However, he is perfect for the business and investor community.  He is calming, optimistic, rational -- plus he'll give you suggestions about where to put your money.

I think The Daily Show might have done better with stand-up comedian and writer Robert Newman.  The always-quotable James Howard Kunstler would be good too (his article in Rolling Stone woke a lot of people up).

For me, the lesson is that different speakers are needed to reach different audience.

The grandfatherly Maryland Congressman, Roscoe Bartlett, is good for the Readers Digest set -- he's a superb spokesman for America's Heartland:

Bartlett, who is seeking an eighth term in Congress this year, and has no plans to retire anytime soon, has been an inventor, a research scientist, a teacher, businessman and a farmer. ...

The idea of sacrifice seems to come naturally to Bartlett, who was born in Kentucky and was raised in western Pennsylvania, where his father was a tenant farmer.

And there are yet other spokespeople for other audiences:
Richard Heinberg for the green intellectual set.
Various ex-CIA directors for the national security crowd.

My colleague Shepherd Bliss reminds me that women and non-whites are not well represemnted among Peak Oil spokespeople.  That's a real problem, that I hope will improve with time.  

So, the good news -- we have the beginning of diversity in the people talking about PO, so that we can communicate with different audiences.

The bad news -- important groups are so far left out.  


Bart
Energy Bulletin

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/12/153637/246

FWIW, I think Tertzakian's concern is that the "many silver bullets" do not scale, or at least not in the way the public expects them to.  I think we in the environmental or "peak oil" communities already know that.

We may like cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel, thermal depolimerization, or whatever, but we don't think that means "SUVs for everyone!"

I'd say if you are into energy and environment the book is a must-read.  And if it does get picked up by the general population, it will make a point that environmentalists have pushed for some time:

There is nothing on the horizon that will preserve the current American lifestyle.

So sure, the list you gave of "bullets" are good ... but the sad thing is that they also contribute to a disconnect.  Why did the Pres mention a few bullets in his State Of The Union?  To let everyone stop worrying, and to let them continue their lifestyle of course!

And Bart if you are signing up spokeswomen for Peak Oil, I'm ready to go.

I heard him mention this quickly on the daily show, but the (many) charts in his book make it more clear.  Oil has essentially been eliminated as an electricity generator in the US.

The oil story is essentially a transporation one.  And even if you could design a beautiful green future with electrical (and therefore "wind, solar, biothermal, hydro, cogeneration") transportation ... you have to plot the adoption curves and see how long they take.

There are 220 million (mostly gasoline, very few diesel) cars in America.  The absolutley serious question, if you can handle it in this thread, is how you feed or replace those over the next 10 years.

That will work well on "The Colbert Report" Ana, feel free to use it!  good luck!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Exactly right.  That's the problem with replacing gasoline and diesel.

With new purchase of vehicles at 17 million per year, only conversion could fill in the gap.

So about 6 million conversions per year would do it.  With assembley line conversion it might be possible and affordable.  The economy of mass production applied.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Is it realistic to say that you can do "about 6 million conversions per year" at a price 6 million people will accept?

The last time I looked the upgrade, and not the full conversion, from a Prius to a plug-in Prius was $6-12K.

But the fact is, the U.S. government could buy every single gasoline-powered car and replace it with a plug-in hybrid tomorrow, for far, far less money than it spends on one year's military budget, or one year's farm subsidies. It's easy to forget how hugely rich this country is.

The trick, as you say, is selling the American people on big lifestyle changes. The key is to convince them -- what I believe is true -- that the resulting life will be happier and healthier. Also, I think it's important to emphasize that the resulting life will not be some grand new lefty socialist experiment, but rather a return in many ways to an older, more traditional way of living, with stronger, more self-reliant communities.

My point is just: We have the resources in the U.S. to do almost anything we can dream of, at least for now. The trick is mustering the will.

grist.org

No, the U.S. government cannot buy every card and replace it tomorrow, because no one has enough hybrid cars (or the specialized batteries required) to do that.

You say we have resources.  Can you tell me realistically what resources we can apply to the domain of personal transportation in the next 10 years?

(Oil will not be "gone" in that timeframe, but my reading is that it will be expensive enough that lifestyle changes will happen, possibly as a rude awakening, given the lack of realistic alternatives.)

We probably can afford to add x million scooters per year.

I'm not saying such a commitment is likely -- quite the opposite. I'm just saying that we greens are often too quick to accept limitations on what is possible. By an overwhelming margin, the limitations are political.

For some reason, lots of greens have kind of a techie mindset, and seem uncomfortable talking about politics, perhaps because the problems there seem so amorphous and intractable. But that's where the immediate changes are needed.

grist.org

FWIW, up above I said "you have to plot the adoption curves and see how long they take" ... now, when you say "$20 billion? $30 billion?" you're asking me to make some curves that work.  That's what I asked you ;-)

There are 220 million cars in America.  Green Car Congress tells us that:

"The median age of cars in the US fleet has climbed to an all-time high of 9.0 years, according to a vehicle population report released by R. L. Polk & Co.

Only 4.3% of total passenger cars and trucks were scrapped in 2005--a low not seen since 1949. The scrappage rate for passenger cars in 2005 was 4.5 percent, another record low"

I honestly don't know any change, without significant lifestyle adjustments, that works with that.

And ... are your really as a subtext assuming lifestyle change anyway?  Will these be hybrid-ethanol monster SUVs?

If you are thinking of accelerating from that 4.3% rollover rate, to small cars, it strikes me that you are assuming two things: massive lifestuyle change, but to small cars, financed by the government.

