Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alex Szczech's picture
Alex Szczech
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 31 2008
Posts: 105
Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

Roger Ebert has given an enthusiastic thumbs-up to the new peak oil film Collapse: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091209/REVIEWS/912099993

Always good to see a member of the mainstream media who 'gets it'.

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2236
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

My cable company isn't currently showing this film.  (We have Optimum, dangit.)  But Time Warner, Verizon FIOS, Comcast, Cox, and Shaw in Canada all have it available on their video on demand/pay-per-view channels.

But I'm itchy to give it an eyeball...

Viva -- Sager

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

Best,

Paul

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2244
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

VanityFox wrote:

"I read at this forum every day. What has surprised me is a lack of full awareness toward real facts that could well help support an undeniable reality of what the future is becoming for the United States. Below you'll find a link to The Hirsch Report. You may not like all you find within it, but all the better than choosing denial ...

Click and Read :-

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf"

Thanks for pointing out the link to the Hirsch Report on peak oil near the bottom of your post.  It looks like a good read! 

re the lack of full awareness toward real facts re an undeniable reality of what the future is becoming for the United States: I can only speak for myself, but for me, I think part of this is due to the enormity of accepting all that appears to be facing us in our future.  It was a huge enough shock for me dealing with, and learning to accept, the economic crisis and (I think) likely collapse that are in our future.  It has taken me a long time to adjust to that.  But to add peak oil to that, for me, was more than I could deal with at once.  It's not that I am not willing to consider the validity of it, I just very literally find dealing with all these potential crises we're facing, at once, overwhelming.

I do notice that as I move closer to full acceptance of the global economic mess we're in, that I seem to be more able to open my eyes and mind to material on peak oil, such as Chris's recent report on the IEA leaks, and the Hirsch Report you pointed to. So maybe the lack of awareness you note is that others, like myself, simply need time to be able to cognitively digest all of this.

That and I think a substantial subset of the people who visit this site initially came here because of economic concerns, and are just learning about the other 2 E's.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

I've known about the three Es for over nine years......  Chris simply did a fantastic job tying all the loose ends for me, and I thank him for that....

I come here because it's nice to be able to discuss this stuff with people who (on the whole!) don't think I'm crazy.....

I cut my teeth on Peak Oil on a Yahoo group called EnergyResources.  Just this morning, this great post from one of my favourite ER members appeared there, and I thought I'd share it with you.....

 

I agree, what is happening is certainly happening on a scale seldom seen. But the fossil record does show somewhat similar world wide events in past mass extinctions. And obviously some species survived these events, life reestablished itself over time. I think we can come out of this with the weakness for magic we had in the stone age, and most still have, pruned off. That is a silver lining in these storm clouds. And I don't see that we have to go back to the stone age for the level of technology, either. Metals aren't the problem, it is the quantity of metals made and the use they are put to that are the problem. What needs to be understood is that technology can be put to use to make life easier, but that ease can't be automatically translated into making more human beings.  Technology almost never makes more food available on a sustainable basis.  People with a weakness for magic and a poor sense of logic, have repeatedly seen technology as able to increase food supply, able to allow more people to live,  when all it did was give us more at the expense of other parts of nature, which weakens it and gives us less stability in the long term.

I think "civilization" will have a different meaning in the future. It won't mean cities, it will mean knowledge. Not such huge amounts of knowledge about technology as exists today- a great deal of that is worthless. Knowledge about ecology, about our place in it, knowledge of principles of physics that run the show. Instead of an understanding of reality based on magic, on gods and spirits and stupid ideas about the infinite cleverness of people, we will understand evolution and the laws of physics. It doesn't take an industrial web to maintain such knowledge and to sometimes add to it. People have often had this concept of what it means to be civilized, that it was a certain kind of knowledge of how things worked, not just living in cities.  But I think that as far as understanding really critical things, most people are still grunting savages. Grunting savages with computers and nuclear weapons, but still savages as far as their beliefs in magic of all sorts. They often can't even recognize that their expectations are magical. They often imagine themselves to be purely scientific. But stuff like thinking that Moore's law is really a law, shows where they are still savages. That is thinking little different from cargo cult thinking. It is an expectation that all you have to do is look in a certain way, and the answers you want exist. Finding the technology you want is just an Easter egg hunt, they are sure it exists and all you have to do is find it. And lots of supposed scientists, hold this childish, unscientific concept of the universe. They aren't scientists, they are no better than witch doctors, with a computer instead of a rattle.

It doesn't mean that we should completely stop looking for new things. It just means we don't base our behavior on things that we don't know exist, and we don't come to drunken conclusions about what existing technology and understanding does to carrying capacity. People with the ability to see things like this, should make better decisions about surviving this amazing mess that magic believers have made. And should do a much, much better job of managing things in the future.

Arthur Noll

bluestone's picture
bluestone
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 29 2008
Posts: 263
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

i've been eagerly waiting to watch this movie.  i've got Time Warner cable, but haven't seen it available on-demand as advertised on the "collapse" website.  it was supposed to be available December 6.    hmmm...

 

Brian

castlewp's picture
castlewp
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 7 2008
Posts: 304
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

Hi Bluestone,

Look under Indy films it may be there for Time Warner.  That's where I found it.

Bill

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

Pinecarr,

I've thought long and hard about your post and to the ensuing post of Mikes today. It made me ache at the memory as to how I found out about Peak Oil. To the following days where I joined the dots of how it would not only just effect myself, but also to all friends and family, who incidentally wouldn't pay attention to the peril we are in to our way of life. Before this meteoric information found its way into my hands I assumed I would merrily continue without dramatic changes right upto my dying days.

I found Albert Bartletts lecture 'Arithmetic, Population and Energy' on a rainy English afternoon while floating contentedly on a picturesque Canal in my narrowboat (my home) when flicking around aimlessly on You Tube :-

... The effect buckled my knees out from beneath me more than once, driving me into ever deeper depression before finding my way to Chris Martensons Crash Course and some pretty vital answers to help pick up the pieces of my life.

I can't find one single way to help people respond to Peak Oil with the amount of depth of thinking it requires. All I find I can do is drop a paper trail for others to find. For myself, it came from Greg Craven (wonderingmind42) and a set of very complete films (over 6 hours of them) on the subject of Global climate change. He had posted up Bartletts lecture along with his films. I couldn't help but study as many facts as I possibly could. A link to Gregs films as a matter of course :-

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=fvw

... Where Chris refuses to take the Global Climate Change route, Greg does, with a book that came from the films and many interviews nationally since.

The Hirsch Report for me was a mamoth task to read between the lines of. This was a grand slam of information that has been hidden away from view in the same way that chris's excellent blog I'm linking below opens your eyes wide to. In every attempt, it is hidden in plain sight :-

http://www.peakprosperity.com/martensonreport/united-states-insolvent

... in every attempt, the information is there for anyone to find if they know where to look and what they are looking for. If they are not given or learn the ability to wish to understand or at most comprehend, 'They' will be off doing something else instead, which will most definately leave them floundering in the not too distant future.

Pinecarr, I'm genuinely frightened as to the outcome of the next 20 years. I'm most greatful that I figured out the way the 'signature' program works on this site so that I could put up links such as the one that caused you to write to me here. You're the third in the five months since I put up the Hirsch Report, so that every time I post a comment it comes along with me. Curiosity lends a hand in clicking the link. Staying power aids you to read a report that is written so dry that it took me three attempts over a week to complete. However, it is most vital that people read, digest and understand it in much the same way we do every time Dr Martenson posts one of his chilling Blogs that we move forward with a somewhat clearer picture, or maybe just have a great many more questions to ask ...

Peace,

Paul

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
on collapse

As I said in an earlier post, I have been involved with http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/ for quite a few years.  One of the nore interesting posters there is Pedro from Madrid.  He writes with a Spanish accent, and his posts should be read with a Spanish accent!  Here is a ripper just posted today........

 

If you go to my presentation Wind + Solar, at

<http://www.aspo-spain.org/aspo7/presentations/Prieto-SolarWind-ASPO7.pdf>

and go straight to chart no. 3, skipping the rest, you will notice very easily where we are now in terms of consumption.

Average world consumption is about 2.2 kW of power per capita (on permanent consumption basis and given in watts of power to illustrate the level in equivalent electric terms, very familiar to many), times 6.7 billion humans.

With this level, the world is already and evidently unsustainable: half of the world forests gone and the balance disappearing at a rate of 0.6 million km2 per year, from the remaining 60 million km2; this is a minus 1 percent net per year. Agriculture already occupies 13 percent of the accessible land in the continents and takes, together with industrial activities 4,000 km3 of fresh water/year out of the 9,000 km3 accessible to man worldwide. Big river basins are occupied in a 25 percent worldwide, either for irrigation or for hydroelectricity production. Fisheries have depleted (fished out) more than one third of marine commercial species and the depletion rate accelerates. Many other signs indicate that the
present 2.2 kW level (22 times over the metabolic human needs) for 6.7 billion humans in average, is not sustainable.

