We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Sunday, November 6, 2011

New Dept. of Energy Priority-Setting Analysis Seriously Flawed

Click here to access article by Gail Tverberg from The Oil Drum. 

This writer has been following the oil/energy resource issue since the 1970s and has published and edited on this website for a number of years. She is a recognized expert in the energy field and widely quoted in energy publications. (For example, see this.) She is honest, objective, and well-informed on the subject. Her only limitation, as I see it, is that she only looks at the issue within the context of a capitalist system. She, like her colleagues, received extensive capitalist indoctrination from an American university which sees the system as fixed, or as the center of the universe much like the Catholic church that up until the 17th century insisted that the Earth was the center of the universe.  

In this piece, she is highly critical of a recent overly optimistic report sponsored by the Department of Energy of the US government which like all important institutions is under the control of the ruling capitalist class and reflects their head-in-the-sand thinking.
The new report sets priories based on a distorted view of the future. One issue is that it is trying to set priorities based on an overly optimistic view of energy supply presented in the EIA's International Energy Outlook 2011 (IEO 2011). Another issue is that it overlooks the way the US and world economy can be expected to change as a result of lower oil and natural gas supply. A third issue is that its view of climate change mitigations is based on a view of fossil fuel supply that is far greater than is likely to be the case.