Net Zero is the Plan for Peak Oil in disguise - An imminent peak of world crude production is why we have carbon credits, traffic controls, plastic bans, vegan nudging, and humanity walking into a digital trap


Net Zero is the Plan for Peak Oil in disguise​

An imminent peak of world crude production is why we have carbon credits, traffic controls, plastic bans, vegan nudging, and humanity walking into a digital trap​


When you heard about the Great Reset and New Normal, did you wonder what exactly was guaranteed to revolutionise our entire way of life? Probably not daily climate catastrophes. Surely not simultaneous viruses miraculously sustaining their virulence while circulating the globe. Whatever happened, surely we’d just Build Back Better?

It turns out there is a truly revolutionary event for humanity on the near horizon: growing scarcity of the finite resource that powers the global economy and enables mass production of its four fundamental pillars: steel, cement, fertiliser and plastics.

Peak Oil theory lost momentum as deep-sea drilling, fracking of shale deposits, and steaming of tar sands kept the show on the road well into the 2010s. But could there be any clearer signs that we’ve entered the final chapter of the hydrocarbon age? The high point for oil discovery was almost 60 years ago. As every oil field must peak and enter decline, so must all known reserves as a whole.

It seems apt that the global peak of production would arrive after decades of declining prosperity and opportunities for the average school-leaver, culminating in extreme inequality and grand, vague slogans uttered by a series of influential figures across the political spectrum. Without some major ongoing narrative to justify things getting worse, political establishments will be threatened from all sides.

Unsurprising, then, that a Plan for Peak Oil (PPO) is already in full flow: it's the very same plan that ostensibly seeks to slash carbon emissions to Net Zero. Since hydrocarbons are the major ingredient in plastics, the plan also requires phasing out plastic use. Schemes to reduce pollution and traffic congestion also serve to slash oil consumption via the progressive exclusion of private vehicles.

Whether elected leaders know it or not, Net Zero is all about coordinating, across countries and continents, the inevitable down-scaling of the global economy. The advantages to the 1% of selling their PPO as a climate emergency, with the promise of improved cities and health, are clear. For starters, nobody has to concede that they were complicit in the illusion that this finite resource could last infinitely.

Second, by framing it as a broad moral imperative (the planet, community, health) they hope to recruit almost all youth as evangelists, while opponents from any angle can be easily smeared. Thirdly, a more widely-defined mission enables a more comprehensive agenda to be pushed, with moveable climate targets and priorities permitting policies be to introduced at variable pace in diverse regions.

Limiting panic and political upheaval, the PPO actually masks the ending of growth by providing a fresh spurt of activity. Replacing existing, serviceable things with brand new, more complex things doesn’t always make sense from the perspective of efficiency, let alone future scarcity. However, it does create the widespread illusion that we are future-proofing the economy.

Why not be on the green & efficient bandwagon? Who doesn’t want clean, walkable communities? What’s not to like about a Universal Basic Income (UBI)?

Whatever we do, pollution is destined to disappear. Efficiency and alternatives will emerge by default. Walking and bicycling will become the norm. None of this requires that we adopt new forms of surveillance and control.

Technology is steadily reducing the labor required across the economy, but scarcity of oil will do so far more directly. Reliance on the state, however, could mean digital-only income. If cash is phased out entirely, anyone’s income from any source could be subject to limits on how, when and where it is spent.

Sunny brochures promise “15-minute” city districts with almost everything within walking distance — but don’t depict the network of cameras and other sensors that could enforce not only limited car journeys, but pricing by distance travelled. Most private vehicles will disappear from roads, and all public transport might be free (but potentially limited based on distance, evaluated need or any other reason).

Smart meters, supplied free of charge across the West to meet ambitious targets, enable per-residence limits to be placed on electricity usage. Digital ID, expected to be required for all Internet access, would enable restrictions on the type of online activity, time spent online, and locations/hours of Internet availability. Facial recognition could enforce bans on physical presence outside of specific zones.