As you say, there is plenty of money in America to support alternative energy development - but even if we were to divert funds (say, from a senseless and draining war effort) would that help the essential problem of the wastefulness of the average American consumer?  In order to achieve the goal of efficient energy use, eventually a majority of our citizenry will have to accept personal responsibility for the energy that they use.  To date, talking at them has not convinced many to accept that responsibility.  I fear that hitting the pocketbook is the surest and quickest way to promote reduction in energy use and increase in exploration of alternate sources.

What do you think this Rich-Liberal drives?

How many cars and SUV's does Stewart own?

How many trips, burning up jet fuel?

I'll wager Jon Stewart consumes a lot of oil-based products.

- Captain America

..

America First The World Second

Our soldiers should not be the only ones to sacrifice for our national security:

http://www.apolloalliance.org

http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org

Folks like the "Captain" focus on these gimmicky symbolic issues because it distracts attention from the substantive issues. Don't take the bait.

grist.org

Peak oil is a very good thing.   It could crush the economy and delay the tipping point of global warming (if it is not already too late).  I am not so naive, more than a global economic melt down will be required, but peak oil will help.  I've heard it called "demand destruction".

Saying the Earth will warm a few degrees is like saying cigarettes will make you cough.  Political and economic leadership is hiding the depth of this disaster.

We can survive oil poverty, we can not survive global warming.

Is it sedition to support Bush and his destruction of our economy?

http://www.energyfuturecoalition.org/pubs/National%20Security%20Letter.pdf

I say let the captain focus, but listen to what his higher officers are saying.

I think it would be great if environmentalists got out in front and endorsed the tripple-threat, a future that is:

• happy
  
• energy efficient
  
• environmentally friendly

It might be another case of some people's reactions conflicting with their deeper beliefs though, when we hear arguments against incremental improvements like hybrids, or that technology will preserve the American lifestyle.

By making everything SO very bad, Bush may be an accidental agent of change?  Could be?!

Good thought sun.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Turning a 5000 dollar used car into an 11,000 dollar battery plugin conversion is a lot more affordable than a 25,000 dollar hybrid, that hardly saves any gas.

6 million conversions per year, why not?  That's a lot of auto manufacturing jobs restored also.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Again, I think ther REAL opportunity is in environmental favorites like walkable cities, bike paths, mass transit ... as well as new things like encouraging telecommuting and "sattelite office" complexes.

http://www.gemcar.com/

I think there are "disruptive" technologies out there, but being a conservative soul, I think they are more likely now to be selling in niches than promised from a government lab.

I like this: A recumbant bike with electric assist that has a pod-like crash tub as a body/frame.   You pedal up to your optimal, comfortable  workout level, then the bike notor makes up the difference.  Helping with hills, head winds and such.  A lexan bubble top completes the top of the pod.

With nylon studded tries this can be an all weather bike too, coping even with snow and ice.

The daily workout would be a plus.  If you have a train or bus length commute, there would be a rack for bikes where the electric bikes could plug in.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

FWIW, it's handy to know that the current best mpg scooter is the Bajaj Chetak (150cc, Very Low Exhaust Emissions, 55 mph+, "110 Miles per Gallon (per independent EPA City Cycle dyno tests)"):

http://www.bajajusa.com/Bajaj%20Chetak.htm

The ice caps are melting.  We're going through ANOTHER warming (and cooling) phase in the planet.

So the answer is: don't drive to work tomorrow, even though the commute is 25-miles and 32-degrees outside.  Yes, I'll get my ten-speed out for the long cold journey.  Hope my bike will be safe on the ice patches.  If I slide on a patch of ice and get killed, at least I will have helped save the planet by not driving to work, and burning less fuel.

I'll keep my home colder.  Turn down the thermostat until I can seem my breath.  I'll use less energy this way.

Taking showers uses energy to heat the water by burning gas.  I'll start taking less showers, just like Europeans.  The smell coming off my body in the office will be offensive, but at least I'll be using less energy by not showering with hot water, and saving the planet by burning less fuel at the same time.

Anymore energy saving tips out there?

I wonder if Jon Stewart will be taking less showers, and driving less, and flying less between the two coasts?

...

America First The World Second

"Also, I think it's important to emphasize that the resulting life will not be some grand new lefty socialist experiment, but rather a return in many ways to an older, more traditional way of living"

I think it's vital to realise that this is one of the difficulties people have with enviros.  People don't want to 'return' to anything, they want to move forward and progress.  Couching anything in terms of a backward step is doomed to failure.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/06/8367959/index.htm?cnn=yes

"Stop dreaming about hydrogen. Ethanol is the answer to the energy dilemma. It's clean and green and runs in today's cars. And in a generation, it could replace gas."

That's a tall bet for cellulosic methods which are (maybe) about to be tried in the first production setting.  Beyond that though, I think it cuts most strongly at the forward/back argument and people's expectations.

I think most people will ready "replace gas" as a message that they will continue forward with their SUV culture.  As opposed to say, continuing forward with more bandwidth and tele-everything options.

Put another way, it's drive the ethanol SUV to Blockbuster, not download a movie from Blockbuster.com

This peak oil concept seems to have come out of nowhere with him.  Seems he has a real challenger in the 2006 election and had to find a way to get himself some press.  Let's see him introduce some really progressive, no-nonsense legislation aimed at reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and then I might just have a little glimmer of hope.

Really, I'd be more impressed if the Maryland Dem actually stood for something, rather than criticize someone who's doing something productive.

I'm a Democrat, but I'm very disappointed in their energy policies (or lack thereof).  Come on Dems, if you want to awaken any enthusiasm or loyalty, you've got to stand for something!  Get an energy platform going with some analysis and some ideas.

Energize America at DailyKos would be a good start.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

I think pork's a problem, YMMV.