A Critical Look at Peak Oil Catastrophism

Apocalypse, Not

Published in Permaculture Activist #59, February, 2006)

The phrase “the end of the world as we know it” has been uttered so often in the last decade that some Peak Oil advocates simply use its acronym, TEOTWAWKI. This awkward shorthand was once employed by Y2k catastrophists, and that heritage alone—the most unnecessary “sky is falling” panic in my lifetime—is enough to make me skeptical of the negativism embraced by many of my fellow Peak Oil believers. Peak Oil is as inevitable as death and taxes. But for every convert that Peak Oil’s doom-and-gloom extremism sweeps up, it alienates plenty of people who might otherwise climb down from their SUVs. Peak-Oil catastrophism’s repetition of doubtful facts and its sometimes muddied thinking betray a lack of critical analysis that discredits the Peak Oil movement. I’d like to delve into some of the errors and half-truths surrounding Peak Oil catastrophism, not as encouragement for those who want to party on blindly into the end of oil, which would be tragic, but as a way of refining and bolstering those arguments around Peak Oil that are valid.

There is no doubt that oil is running out. But to believe that it will surely bring the end of the world, you must believe that:

1. Our demand for oil is unchangeable and is not significantly affected by price.

2. We are so badly addicted to oil that we will watch our civilization collapse rather than change our behavior.

3. Significant oil conservation is not possible in the time frame needed.

4. Even with conservation, demand will be more than oil plus alternatives can possibly meet.

5. Society is so fragile that it cannot withstand large shocks.

These are the significant beliefs needed to be a Peak Oil catastrophist. Each is false. Let’s look at them.

The starting point for most Peak-Oil catastrophism is Hubbert’s curve. M. King Hubbert was a petroleum geologist who published papers in 1956(1) and 1974(2) showing that US and world oil production should follow a simple bell curve. He believed US production would peak around 1970, and world output around 1995, followed by a drop as steep as the rise. He offered no equations and little mathematical basis for his hypothesis, but showed data for the rising side of the US curve.

Hubbert’s US peak prediction was accurate, and the decline initially followed his curve. It has lately deviated significantly (see Figure 1). World production has not followed Hubbert’s curve since the late 1970s (Figure 2). Production levels for other countries have followed Hubbert’s curve in only 8 of 51 cases (Figure 3). (3) Those facts have not bothered the catastrophists, but some theories are so attractive it is hard to abandon them when facts disagree.