This is the digital trap. With just a few innovations in the name of clean air, security, cheaper bills and reliable income, you would forever be at the mercy of a state attempting to maintain order in the midst of prolonged economic contraction. There would be very little resistance, violence or rule-breaking if punishments were rapid and arbitrary — exactly what the digital trap is capable of.

An honest PPO salesman would say this is by far the most efficient means of controlling a population: no prisons, judges or police (except robot police) involved in dealing with minor offences. It will be accepted because, despite the rich doing what they please, commoners will be convinced that they are contributing to the greater good, making the same sacrifices as everyone else.

The honest salesman would also admit that the 1% will never let a good crisis go to waste. Think of all the data that could be harvested to feed Artificial Intelligence, helping to augment and extend the lives of Transhumans. Not to mention the data that could minimise crime and maximise compliance. Give up all your data, or suffer. The WEF warned us back in 2018 that we’d have no privacy, and we’d be happy.

But why must the masses be forced to eat lab-grown protein and bug burgers? Quite simply, because these can be mass-produced and continually modified so that medical and other data can be analysed for different groups of consumers. The less privacy and autonomy society enjoys, the more power our rulers can obtain. Everything about the PPO can be viewed through this very simple lens.

Does this mean we’ll be herded into pods in cities? Anything is possible when the state has control over the food supply, or your money, or home comforts, or ability to travel. Certainly, rising world population will be forced into reverse, and it would be trivial to guarantee greater longevity for citizens residing in the smart city. Don’t you want to help save the planet?

Can any cities resist growing surveillance? Maybe only temporarily. The PPO cannot realistically advance at a uniform pace around the globe. Some countries, some cities will pioneer different components of the plan, experiencing setbacks and pushbacks. Ideally, villages and towns would now be seeing a revival as the drawbacks and risks of city living are made clear to remote workers.

The most urgent resistance might be to promote the use and importance of cash. Another, more direct action would be to damage or destroy any cameras that could regulate the movement of vehicles or humans. Grow food, keep chickens, and support local farmers. Learn to use ham radio, or to fix bikes, build wood stoves or install solar panels. Share this article online and with your neighbours.

If we collectively understand the true motivation behind Net Zero, their wider agenda cannot be imposed as easily as they hope. Smashing the main deception will lead to the unravelling of the rest.

We can manage energy scarcity with full transparency, and minimal surveillance or control. Avoiding the digital trap is paramount. Anything else means our most basic freedoms are on the line.


Here are some sources that are worth a follow.

Gigaohm Biological - first for good reason. Requires hours of attention to get the picture, but very rewarding. Learn Your Biology!

Our Finite World - a comprehensive blog on energy issues.

Geoff Buys Cars - an accessible YouTube channel looking at PPO measures in the UK.

THANKS FOR READING & SHARING.
 
Like global warming and ozone depletion? Peak Oil is only a year away every year! So fork over all your power and money to the elites so they can save themsel,,,,, er, save the world! Yeah, that's it!

I was told in grade school we'd be out of oil by the time I was in high school.

I was told in high school we'd be out of oil by the time I was in college.

I was told in college we'd be out of oil by the time I was 40.

I was told at 40 that we'd be out of oil "in about five years"

Now, at 47, I'm told we're gonna be out "imminently"

The proposed "solution" every time?

Radical restructuring of your life and the power paradigm of world governments so that I end up a serf, but, at least don't starve when society collapses.

It's all so tiring.
Were not gonna "run out" suddenly. It will just gradually become more expensive and difficult to extract. Well have plenty of time to find more economical alternatives.
 
have choices in various regards. I could heat my house with natural gas. Annual energy need. 10000 kWh. Or I use a heat pump with a (For examples sake) COP (Coefficient of Performance) of 5. Meaning I use 2000 kWh of electricity.
The problem is that retrofitting heat pumps is completely impractical for most places, and for many places air source heat pumps are completely unsuitable too. An average British house doesn’t even have space for the outside unit, and can’t rip the floors up to install water heating like they’re trying to push. Those heat pumps also don’t work well when temperatures drop below a certain point. Heat pumps (and I’ve lived in a house (barely) heated by one a while back) are generally shite.
We aren’t going to run out of oil any time soon. We certainly should be looking at alternative forms of energy and nuclear is the obvious option. Anyone who says they’re green and denies nuclear just wants to make you live like it’s 1650 again. No ta.
 
