Welcome Guardian Readers

Introduction

About a month ago, I was contacted by The Guardian, one of the major newspapers in the U.K. They were launching the Guardian Commercial Partners Network. While there is potentially some ad revenue involved, that wasn’t what interested me. I have never really tried to capture much ad revenue, even though I make a few dollars a month between the Google and Amazon ads. But the reason I started this blog was to make a contribution to energy and sustainability discussions. This is what The Guardian offered:

Exposure – we will promote your website from the Guardian Unlimited homepage, which attracts over 22 million page impressions a month, to send our readers your way.

The more viewers I can reach, the better. I want to influence the way people think about energy. I want to encourage government leaders to support more sustainable options, as our current situation is not remotely sustainable.

Yesterday evening, I noticed traffic coming from The Guardian, so it looks like the program has kicked off. Down on the bottom right of their front page is a rotating blogroll. Because there is no explanation at all for what the link actually is (it just says R-Squared), I thought I should take this opportunity to introduce the blog to readers coming in from the Guardian.

What I Want

You can see my mission statement over on the right sidebar. But I will elaborate. While I am by no means an extremist, I am gravely concerned that we are approaching an energy crisis. I think we are sleep-walking into this situation, because 1). Our political leaders are by and large monumentally ignorant about energy issues; 2). Ditto for the general public; 3). Because of this combination, we don’t adopt the policies that we really need. Therefore, I want to provide a small nudge in that direction.

What do I mean by sustainability? By that, I mean that I don’t want to see us depleting resources and harming the environment in such a way to put future generations at a severe disadvantage. I believe that this is exactly what our current policies are doing. And again, I believe that this is happening because people are misinformed on the potential consequences, and therefore unwilling to make major sacrifices.

Um, Don’t You Work for an Oil Company?

Yes, for the past 6 years I have worked for an oil company. And I think oil companies in general have done a poor job of communicating that we have a problem. For the most part, I think oil companies (but by no means only oil companies) have simply denied that there is a problem. This OP-ED by ExxonMobil is a prime example. I think oil companies have also been very slow to develop next-generation energy solutions. However, not only do the energy policies we have in place often fail to encourage oil companies to move forward, at times they have actually discouraged it.

I also recognize that even though oil companies are widely-hated, we have a society that is entirely dependent on oil. So, while the long-term goal is to move away from unsustainable options like oil, right now we need it during that transition. So, I am helping out with that need, while actively working to eliminate it. Some of the things that I am doing along that front are known, and some will be known within 6 months. One of the things that I have done extensively is to nudge various technologies along with technical input and advice. More on that will come to light in 2008.

My Writing

My writing tends to fall into several categories. The first – and the one the moves me the most – is to debunk misinformation. Sometimes this involves claims that the U.S. can be energy independent by following Brazil’s example. Sometimes I address the uber-optimism of various solutions to our problems. (I see this as very dangerous, as they lull everyone into complacency that everything will be OK. People are led to believe that we just need to give the entrepreneurs more time and money). Sometimes I write to defend the oil industry against various pieces of misinformation. I just feel like we are hated enough without having to put up with false claims, and nobody enjoys being hated.

Other times, I write about conservation, increasing the gas tax, or even things like composting. I have written quite a bit about Peak Oil, and I coined the phrase “Peak Lite” to explain what I think we are actually going to experience – and are currently experiencing. (I also coined the term “XTL”, which I see popping up on a regular basis, to generically categorize GTL, CTL, and BTL).

Yeah, But What Do You Drive?

I was asked this question last week. I was preaching the need to conserve, and someone asked “What kind of car do you drive?” Of course if the answer is a gas-guzzler, my message rings pretty hollow. I would be telling YOU to conserve, but unwilling to make that sacrifice myself. But I despise hypocrisy, so I try hard to walk the talk. This is an issue that I have with Al Gore. While he has served to raise public awareness on very important issues, he has also exposed himself as someone who doesn’t need to make those sacrifices himself. (Ironically, George Bush – who I am no fan of – is the one with an eco-friendly home). Oh, and I drive a Nissan Micra.

Summary

So, that’s my blog in a nutshell. Feel free to jump into the conversation. No level of technical knowledge or expertise is expected. After all, that’s what I am trying to do here: increase knowledge and encourage discussion on energy and sustainability issues. All viewpoints are welcome, and no posts are deleted unless 1). It is an ad; 2). It is a personal attack; 3). It attempts to identify my employer. I have an agreement with my employer with respect to my blog. They don’t have a problem with it, as long as I am not doing it from work and I am not overtly discussing who I work for. They don’t want an impression that they endorse my positions. (Some they would, some they wouldn’t). So, while it is not a secret who I work for, I will delete comments that specifically name my employer.

Oh, and thanks for stopping by.

27 thoughts on “Welcome Guardian Readers”

  1. You should drop the Gore thing. It’s a chink in your armor, emotional rather than rational.

    I as I think I’ve said, we can always find someone doing more .. in a smaller house .. with a smaller car … until we find the ultimate eco-warrior, a man living naked in a cave.

