web
counter
 

Evolve or Perish. We're So Screwed

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (24)



20081215-peak-oil-survivors.jpg

Chris Smith’s documentary Collapse is as much a documentary about Michael Ruppert as it is Michael Ruppert’s (conspiracy) theories. I’ve had occasion to to see several conspiracy theory documentaries over the years and one of the more interesting aspects that ties many of them together is that, in most instances, the conspiracy theorists would do better with a less is more approach. The less they speak, the more believable they are. If only these documentaries were 20 to 30 minutes long, instead of 80 to 90. (See also: Loose Change).

That’s the case with Michael Ruppert, a former LAPD, an independent publisher, author, and former lecturer who, years ago, accurately predicted that we’d run into a financial crisis sparked by mortgage-backed securities. That’s the sort of resume that gains your trust a little. And for the first half hour or so of Collapse, Ruppert spins an amazing — and somewhat believable — tale about the imminent suicide of mankind. He predicts, essentially, that the Earth is on the other side of peak oil (probably true), the world’s oil supply is rapidly being depleted, and more harrowing — perhaps — is that neither the economy nor humanity will be able to sustain itself once we’ve run out of oil because there is no realistic replacement. (I hope that’s not true)

It truly is a compelling argument. He asserts, for instance, that the fact that Saudi Arabia has already moved offshore to drill for oil suggests that its land reserves are close to being tapped (after all, why move offshore if you can drill on land much less expensively?). Moreover, 25 percent of the world’s oil resides in Saudi Arabia. And if they’re running out of oil, you bet your ass that the rest of the world is, too.

But where he really instills the fear of God in his audience is where he accurately points out that, it’s not just our modes of transportation that rely on oil. It’s plastics. It’s materials. It’s tires (it takes 7 gallons of oil to manufacture one tire, for instance). Without oil, not only could we not operate our automobiles, we couldn’t build them. Pesticides, toothpaste, etc. are all made from oil. “There is nothing anywhere, in any combination, that will replace the edifice of fossil fuels,” he argues. It’ll be difficult to grow food. Get anywhere. Or heat our homes. And there’s no real answer, he claims. Ethanol, he says, takes more energy to produce than it creates, and it would require using all the arable land in the United States to sustain our energy use with it. Canadian tar fields won’t work, either, because they use natural gas to refine it. Hydrogen is useless because, even if you could operate a car with it, you can’t build a car without oil, which goes in the plastics, the tires, and the resins. And electricity is not an energy source: It’s generated by burning or using some other kind of energy, he asserts.

And after detailing our energy crisis, the consequences of which will be more than dire — it’ll be bread lines, wheelbarrows full of money, revolutions, mass chaos, the end of democracy, etc. etc., — Mr. Ruppert kind of goes off the rails. He starts talking about the gold standard, about how many people the CIA has had killed, about how the Bush administration is after him, about his access to confidential files, about how Dick Cheney personally wanted him killed, and about how organic gardening seeds will essentially become the currency of the future.

Nutter.

In effect, Chris Smith — who also directed American Movie and Yes Men — gives Ruppert so much rope that he has no choice but to hang himself. The longer that the documentary goes on, the more apparent it is that Smith is not as interested in Ruppert’s crackpot “conspiracy facts,” as much as he is in the man spouting them. The entire documentary is one long extended interview with Ruppert, and we watch this man as he sort of unravels into a weepy mess who is given to epiphanies during the interview process. Also, he has a newsletter. If there’s one thing we know from Hollywood films, a man with a newsletter is never one to be believed. Unless he’s on “The X-Files.” Smith deftly films — and even provokes off-camera — Ruppert’s lapse into blubbery madness using an Errol Morris approach to his subject.