Were not gonna "run out" suddenly. It will just gradually become more expensive and difficult to extract. Well have plenty of time to find more economical alternatives.
We could even start looking into more efficient ways to make synthetic oil.
I don't think the field has had much progress since the nazis needed it to not sputter out entirely.
 
Were not gonna "run out" suddenly. It will just gradually become more expensive and difficult to extract. Well have plenty of time to find more economical alternatives.
I never believed any of them were true.

And that just proves my point, these weren't pitched as a slow gradual decline, it was a literal "You'll wake up tomorrow on the set of Mad Max if you don't install communi... er, responsible green government, TODAY because we're GOING TO RUN OUT!"

But all green policy is made this way, not an organic slide from "A" to "B" that you can evaluate and take measures to stop.... or remediate they're always pitched as time bombs, counting down, and once it hits "0" the world ends... .and the only way to prevent that is to cut the red wire (throw everyone not a green out of political power) before it's too late.
 
Even if peak oil is a thing, the answer isn't "eat less meat" it's "build more nuclear power plants".

Realistically, burning fossil fuels is kind of retarded in the long run. We'd be much better off reserving it for things with less easily swappable alternatives than the nuclear/petroleum swap, like plastics or fertiliser etc
 
The problem is that retrofitting heat pumps is completely impractical for most places, and for many places air source heat pumps are completely unsuitable too. An average British house doesn’t even have space for the outside unit, and can’t rip the floors up to install water heating like they’re trying to push. Those heat pumps also don’t work well when temperatures drop below a certain point. Heat pumps (and I’ve lived in a house (barely) heated by one a while back) are generally shite.
We aren’t going to run out of oil any time soon. We certainly should be looking at alternative forms of energy and nuclear is the obvious option. Anyone who says they’re green and denies nuclear just wants to make you live like it’s 1650 again. No ta.
Yeah, nuclear is the most logical next step
We could even start looking into more efficient ways to make synthetic oil.
I don't think the field has had much progress since the nazis needed it to not sputter out entirely.
It will always take more energy than you get in return. Running electric cars and heaters with nuclear powerplants makes the most sense
I never believed any of them were true.

And that just proves my point, these weren't pitched as a slow gradual decline, it was a literal "You'll wake up tomorrow on the set of Mad Max if you don't install communi... er, responsible green government, TODAY because we're GOING TO RUN OUT!"

But all green policy is made this way, not an organic slide from "A" to "B" that you can evaluate and take measures to stop.... or remediate they're always pitched as time bombs, counting down, and once it hits "0" the world ends... .and the only way to prevent that is to cut the red wire (throw everyone not a green out of political power) before it's too late.
Thats what disturbs me about the green movement, destroying capitalism will ensure our demise since whatever they replace it with will be much worse at solving energy/resource scarcity. Economics will eventually coerce people to adopt more sustainable energy alternatives without state interference. The government forcing us to adopt expensive, highly experimental technologies as fast as possible to avoid a nonexistent climate catastrophe will just waste resources that could be used for more important things.
Even if peak oil is a thing, the answer isn't "eat less meat" it's "build more nuclear power plants".