    If he wanted to, that naked cave man could call us all hypocrites.

    We rationalize that we are not of course, because compared to our peers, we think we are doing good.

    That is human hubris and wasted energy. If this is about a better society our energy should be selling happy and low energy futures.

    That’s what I try to do, to say that I can good life with a Prius and efficient appliances … and so can you!

    (My personal energy footprint is about 25% of the regional average, but I’m no where near naked-in-a-cave-man.)

  2. hehe, I’m a long time reader of the Guardian AND this Blog.

    I had no idea they were linking you but I suppose we are all on the same wavelength so its not that surprising.

    write on brother

  3. You should drop the Gore thing. It’s a chink in your armor, emotional rather than rational.

    I disagree. I think the higher your profile, and the stronger the message, the more important it is that you set a good example. If Joe Blow was telling me to conserve, while he consumed more than average, it wouldn’t be a big deal. I expect more than that from Al Gore because of who he is, the broad reach of his bully pulpit, and the significance of his message. After all, if Al Gore can’t even conserve – and he out of everyone knows how important it is – then why on earth should I?

    RR

  4. Heh, an interesting position to stake … that Gore might “consume more than average.”

    You do too, right?

    You do compared to average citizens of industrial countries, when we include your jet travel.

    And of course, all of us here on-line do, compared to the global human average.

  5. Heh, an interesting position to stake … that Gore might “consume more than average.”

    It’s not so much the “more than average” that bugged me. It was 20 times the average, and lame excuses like “I am going to put solar panels in.” It’s the personal use, not the use associated with him delivering his message. That probably nets out as a positive, given that people surely conserve as a result of hearing him speak.

    You do too, right?

    You do compared to average citizens of industrial countries, when we include your jet travel.

    No, actually I don’t. I don’t travel that much. I also have checked my carbon footprint – including air travel – and came in well less than average.

    I am not suggesting that Gore live naked in a cave. I am suggesting he does not live like a king with 20 houses – especially when telling the rest of us to cut back on the energy usage of our 1 house. There are options in between.

  6. Your average beats what peer group Robert?

    I would not have thought that the average Scot flies even once a year.

    And again, the peer group you choose matters. What you are doing with Gore is choosing a peer group for him. He should be compared to the average person, and not the average V.P., right?

    There seems something less than humble about choosing peer groups by which others are judged.

  7. BTW, remember my counter-example of Darryl Hannah. She lives a pretty good example, relative to most peer groups, but especially compared to the rich and beautiful.

    … but her example hasn’t really made the rank and file stand up and change their lives, has it?

    It’s like Gore is disqualified because because he does too little, and Hannah is disqualified because she does too much.

    It’s petty either way, when the real issue can be measured in “tons” and “megawatts.”

  8. There seems something less than humble about choosing peer groups by which others are judged.

    The group that I compare him to (and myself) is the group that is being asked to conserve. I am not comparing him to primitive tribesmen. I guess I just have something embedded in me that says if I ask you to make a sacrifice, I should lead by example.

    I don’t really know what else I can say about it. It is textbook hypocrisy (at least in my textbook). That doesn’t mean he hasn’t done a lot of good things, but he really should have known better.

    He has been in politics long enough to know that his political enemies (of which I am not one) would be looking for things like this. Don’t make it so easy for them.

  9. Keep the Al Gore thing. He is a big hypocrit and should lead by example.

    I’d pick Ed Begley over Daryl Hannah (who I think is an idiot). She protests against private property after some guy allows people to farm gratis for 15 years on his land. My second favorite story is found here: href=”http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010801″ Daryl Hannah goes to Ecuador and gets in over her head

    I’ll admit I use a lot of electricity and gasoline (not so much natural gas for heating)in my personal life. In my professional life I’ve more than wiped out my footprint thousands of times over by squeezing more energy out of our energy processes. Robert has done the same. I’ve worked on a half-dozen major projects. Each time I’ve expanded production at that same or less energy input by tweaking the efficiencies.

    I’m working on the house now. Still down on electricity for the year, although October was pretty warm.

  10. Corrected link.

    Daryl Hannah gets over her head

    As for peer groups, when you ask most people if Donald Trump and Bill Gates are about equally rich, they would say “Yes”. When in fact Gates is about 50 times richer than Trump. Same thing with the African bushman. As far as he is concerned, Odograph, R2, and myself all are Donald Trump rich. He can’t tell the difference. From his perspective we also use the same order of magnitude of energy, even though Trump flies on private jets and helicopters, and we don’t. You can always find a peer group that is better than you. So what.

  11. Shrug. Maybe I was just raised too much on the “judge not, lest thee be judged” thing.

    (And I think it is less about native tribesmen, than human averages in a world of globalization, increasing Asian wealth, & etc. The standard thing is still for people in industrial lands to take what they have as a birthright, and to call for a others to cap their growth at some lower level.)

