http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsch_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf - pdf of report
http://www.acus.org/docs/051007-Hirsch_World_Oil_Production.pdf - 10 page summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report - wiki on hirsch report
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hirsch talks of "Risk Management". Specifically he speaks of how when the potential for risk is very high, taking actions to mitigate the risk becomes more important. He states that the US does not historically use risk management for its policy- citing as an example the warnings that came prior to Pearl Harbor.
Now we have additional warnings- many credible sources have made strong claims, including the US Dept of Energy's Hirsch Report, that bring to light the possiblilty of grave circumstances if we do not take action prior to the peaking of oil production.
Why, at the national level, do we not include many elements of risk managment in our decisions.
Or, if you feel otherwise, how you think our policies as a nation are taking into account risk management with regards to oil depletion.
2 comments:
I think that as a nation we choose not to include elements of risk management in our policies simply because it is not convenient. Our government values what is easy more than what is right, what will get us the outcome we want now rather than what will be better for us in the future. Our nation is not progressive; we don't plan ahead and we deal with issues only when they become critical. It is this kind of thinking that has landed us billions of dollars in debt and rendered us heavily reliant on a fallible resource (oil). Yet, we still don't do anything about it. Why? Because our nation is huge and powerful--risk management is neither in our current interest nor a necessity as of yet. The way things are right now, if we need to borrow some money, we just go to China. If we need more oil, we invade Iraq. The U.S. is incredibly powerful and has an image of prestige and control in the global community that lets us get by without risk management. However, our time of glory is fading fast and this highly unstable procrastinating, externally-dependent system by which we currently run will soon be outdated and inapplicable to our circumstances. As a nation, we have above risk management policies for many years. This habit is no longer acceptable, and we need to begin to take on the burden of our own actions and take responsibility for planning for the future.
I agree with most of the comments Jensen previously made. The U.S. does not think ahead as much as it should because it is not convenient. However, I feel as if the situation is more complicated than, "if we need to borrow some money, we just go to China. If we need more oil, we invade Iraq." Although this statement does have some truth to it. If everyone spends all of their energy criticizing the U.S., that may in fact be as counterproductive as our nation. Granted the question did have to do with how the U.S. does not execute risk management well. However, it is important to not forget, if they can't do it well, what can we do? Educating younger generations about this - instead of spending too much energy talking to "stubborn" or "naive" politicians -may be the better route. We should not ignore the politicians either. If enough people are educated about how to manage this nations risks, they will be able to gain enough power to really reach the politicians.
To answer the actual question posed in this post, it is hard to include many elements of risk management into a society that has been functioning a certain way for decades. It doesn't just take one politician or one person to influence the entire country, it is a hard and long process to make the issue of peak oil important to others. Our nation may not include many elements of risk management because the economists and geologists are saying two very different things. With a nation that tends to be very economically oriented, it is hard to listen to the truth the geologists may be presenting.
Post a Comment