Realistically, burning fossil fuels is kind of retarded in the long run. We'd be much better off reserving it for things with less easily swappable alternatives than the nuclear/petroleum swap, like plastics or fertiliser etc
Generating all our electricity with nukes and driving electric cars will eliminate like 60% of our fossil fuel demand. Its already happening in china where over half the cars are electric and theyre consuming less oil as a result. Once fuel prices get high enough cleetus will give in and buy an electric truck to replace his diesel one
 
It will always take more energy than you get in return. Running electric cars and heaters with nuclear powerplants makes the most sense
Well yes, but nuclear energy isn't efficient for making cars run, but you could use nuclear energy to create syntethic oil for gasoline.
And as you develop the technology it will become more and more efficient
 
Generating all our electricity with nukes and driving electric cars will eliminate like 60% of our fossil fuel demand. Its already happening in china where over half the cars are electric and theyre consuming less oil as a result. Once fuel prices get high enough cleetus will give in and buy an electric truck to replace his diesel one
I’m not sure there are enough battery materials in the world to replace even a fraction of ICE vehicles with electric.
Electric has its place. It’s very very good for city and urban short trips. Buses in a city centre should be EVs in warm climates and maybe something like biogas in cold ones. Where the green lobby goes wrong is insisting there’s one solution for all vehicles. Some places need the power and cold resistance of fuel powered engines. Oslo’s buses for example got borked by last winter and Oslo isn’t even a particularly northern or cold city. Why not replace appropriate vehicles with EV and accept that some places aren’t so suitable for it? It’s the same with stuff like solar, it has its place but it’s not suitable for all times and places.
Until we find some amazing perfect t source of energy, the best sources are going to vary by place and need.
I can’t get on board with the EV pushing when it’s pushed for everything. Same with public transport - it’s so important to have good clean public transport and we should have great bus tram etc links in cities to their outlying suburbs. It works more or less in the uk and Europe. But some places are too remote, and some needs can’t be done on a bus. You can’t drag a weeks worth of shopping home for a big family on a bus. Not can you pop to the garden centre and pick up twenty bags of compost. I want my car. I will happily take the bus when I go into town and I’ll happily walk local journeys when I can, but the push is that nobody gets cars.
Their pushes are not realistic.
 
I’m not sure there are enough battery materials in the world to replace even a fraction of ICE vehicles with electric.
Electric has its place. It’s very very good for city and urban short trips. Buses in a city centre should be EVs in warm climates and maybe something like biogas in cold ones. Where the green lobby goes wrong is insisting there’s one solution for all vehicles. Some places need the power and cold resistance of fuel powered engines. Oslo’s buses for example got borked by last winter and Oslo isn’t even a particularly northern or cold city. Why not replace appropriate vehicles with EV and accept that some places aren’t so suitable for it? It’s the same with stuff like solar, it has its place but it’s not suitable for all times and places.
Until we find some amazing perfect t source of energy, the best sources are going to vary by place and need.
I can’t get on board with the EV pushing when it’s pushed for everything. Same with public transport - it’s so important to have good clean public transport and we should have great bus tram etc links in cities to their outlying suburbs. It works more or less in the uk and Europe. But some places are too remote, and some needs can’t be done on a bus. You can’t drag a weeks worth of shopping home for a big family on a bus. Not can you pop to the garden centre and pick up twenty bags of compost. I want my car. I will happily take the bus when I go into town and I’ll happily walk local journeys when I can, but the push is that nobody gets cars.
Their pushes are not realistic.
Theres plenty of battery materials, LFP is rapidly becoming the industry standard since it needs none of the actual rare metals like nickel and cobalt that NMC batteries do. Keep in mind that this technology is just getting started, it just became semi viable 10 years ago. People in 1910 had similar complaints about cars as a whole. Going from ice to electric is as challenging as going from horses to cars so it will definitely take longer than the government would like.
 
