibility, and for that alone deserves worthwhile. Will probably occur during a brief window of opportunity, between normality gradually degrades and the total collapse that we may assume our stupidity and shortsightedness. There will be a short time in which the apparent dissonance between what was officially stated and what really happens push an unusually high proportion of people to seek an alternative explanation, before diving into the stampede. It is at that time vulgar and populist explanations can easily turn on people and finish ourselves to the disaster, but also the time when we can be heard for once, instead of being heard as background noise. Maybe this time is closer than it seems . In any case, if you think you, reader, still worth trying to do something, consider whether it is worth step forward .
Salu2,
AMT
0 comments:
Post a Comment