In the end, Collapse is a terrifying documentary about the end of the industrialized world … until it’s not anymore. And that’s what makes the documentary so riveting: You watch a smart, confident, and articulate man who clearly has a wealth of information completely destroy his own credibility not by undermining his own arguments, but by overreaching, which makes Collapse a fascinating documentary on both levels — as an exploration of our energy crisis, and as a study of Michael Ruppert.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Even Lemmy Gordon-Levitt Can't Kill the Lady Boners | "Hesher" Clips Guaranteed to Melt Knickers | New Green Lantern Character Posters | Oh, Suck It









Comments

Thanks Dustin for reviewing. My friends keep recommending this to me for the same reasons you hit on about and, despite my love of American Movie, I haven't yet made it to this one.

Posted by: Drew Morton at July 27, 2010 11:13 AM

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Kballs at July 27, 2010 11:29 AM

I love documentaries about nutters. This goes in the Netflix queue.

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 27, 2010 11:52 AM

That's fine, Rowles. You go on thinking he's a nutter and continue in your happy life, developing such useful skills as "managing a website" and "writing." I, on the other hand, will be spending the next few years learning to grow my own food and raise livestock, so that when the world goes to shit and the new currency is bullets and turkey guts, you'll be working for me.

And I'll make you write articles like, "Why Ryan Reynolds was never awesome enough to be on Family Guy."

Posted by: Sbrown at July 27, 2010 11:55 AM

I didn't get the sense that he was 'undermining his own credibility.' Rather, I felt like the message of the movie was- if you think too closely about this stuff, you will literally go insane. If you can't accept that the future might suck and say 'fuck it' and go on with your life, then your knowledge will consume you and you will just totally lose it.

Posted by: Liz at July 27, 2010 12:45 PM

Posted by: Byrd at July 27, 2010 1:00 PM

If Dick Cheney wanted him dead; he would be dead.

Posted by: lol at July 27, 2010 1:03 PM

We aren't that screwed. In net, the book's argument goes:

"If this thing changes (oil-ness - ed), a bunch of other things won't work the same any more. Here's a list. Be afraid."

Or maybe, if the species was clever enough to figure out how to do cool things with cheap, easy oil (Tramp.) we can figure out alternative ways to satisfy our urges now that Gaia's crossing her legs. Or we can maybe adapt to getting (it) a bit less.

There's a common thinking error in this and other predictions of universal doom going back at least to Malthus. One thing changes, while everything else is prevented from adjusting and the system goes to hell. BUT, as anyone who's tried to restrain an enthusiastic panda knows, tie down one part and the other parts adjust. Panda-lust will find a way. (Ack. Oop.)

In practice, Rupert's list of Stuff That Will Fail to Our Doom(tm) is actually a list of things that will adjust as oil gets less available or more expensive. If oil has really peaked, his book is a list of ways someone will get rich finding a non-oil way to do everything he says will go to hell.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at July 27, 2010 1:14 PM

lol:

So true. So very true.

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 27, 2010 2:19 PM

Coincidentally I watched Collapse just this morning! It made me feel really bad for using my treadmill in the air-conditioned comfort of my home while there are beautifully paved running paths all around outside my complex. (I watched it while "working out")
I agree that Ruppert jumped the rails there at the end with that "epiphany". Of course Obama is largely a figure-head, of course the U.S. gov't is too huge and unweildy and corrupt to fend off the problems. That's not news.
What I liked about Ruppert's message wasn't the we're-all-gonna-die part but the idea that as a cheap and efficient fuel becomes less available we're going to have to be more local and our communities will have to become stronger if we want to preserve something approximating our way of life. I think that's actually a hopeful message.

Posted by: king at July 27, 2010 2:25 PM

the idea that as a cheap and efficient fuel becomes less available we're going to have to be more local and our communities will have to become stronger if we want to preserve something approximating our way of life. I think that's actually a hopeful message.

Unless you live in Vegas. Or any other mostly inhabitable part of the country that relies on other parts of the country to produce and export necessities (like water).

And, it only works if choose to start backing away from oil now and slowly, rather than blissfully ignoring the consequences and wait for the abrupt, disrupting crash.