  12. BTW, this seems to reinforce my point more than anything:

    Same thing with the African bushman. As far as he is concerned, Odograph, R2, and myself all are Donald Trump rich. He can’t tell the difference. From his perspective we also use the same order of magnitude of energy, even though Trump flies on private jets and helicopters, and we don’t. You can always find a peer group that is better than you. So what.”

    Right, we are all rich, the world is rapidly changing, what should we be concerned about?

    Robert says:

    The group that I compare him to (and myself) is the group that is being asked to conserve. I am not comparing him to primitive tribesmen..”

    Unfortunately, the tribesmen (or sons of tribesmen) around the world are being asked to conserve.

    This artificial peer group that protects you while skewering Gore is imaginary.

  13. Maybe these enviro-chicks are a better example than Daryl Hannah:

    Meet the women who won’t have babies – because they’re not ecofriendly

    Adjusted on a per unit of economic output, the US doesn’t look so bad in terms of pollution, we actually do pretty well. Alternatives will emerge and mankind will muddle through as we have always done. I’m a lot more worried about the socialist environmental movement than I am about the environment itself. Socialism killed tens of millions in the 20th century. How many people died from global warming?

  14. Women who won’t have babies in order to save the planet; how sad and pathetic. Thats fine if they don’t want kids, but I can’t believe they try to pass it off as caring about the planet.

  15. robert–

    all this p…ing back and forth got to be too much[gore,hannah,begley,women,etc]. you and readership/commenters have other tings worthy of thought/comment.

    you both made your points. amen.

    having read the to and fro, leads me to the following:

    ask your readers for their candidates who best espouse/live the their energy/environmental stripes[the best at the TALK AND WALK]

    the rsults and reasoning might be interesting and educational.

    fran

  16. No one. There is no public figure who actually lives like an “everyman” and especially not like a “planetary everyman.”

    I think it is actually interesting that we all, as a species, tend to give the successful their due, and tend not, actually, to demand that they live like the mean, the average, for any broad population.

    It seems to be enough, when you ask a poor man or a rich one, that people do “something” or “enough” in a fuzzy sense, for others.

  17. I have to agree with Robert — Al Gore is a good negative example. He has developed a high reputation here in Japan because his name is associated with the Kyoto Protocol and because of “An Inconvenient Truth,” but I’ve had the pleasure of watching the faces of Japanese admirers change to shocked indignation when I tell them about Gore’s hypocritical behavior. He’s a good tool to use when telling people how important it is to walk the talk.

  18. I’ve had the pleasure of watching the faces of Japanese admirers change to shocked indignation when I tell them about Gore’s hypocritical behavior.

    Interesting. Why the heck did you do that exactly? That is tell a tale about supposed hypocrisy?

  19. I thought I answered that question with my last sentence, but maybe it wasn’t clear. When I point out how Elite Al lives in a mansion with an astronomical energy bill and takes a private jet to venues where he tells us hoi polloi we’re using too much energy, listeners are struck by the importance of practicing what one preaches. In fact there is a word for this in Japanese: “hanmen kyoushi,” a person whose behavior is a negative image of what is desirable, and is therefore a good teaching tool.

  20. Where I was going, really, was motivation, and the whole Global Warming thing.

    Do you support aggressive and immediate action?

    (I get this sense that Robert is the odd man out, by supporting such action, and also promoting tenuous claims of hypocrisy.)

  21. Women who won’t have babies in order to save the planet; how sad and pathetic. Thats fine if they don’t want kids, but I can’t believe they try to pass it off as caring about the planet.

    What is so hard to understand about this? Do you not accept that every human being (or at least every one that lives in an industrialized economy) will, over the course of a lifetime, consume an immense amount of resources, and produce an immense amount of waste (trash, sewerage, & air pollution)?

    Or do you prefer not to think about it?

  22. What is so hard to understand about this? Do you not accept that every human being (or at least every one that lives in an industrialized economy) will, over the course of a lifetime, consume an immense amount of resources, and produce an immense amount of waste (trash, sewerage, & air pollution)?

    And they also produce most of the world’s goods and services, including the food, medicines, and other items essential to life.

  23. And they also produce most of the world’s goods and services, including the food, medicines, and other items essential to life.

    So we can at least agree that it’s a cost/benefit question: are the benefits brought by pushing the population of h. sapiens to 7 billion or beyond worth the costs?

    The logic of the statement above seems to be, “if some (people) are good, then more (people) are better.”

    That may be true up to a point, but the women in the article think we’re past that point. In other words, they perceive overpopulation as a problem, and have acted on their convictions.

    I assume you would not contend that a biological population can grow infinitely; i.e. you’d agree that there must be a limit? If so, then it becomes a question of what/where that limit is. Some people think we’re past it. You, presumably, do not. But I don’t see any basis for labeling the subjects of the article as hypocritical (or “pathetic”), other that the fact that they see the world differently than you do.

  24. While I am by no means an extremist, I am gravely concerned that we are approaching an energy crisis. I…

    In 1999 we started FCUKED the Forthcoming UK Fuel deficit.

    We are getting there.

Comments are closed.