Rich Turcotte

Apparently, we Peak Oil advocates are “fleecing the inherently gullible.” Who knew? The author didn’t get around to explaining just how we do so, although he did offer a hint that our “headline-grabbing, money-making blockbusters” are the culprits. (What have I been missing? Woulda been nice if Richard Heinberg, Chris Nelder, Sharon Astyk, Kurt Cobb, Chris Martenson, and others clued me in on how they’ve made their millions and millions of dollars fleecing gullibles. I’ll keep checking my email.)

It was all so perfect … the only report anyone could ever need to consign Peak Oil to the trash heap; hailed far and wide as the definitive answer. One entire report!

There are people who care about facts. And then there are peak oil deniers.

Whether or not peak oil is true cannot possibly be in doubt. Within anything other than a geological frame of time, oil is a finite substance. When it is burned, it is gone. Without stretching our brains very far, it is easy to conclude that anything that is finite and consumed will someday be gone.

In light of even more facts about the reality of declining oil production and availability, more nonsense denying the reality of our predicament has surfaced, in the New York Times, of all places. It may, however, turn out to be a great blessing for peak oil advocates.

Michael Lind is the Policy Director of New America’s Economic Growth Program and a frequent contributor to Salon.com. He recently published an article regarding the future of transportation—fixed/high-speed rail. He offers up an attitude regarding our approach to transportation and automobiles that can only cause us more problems as we confront Peak Oil.