Posted by: Sbrown at July 27, 2010 2:44 PM

Sbrown: I think that crash will be economic and will happen long before we've run out of oil. Our economy is based on cheap, plentiful fuel. The breakdown will start when oil isn't cheap anymore, not when it runs out. We're going to have to take a lot of steps to offset the higher cost of fuel and I think the innovations that come with those steps will help considerably when the oil is gone. I'm not talking about things that haven't been invented yet. I live in an incredibly sunny place, solar panels on the roof of every building isn't that far fetched a step to take. Every region has its own resources. Vegas will adapt or become a much smaller town with far fewer water features (I felt a little dirty watching the fountains at the Bellagio after reading the note in my hotel room practically begging me not to use too much water)

Posted by: king at July 27, 2010 3:23 PM

"Hell, maybe we deserve to collapse because of our collective ibecility."

uhh,

"maybe" ??!??

(see how I used the 'bold' & 'italics' with the expressive punctuation to emphasize the ludicrousness of the understatement I just quoted?
Too much??
I overdid it, didn't I?))

Posted by: abliac at July 27, 2010 5:56 PM

The planet still has massive deposits of fossil fuels, the "peak" (if true at all, where do people get this idea we've already found all of it?) is simply about the easiest, cheapest form... light sweet crude.

As the price of fossil fuels gradually rises the world economy (and technology) will gradually adapt.

No need for doomsday scenarios or panic.

Posted by: Sean at July 27, 2010 6:01 PM

Unfortunately it is an important issue and the mouthpieces discussing it need credibility, so I'll pass. If you want a more reasoned and digestable, yet still entirely disturbing analysis of peak oil, check out the works of Michael T Klare.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175264/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_the_coming_era_of_energy_disasters

Some of that harder-to-get oil has gathered in a large puddle in the Mexican gulf right now. Considering where many of the remaining major deposits are, you can reasonably expect more of those.

We are roughly halfway through our global energy inheritance and guzzling more of it than ever before (90 million barrels a day and rising). If we paid a fair price for it relative to it's value to society, it would be pound for pound more valuable than gold. Everyone saw the tremors the last oil price bubble sent through the world economy in 06-08: that will be an irreversible reality sooner rather than later for reasons of economy and supply, not politics and market manipulation.

I don't believe in doomsday- as much out of hope as fact- but there are major changes on the way in our lifetimes. Given all the aspects of life that depend on the juice, the scale of the required adjustment will only grow larger the longer it is ignored. Attack it now or there will be no time for "gradual".

Posted by: Squirrelgripper at July 27, 2010 7:50 PM

"We are roughly halfway through our global energy inheritance"

Energy? Define that term. Solar is energy, hydroelectric is energy, nuclear is energy, coal, gas, various grades of crude, hydrothermal, technology is always improving... be specific.

And are you saying we've already found all the sources of fossil deposits present?

"If we paid a fair price for it relative to it's value to society, it would be pound for pound more valuable than gold."

That's just a silly comparison. Gold is useless, energy is useful.

"Everyone saw the tremors the last oil price bubble sent through the world economy in 06-08: that will be an irreversible reality sooner rather than later for reasons of economy and supply, not politics and market manipulation."

Despite the fact the spikes you mention (in fact EVERY spike) were the result of politics and market manipulation?

Posted by: Sean at July 27, 2010 8:17 PM

Yeah its too bad all those little dinosaurs had to die to give us oil. Dinosaurs. Really. Oil isnt going to run out the planet is still producing it.

Posted by: Jack Random at July 27, 2010 8:21 PM

@lol and @paddydog- Dont you think that if Dick Cheny wanted him dead, he'd just have been "Van goghed"? I mean Cheney wasn't a good shot before his 6th bypass...

Posted by: Juice in LA at July 27, 2010 8:31 PM

Energy? Define that term.
Poor use of words on my part, read “global inheritance of oil”. Alt energy will certainly help pave the way to a post oil future by reducing it’s consumption for the generation of energy but it won’t help with any of the other non-energy applications for which oil is crucial like plastics, medicines, fertilizers etc. Alternatives can be sought for many of these things, but we are not talking about short term projects.