Theres plenty of battery materials, LFP is rapidly becoming the industry standard since it needs none of the actual rare metals like nickel and cobalt that NMC batteries do.
There’s also the cost - the sheer cost of battery powered cars is insane. And the fact they are crap in cold weather. We can certainly replace a portion of vehicles but not all, yet. How long is the lfp going to take to filter down to the consumer? A huge portion of the green agenda is fewer cars per person
 
There’s also the cost - the sheer cost of battery powered cars is insane. And the fact they are crap in cold weather. We can certainly replace a portion of vehicles but not all, yet. How long is the lfp going to take to filter down to the consumer? A huge portion of the green agenda is fewer cars per person
Its not as bad as it used to be but in 15-20 years they will be way better and cheaper just like smartphones
 
peak oil doesnt necessarily mean running out of oil, but rather that the oil will become so difficult and expensive to drill, it will no longer be considered profitable for the oil companies without raising the price of oil significantly, a move that would cause dissent and conflict globally. investing in backup plans is not a bad thing in times like that. though still not necessarily good for the environment, the biofuels are technically net zero as the energy used to burn them balances with that used to grow them or something. then theres your hydro, geothermal, solar and wind, and thought not renewable, nuclear takes a while for it to actually run out. i see it as more advantageous for them to put money into that than just sticking to the one thing.
 
i am going to double post because i cant edit quotes into my thing and also fuck you i can and will double post for the sake of a shitpost
Its not as bad as it used to be but in 15-20 years they will be way better and cheaper just like smartphones
i dont see them being as cheap as a smartphone unless smartphones start costing as much as cars
 
i am going to double post because i cant edit quotes into my thing and also fuck you i can and will double post for the sake of a shitpost

i dont see them being as cheap as a smartphone unless smartphones start costing as much as cars
I mean theyll be much cheaper and better than they are now. In 2011 a decent smartphone cost $500+ dollars, now a $150 smartphone is better than a top of the line phone from back then
 
Theres plenty of battery materials
There's not. There have been endless candidates that don't scale or aren't adaptable to industrial processes, and they all suffer the same fundamental problem of low energy density. To become truly competitive with ICE (and not just "competitive because the government sat five elephants on the scale and banned the competition"), batteries need multiple orders of magnitude more energy density. You can talk about the efficiency of the tech all you like, but that's ignoring the fact that they have to be incredibly efficient in order to squeeze every last joule of energy out of the cells, just to poorly compete with a modern ICE. A battery-electric vehicle has a headline-figure range in ideal conditions, but that range crashes the moment you move otuside of those ideal conditions, even to the point of putting a few heavy bags in the car, driving into a headwind, towing a small trailer, or taking it over a poorly surfaced road.

The terrible energy density of batteries is why they aren't remotely viable for aircraft or large-scale transportation. There will be no mass replacement of road freight haulage with electrics. There will be no widebody passenger jets running on electric engines. There will be no electric cargo ships. None of the currently studied, or proposed, or even speculated battery compositions offer the sort of magnitude increases necessary to compete; they offer single-digit percentage increments at best, with no sign of any viable alternatives on the horizon.

You see, the mistake you're making is thinking that battery technology is a largely untested and novel field, when it is in fact a well-tested, well-researched, and very mature field of endeavour. The last revolutionary change in battery technology was the invention of the lithium ion cell, more than 30 years ago; everything since then has been iteration on the same basic principle behind that design. Unless a similarly revolutionary change comes along, and there is no sign it will, battery-electric vehicles are not going to replace ICE vehicles and will always be a minority choice. The belief that we should adopt electric now in the hope that such a revolutionary technology will come along in the future is magical thinking of the worst kind, because life doesn't work that way.
 
ICE cars only convert 30% of their stored energy into useful work. Electric motors convert 95%. Batteries only need to be 1/3 as energy dense to be equal to gas or diesel cars. The upper limit of lithium batteries that we know of is 50% or 1600wh/kg. Today most lithium batteries have a density of 350wh/kg. Theres plenty of room for improvement.
 
We've been 20 years from about to hit Peak Oil for 30 years now. Meanwhile there's vast untapped wells in the US alone.


The dinosaurs were idolaters; they made their choice.
Yes, theres trillions of barrels of oil in canada but they are extremely difficult and expensive to get. We arent running out of oil, not even close but we are running out of the cheapest easiest to reach oil.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo