The Association for the Study of Peak Oil, more commonly known as ASPO, had their Truth in Energy Conference earlier this month. One of the speakers was Angelina Galetiva, the founder of Renewables 100, a renewable energy policy institute. Her talk was summarized in a post on the highly esteemed Oil Drum.
According to the Bloomberg website, fossil fuels received six times the subsidies that renewable energy received from the governments of the world last year. The article cites the International Energy Agency's report of an increase to an equivalent of $409 billion in subsidies for natural gas, coal and gasoline. This happened despite a 2009 pledge by G20 nations to phase out subsidies for "carbon-based fuels [that are] dug or pumped out of the earth."
While not always using its proper name, I've addressed the startling concept of peak oil before in this blog. In previous posts, I've recommended The Party's Over, sometimes referred to as the quintessential peak oil book, and Blind Spot, a remarkably well-done 86-minute online video that addresses both the seriousness of peak oil and the reasons why people are only beginning to become aware that it is (or will be) a reality.
If you haven't been able to find the time to read The Party's Over, or watch Blind Spot, I'm offering you an eight-minute alternative today. The title, 91•86•90, probably won't grab you, but if you can get past the somewhat monotone narration, this is another well-done online video with a peak oil focus.
Unfortunately, President Obama's vague statement about "unleashing America's innovation" will not be enough to resolve our worsening crisis (far from it). Instead, every American will have to make a serious effort to consume less energy and less of the things that are made with energy. If that was easy, we would have resolved the issue by now.
Click here to watch Stewart's rant (originally seen on Comedy Central's The Daily Show).
The CEO of British insurance giant Lloyd's has just released a paper which predicts that the economic calamities we've been facing over the last few years are minor when compared to what is coming soon. Our global economy is based on the concept of growth and growth depends on energy, cheap energy to be exact. Therefore, when the paper predicts that the price of oil will soon hit $200 per barrel, the ramifications add up to a lot more than just a higher price at the gas pump.
As Dr. Ward admits, it will be difficult for many people to accept how bad he expects things to get. He acknowledges that the truly "bad times have not yet hit."
If you've been following the news lately, you've heard a lot about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, I heard that BP's own shareholders are trying to sue the company.
One commenter posted to Snagfilms his belief that Heinberg's scenario was silly because if he didn't have any gasoline he would "just walk." It seemed like a strange and uninformed rebuttal to me. He completely missed Heinberg's point.
Juxtasposed amongst the footage of interviews with various experts, are American scenes, some rural, some urban, some suburban. Together they serve to reinforce the idea that we've built some enormous structures and enormous vehicles. How well do you think the United States will do when the price of oil goes back up over $100 per barrel?
Above: Even with oil at $70-$80 per barrel, our airlines are struggling.
The dramatic increase in population over the past 100 or so years could not have happened if not for agricultural and medical practices that require fossil fuels. Although the numbers appear to be rounded off, this graph speaks for itself. 
Roscoe Bartlett is not only a Congressman from Maryland, but also an award-winning scientist. He is one Republican who was embarrassed by the "drill, baby, drill" slogan that was promoted by some of the less-insightful members of his party during the 2008 convention. In Blind Spot, Representative Bartlett says that "we will transition [away from fossil fuels]; the question is whether we do it on our timetable or on geology's timetable." I wish that more politicians would speak the truth like that. 
Edward "Ted" Burtynsky's photos show us the ugly result of our industrial times. The genius of his work, however, is that, from a visual standpoint, Burtynsky's photos aren't ugly.
A few photos from a series Burtynsky did about oil.
Here's a link to that whole series courtesy of the Corcoran Gallery.
After seeing photos such as this one, I'm surprised that people seem to think that drilling for oil has no harmful effects on the environment.
Relatively cheap oil has allowed us to travel great distances with ease, it has allowed us to live like kings, but, as you can see here, it has also resulted in enormous amounts of waste.
Even the infrastructure that we're currently using doesn't provide us with an efficient use of our time, materials, or energy itself.
Boom and bust cycles are an inherent part of economies like ours that are based on the consumption of extracted resources like oil. This is one of a number of abandoned plants in Detroit.
The Saudi's have a saying:
Learn both the benefits and trade-offs of synthetic fuels. Traditional fossil fuels are a limited resource. Therefore, the future of our country and the world depends on alternative fuels, including biomass, landfill gas, tar sand bitumen, natural gas and natural gas hydrates, synthesis gas, oil shale, and more. Besides different fuels, alternatives such as fuel cells are also covered.