For example: Sudan relies on on one to two 70,000 tonne tankers of Australian wheat every month to bolster it’s food stocks. How practical is it to replace that with a fleet of sailing ships that can bear only a fraction of that load? Not to mention the task of growing, harvesting and transporting to port the same volume.

And are you saying we've already found all the sources of fossil deposits present?
Yes. Hubbert’s peak theory accounts for rates of discovery and they have been in decline, with most recently discovered deposits being minor relative to global reserves. The majority of oil on the planet has been at least located, if not developed and most of the new deposits coming on line are harder to reach (the thawing Arctic) or more politically volatile places (Nigeria, Russia & Central Asia, the Middle East have the lions share of proven reserves), at development expenses that run at 10’s to 100’s of billions (Deepwater Horizon didn’t just have 5000ft of water to contend with, but 12-13000 ft of bedrock to drill through), that run greater risks of failure during ongoing operations (refer the link above). At the very least, it will be a far more expensive and/or risky exercise than it has been in the last 100-150 years.

That's just a silly comparison. Gold is useless, energy is useful.
The point is about the current economic value of a critical resource vs the economic value of a “useless” resource. Society won’t grind to a halt if we run out of gold (although certain technologies might), but virtually everything stops without oil.
If gold is useless, why is it worth in the range of $500 an ounce, while oil is $70-$80 a barrel? The simple answer is “availability”, but that is based on a short term economic view that doesn’t account for what happens when either resource runs out.

Despite the fact the spikes you mention (in fact EVERY spike) were the result of politics and market manipulation?
My point is that we will reach the stage in the foreseeable future where it won’t be the product of market manipulation, but of a fixed supply of oil growing more scarce and expensive to produce- the irreversible situation. It may have taken 100-150 years of industrial revolution to get to halfway, but that was at rates of consumption nowhere near the current. I would be ecstatic if it took another 100-150 years to use the rest, but there is no cause to believe it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to ogle Blake Lively's fabulous rack.

Posted by: Squirrelgripper at July 27, 2010 9:47 PM

correction: make that gold price in the range of $1000 an ounce.

Posted by: Squirrelgripper at July 27, 2010 10:00 PM

I want to ask this about "global warming," and it's a serious question: It costs a hell of a lot less to air condition my house in summer than to heat it in winter (my January bill can top $500; my July bill just arrived and it was $67, in the middle of a heat wave). I have to assume that is because air conditioning systems use far less electricity than heating systems. If this is true, then wouldn't a warming planet mean we'd use LESS electricity, and burn LESS fossil fuel to produce it? Is warming a GOOD thing?

Posted by: , at July 27, 2010 10:06 PM

The future lies in Unobtainium, everyone knows that. We just need to get it away from those fucking blue cat things.

Posted by: Colonel Miles Quaritch at July 28, 2010 12:26 AM

This is why many socialists and other anti-capitalists have been saying for years that "Capitalism with a human face" cannot solve the energy and ecological crises we are facing in the not so distant future.

We have to move away from Capitalism now, right now, to have any hope of avoiding some very serious consequences. We can discuss the systems we choose to replace that mode of production, but we cannot any longer avoid the problem staring us right in the face; it's Capitalism.

I leave you with a quote Slavoj Zizek left an interviewer in the UK with: "I'll see you in hell...or Communism."

Posted by: Alon at July 28, 2010 1:10 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sugarmomamath. C O M ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A 35+ year old female who is on the "hunt" for a much younger, energetic, willing-to-do-anything male. The cougar can frequently be seen in a padded bra, cleavage exposed, propped up against a swanky bar in San Francisco (or other cities)waiting, watching, calculating; gearing up to sink her claws into an innocent young and strapping buck who happens to cross her path. "Man is cougar's number one prey"

Posted by: mary at July 28, 2010 10:23 AM