Then, look at the ominous differences between regions and countries: if 2.2 kW average consumption power per capita is not sustainable in the planet, how about the sustainability level in the range of the Europeans? (about 6,000 watts average power consumption per capita). Or what about in the range of North Americans in the range of 12,000 watts average power consumption per capita?

So, your question is very procedent. What should we do in view of this mathematical situation? Where to go? What is the sustainable floor?

The factors of this equation are very simple:

1. Population. Shall we cut population six times or ten times or twenty times? How to do it? I will not enter into this question.

2. Decrease per capita consumption, as fast as it is possible. Then there are ways to do it:

a. Decrease proportionally to the present consumption in every country and region, to let us say a sustainable level, obviously well below the 2.2 kW average power per capita. This will face a natural strong opposition from 80 percent of world population consuming 20% of the resources, after one century having told them that they should imitate us if the want to progress.

b. Tell the block of the most consumerists in the world (North Americans, Japan, European Union, Russia, Middle East, Australia or South Korea) to decrease between ten and twenty times their present per capita consumption levels (not less: less it will not be sufficient). This will mean, physically speaking, the anticipated voluntary collapse of Western civilization and consumerists forms. And they are the ones having nuclear weapons, military capacity to control the world transport routes and economic strength to control the world globalized markets. In fact our wealth comes from this ability to spoil and capture alien resources.

As you can mathematically see, it is a very difficult question to answer, which does not mean we have to lie ourselves thinking that we can solve with more technology what "technology" and "progress" has destroyed. Or that a cosmetic change "a la Gore" (unplugging our mobile chargers, buying a hybrid or installing low consumption bulbs) will be enough. Or that some financial or monetary help of several thousand millions euros or dollars from rich to poor countries (named today "developing countries" in an euphemistic form) will help them to preserve the forests completely or capture with their forests the CO2 and other pollutants we emit.

It is a mathematical question. World has to go below the 500 watts average power per capita landmark, if it wants to be minimally and really sustainable. And this is a level to throw to the bin, as per your expression, the (private) car, of course the capitalism as well, the ever growing concept of the interest of lent capital, but probably not low enough to throw to the bin the wheel (good news!).

In other words, if I were the angel of Lot and you were Lot and his family and this global world we have constructed were Sodom and Gomorra, I would advise you to run out immediately from the tertiary sector (services), without looking backwards even for the last shopping in WalMart; to pass through the secondary sector (industrial), without stopping neither and do not stop until getting very deep into the primary sector (agriculture). It is pure mathematics. Sorry if I appear to be so rude.

Pedro from Madrid

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
now THAT is gobsmacking...

<http://www.aspo-spain.org/aspo7/presentations/Prieto-SolarWind-ASPO7.pdf>  slide 26

Building up 3TW of wind power up to 2020 will cover 30% of the world electricity consumption in 2007 and will demand a 27% annual cumulative growth throughout The period.

The 1.5 million times 2 MW wind generators required Will imply:

• 2 times the present world steel production of 2006
• Almost half of the world extraction of coal
• 30 times the world production of glass fiber
• The entire world concrete production
• Almost half of the copper world production

Is this demand and use of materials renewable?
Can we afford these start up energy expenses?

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2244
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

Paul, thanks for the great post and the additional sources of information!  I will check them out.

Yes, I am afraid of what the outcome of the coming years will be, too.  And in being aware of what's going on (to the extent that I am), and anxious about what the future may hold, I find myself way out of synch with those around me; my family, friends and coworkers.  Living normal "day-to-day" life seems surreal.

On a lighter note, I think your approach of "leaving a paper trail" for others to follow, if they are inclined to, is a good approach.  It worked on me! More and more I am coming to believe you can't "make" family, friends and others pay attention to info on what may be ahead.  Or at least I haven't figured out how, yet.  But to make the information available to those who may be curious to learn more; that seems like a more productive approach to me.  To that end, the latest CM DVDs I've mailed out have been donated to local college libraries.  I send along the Huffington Post article on the Crash Course with them, too, to help them understand what Chris and the CC are about.  My hope is that if there are young people at the colleges who do want to understand what is going on, maybe I can at least help put the information that they are seeking in front of them.

Good to chat with you,

pinecarr

 

bluestone's picture
bluestone
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 29 2008
Posts: 263
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

Bill

found it. thanks.

brian

ckessel's picture
ckessel
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 12 2008
Posts: 479
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

I really have enjoyed this thread and the posts.

Pinecarr,  As you have stated, the reality is tough to contend with for all concerned. I have really seen it in the CC attendees. It usually takes many return trips to "get it". You can always tell when it has finally hit. The knees buckle and you bring in the wheelchair and oxygen!

Paul and DTM, very good posts. Thank you.

Coop

ckessel's picture
ckessel
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 12 2008
Posts: 479
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

I really have enjoyed this thread and the posts.

Pinecarr,  As you have stated, the reality is tough to contend with for all concerned. I have really seen it in the CC attendees. It usually takes many return trips to "get it". You can always tell when it has finally hit. The knees buckle and you bring in the wheelchair and oxygen!

Paul and DTM, very good posts. Thank you.

Coop

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2244
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

ckessel wrote:

"...the reality is tough to contend with for all concerned. I have really seen it in the CC attendees. It usually takes many return trips to "get it". You can always tell when it has finally hit. The knees buckle and you bring in the wheelchair and oxygen!"

 

 Boy, did you hit the nail on the head with those last 2 sentences, ckessel!

best,

pinecarr

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2236
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

Just watched "Collapse" with my wife.  It's pretty good.  Nothing in it is going to be news to any stalwart members of this community, but it's always helpful to me to watch other people speak to the issues in question -- to get a detailed picture of where their head is on the various subjects.  He's quite passionate about it all, and his feelings about having a strong "tribe" or community are amongst the strongest evidenced in the film.

He seems to be in the "gradual collapse" camp -- at one point he talks about the transition lasting anywhere from 20 to 50 years.  Although come to think of it, he may have been pinning that time range on how long it'll take to reconstitute a functional society after a collapse (however long the collapse itself takes).  But the gradual collapse meme is one that John Michael Greer writes about in "The Long Descent" -- although he uses the term "catabolic collapse."

Anybody else seen the film?

Viva -- Sager

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Thumb down to new film on Peak Oil

I watched this a few nights ago and though I enjoyed it, I thought it was a primarily an after-thought project thrown together with video editing software. I would have rather watched an interview with DTM, at least Mike wouldn't have been high during the interview, LOL.

SagerXX's picture
SagerXX
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 11 2009
Posts: 2236
Re: Thumb down to new film on Peak Oil
JAG wrote:

I would have rather watched an interview with DTM, at least Mike wouldn't have been high during the interview, LOL.

I dunno about that.  They've got some pretty strong beer down in Oz.  Mmmm...Castlemane XXXX.

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

JAG,

"As your attorney, I advise you to take a hit out of the little brown bottle in my shaving kit. You won't need much, just a tiny taste." ...

... you watched Collapse? With Rupperts life experiences and knowledge he didn't deserve a 'jay'? Farschiltn ...!!! 

 

    

 

 

   

SagerXX,

Mike'd be a Toohey's Red or VB man. XXXX just makes ya p!ss ...

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

Actually, you CAN see an interview of me.....

...

Notice the empty glass of Guinness....?  The only other stuff I drink is home brew...

BTW, don't bother looking for a part 2.....  the lady who did this never bothered to finish editing whatever else she recorded!

Mike

mainecooncat's picture
mainecooncat
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 7 2008
Posts: 488
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

I was utterly underwhelmed by this film and almost turned if off halfway through.  I agree with JAG about it feeling like an afterthought or side project.

bluestone's picture
bluestone
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 29 2008
Posts: 263
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

coon

keep in mind.  You are probably a peak oil expert (at least compared to the general population).  None of the info in it is new to me, but I've followed CM for a year, read Matt Simmons, watched Crude Awakening, the Hirsch report etc, etc.  

For people who are new to peak oil, I think it is a pretty good film and probably can be overwhelming.

I've found its much easier to get people to watch a movie like Collapse or like Crude Awakening.  They really can have an impact on people.  

Brian

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

Nice interview DTM

Of course I wasn't talking about beer, Ruppert is a self-proclaimed pothead. In his latest book (to the President) he admits that he wrote the whole book stoned! I'm hard pressed to think of a stoner that has a good-grip on reality.

Warning: Rated R for language and "adult" content.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
Re: Roger Ebert give a thumbs up to new film on Peak Oil

In the article here:
http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/51107-obama-as-white-knight-naked-ambition

Obama says
We'll meet our aggressive reduction goals of 17% by 2020.

So a reduction of 17% over ten years equates to 1.85% per year (approx). This is LESS than the drop off for peak oil. So therefore America wants a bigger slice of the diminished cake. AND 17% is based on 2005 emissions, while the rest of the world bases its cuts on 1990 levels. On the 1990 basis the US cuts are only 3% by 2020 - even less than Krudd's (AUS PM) target.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments