Comment 432

By Rusty (registered) - website | Posted April 26, 2006 at 11:28:56

I think the problem is many folks simply don't understand Peak Oil. I myself had some difficulty getting to grips with the whole 'net energy' idea, and even appreciating the extent to which we have become oil dependent. Another problem is that Peak Oil theorists are easily accused of being alarmist. This seems to be a common approach to dismissing an intelligent point of view. If the point of view is remotely alarming and/or difficult to understand, proponents are dismissed as 'extremists' and 'out of touch'. This is a highly ignorant way of tacking a 'debate'. If Dilbert wants to pick apart the Peak Oil argument, he should tackle each aspect head on, and articulate his counter arguments. A wave of the hand and a dismissive 'this is all a red herring' really means that this debate does not serve his own agenda and/or he doesn't understand it. It's also hypocritical of him and his 'Business As Usual' crew. The BAU folks in Hamilton will happily become hysterical over their own pet projects - like Aerotropolis, Red Hill or Maple Leaf Food plants - by telling people such projects are 'critical' to Hamilton's success and promising thousands of jobs, whilst having very little evidence to support such claims. Whose fishing for red herrings now?

Not once has anyone in Hamilton ever thought of asking them to provide any Yr 1-5 Return On Investment data to validate the projects that do get approved (Has the Glanbrook Bus Park made us any money? Or the Linc? How many jobs and $'s were promised? Where's the post-implementation analysis? No business would survive in these conditions)

At the end of the day it's all Bullshit and I'm fed up (so there!)



Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools