Warning: Peak Oil Is Here Now

[UndercoverElephant]

have you invented a time machine mr cook?

if not how do you borrow from the future?

When our government borrows money, racking up a giant national debt, it is borrowing from the future. It is assuming that it can pay off the debt out of the proceeds of future economic growth which itself is dependent on increased consumption/production of goods. This system only works if you assume that an infinite amount of economic growth, consumption and production is possible. If we have passed peak oil then it becomes impossible to grow your way out of the debt trap.

[fluffy666]

If/when oil costs $250 a barrel, who will be able to afford to buy it?

Oil at $100/barrel means that the oil for my commute takes about 2% of take home pay, including taxes. $250 /barrel might bring this to 3-4%. So I, like many in the West at least, can handle $250 oil.

The problem isn't so much that - although it doesn't help - it's more:

- The price rises progressively shutting out the lower-paid/3rd world.

- The potential for small scale shortages causing a 'run' on petrol stations. The system can go down in a day if everyone fills their tank at once

- The fact that non-OPEC exports are already in sharp decline (Norway, Mexico, and Russia being the biggies).

If we had a coherent strategy to replace 70-80% of our oil use over the next couple of decades then we would be fine, and this is perfectly possible. The problem is that planning is seen as universally bad, no matter how obvious the problem.

[UndercoverElephant]

Oil at $100/barrel means that the oil for my commute takes about 2% of take home pay, including taxes. $250 /barrel might bring this to 3-4%. So I, like many in the West at least, can handle $250 oil.

Sure, some rich westerners will be able to take the increase, and it is they who will buy a lot of the remaining oil. But we were talking about whether global peak oil had ocurred, not whether or not fluffy666 would be one of the priviledged few who can afford to continue to consume very expensive oil well after the peak.

The problem isn't so much that - although it doesn't help - it's more:

- The price rises progressively shutting out the lower-paid/3rd world.

- The potential for small scale shortages causing a 'run' on petrol stations. The system can go down in a day if everyone fills their tank at once

- The fact that non-OPEC exports are already in sharp decline (Norway, Mexico, and Russia being the biggies).

If we had a coherent strategy to replace 70-80% of our oil use over the next couple of decades then we would be fine, and this is perfectly possible. The problem is that planning is seen as universally bad, no matter how obvious the problem.

The problem which underlies all of it is ideological. For the whole of human history, we have struggled to control our environment. It has been a case of pulling through somehow, in the hope that we can overcome the problems and that our descendents can live in a better world. This time the problem we are trying overcome is our own success - our success at dominating our environment, reproducing and increasing our standard of living. This time the enemy is ourselves. No previous human civilisation has had to face a threat like this [ETA: well, some did, and they all disappeared soon after] and none had the tools to deal with it. Everything is geared towards an increasing population, an increasing standard of living, increased consumption, increased control over nature, etc... We need to replace economic growth as the goal of the system with environmental (and therefore economic) sustainability. As things currently stand, this view is seen as something believed in by hippies, hopeless environmental idealists and mad scientists, not normal people or mainstream politicians and economists. Left and right argue about how best to achieve economic growth and increased standards of living. Neither are interested in sustainability.

In other words, it is not that planning is seen as universally bad, but that the plans that emerge are based on the wrong goal. The plans are designed to increase economic growth. What is needed is a plan for national and global sustainability. These two different goals are not reconcilable. You can't have a plan which aims for both of them.

Edited August 4, 2009 by UndercoverElephant

[Guest Steve Cook]

have you invented a time machine mr cook?

if not how do you borrow from the future?

FRB

Or, if you are a CB, you dont even need a FR

Edited August 4, 2009 by Steve Cook

[fluffy666]

In other words, it is not that planning is seen as universally bad, but that the plans that emerge are based on the wrong goal. The plans are designed to increase economic growth. What is needed is a plan for national and global sustainability. These two different goals are not reconcilable. You can't have a plan which aims for both of them.

You could just about say that for perhaps 1 billion people, growth does not need to be a priority. However, what about the 5.5 billion who want development?

[Guest Steve Cook]

Sure, some rich westerners will be able to take the increase, and it is they who will buy a lot of the remaining oil. But we were talking about whether global peak oil had ocurred, not whether or not fluffy666 would be one of the priviledged few who can afford to continue to consume very expensive oil well after the peak.

The problem which underlies all of it is ideological. For the whole of human history, we have struggled to control our environment. It has been a case of pulling through somehow, in the hope that we can overcome the problems and that our descendents can live in a better world. This time the problem we are trying overcome is our own success - our success at dominating our environment, reproducing and increasing our standard of living. This time the enemy is ourselves. No previous human civilisation has had to face a threat like this [ETA: well, some did, and they all disappeared soon after] and none had the tools to deal with it. Everything is geared towards an increasing population, an increasing standard of living, increased consumption, increased control over nature, etc... We need to replace economic growth as the goal of the system with environmental (and therefore economic) sustainability. As things currently stand, this view is seen as something believed in by hippies, hopeless environmental idealists and mad scientists, not normal people or mainstream politicians and economists. Left and right argue about how best to achieve economic growth and increased standards of living. Neither are interested in sustainability.

In other words, it is not that planning is seen as universally bad, but that the plans that emerge are based on the wrong goal. The plans are designed to increase economic growth. What is needed is a plan for national and global sustainability. These two different goals are not reconcilable. You can't have a plan which aims for both of them.

yes

Indeed, plan or not, nature will insist on sustainability. All that planning will achieve at this late stage is the degree to how painful will be the transition to that sustainabilty

Edited August 4, 2009 by Steve Cook

[snowflux]

When our government borrows money, racking up a giant national debt, it is borrowing from the future. It is assuming that it can pay off the debt out of the proceeds of future economic growth which itself is dependent on increased consumption/production of goods. This system only works if you assume that an infinite amount of economic growth, consumption and production is possible. If we have passed peak oil then it becomes impossible to grow your way out of the debt trap.

Yes, the trouble is that for good evolutionary reasons, we all tend to be over-optimistic. We have an inclination to always believe that our situation will improve in the future, and so we borrow, as individuals and collectively, on that basis. Cheap credit, based on exponentially increasing economic growth and energy consumption, has allowed us to indulge our optimism to an dangerous extent. This cannot be sustained indefinitely.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Yes, the trouble is that for good evolutionary reasons, we all tend to be over-optimistic. We have an inclination to always believe that our situation will improve in the future, and so we borrow, as individuals and collectively, on that basis. Cheap credit, based on exponentially increasing economic growth and energy consumption, has allowed us to indulge our optimism to an dangerous extent. This cannot be sustained indefinitely.

yes

[UndercoverElephant]

You could just about say that for perhaps 1 billion people, growth does not need to be a priority.

Growth appears to be a priority for most of the 1 billion also.

However, what about the 5.5 billion who want development?

Most of them will see their hopes shattered.

[Game_Over]

yes

Indeed, plan or not, nature will insist on sustainability. All that planning will achieve at this late stage is how painful will be the transition to that sustainabilty

Agreed

'In a world in which irreplaceable natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate we have a duty to our children and future generations to move towards economic growth which is socially, environmentally and economically sustainable in the long-term, rather than the present ‘boom and bust’ policies.'

This is a direct quote from a BNP economic policy statement by the way.

[UndercoverElephant]

Agreed

'In a world in which irreplaceable natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate we have a duty to our children and future generations to move towards economic growth which is socially, environmentally and economically sustainable in the long-term, rather than the present ‘boom and bust’ policies.'

This is a direct quote from a BNP economic policy statement by the way.

It doesn't quite hit the nail on the head though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth

Economic growth is an increase in activity in an economy. It is often measured as the rate of change of gross domestic product (GDP). Economic growth refers only to the quantity of goods and services produced; it says nothing about the way in which they are produced. Economic development, a related term, refers to change in the way goods and services are produced; positive economic development involves the introduction of more efficient or "productive" technologies or forms of social organisation.

Economic growth can either be positive or negative. Negative growth can also be referred to by saying that the economy is shrinking. Negative growth is associated with economic recession and economic depression.

You can't have "sustainable economic growth." It's an oxymoron. Sustainability means that we aim NOT to increase the amount of goods produced. It means we have to produce and consume LESS than we currently do. It means making things which last instead of things which are thrown away after two years because they are broken or out of date. It means re-using things until they can no longer be re-used. This flies in the face of modern economic thinking. The powers-that-be want us to throw stuff away and go out and buy new stuff. Hey, if everybody did this, the global economy would boom! That was the whole point of the fiscal stimulus wasn't it? Give 'em some money and ask 'em to go out and spend it. Doesn't matter if they spend it on useless crap that they don't need, because at least somebody was employed making the useless crap.

[fluffy666]

Most of them will see their hopes shattered.

So why would people go for this 'sustainable' option? Effectively telling the vast majority of the world's population that they can't expect anything better?

The amount of energy available through Nuclear fission (never mind fusion) is easily capable of giving the entire world US levels of energy consumption for the foreseeable future. Given sufficient energy, issues of water and food availability are fixable - as are indeed all problems of the physical environment, which essentially boil down to energy availability. And raising the standard of living of people (and especially urbanisation) leads to reductions in family size and hence population growth.

The reason we are not doing this is mostly to do with politics combined with simple minded lassiez faire economics.

The whole idea of sustainability as commonly understood seems to refer to some pre-fossil-fuel 'utopia' which has never existed; and any attempt to bring it about would be, as far as I can tell, genocidally catastrophic; we are talking about at least a 50% planet-wide population reduction, to go back to 'local self-sufficient communities'. Never mind the implied back-breaking labour, low life expectancy, high infant mortality and vulnerability to crop failure that this implies. Of course, some members of the upper classes seem to like such a scenario.

And, of course, although you could perhaps force people to abandon technology, putting that knowledge back in the box would be impossible - especially given that any 'enforcers' of this low-tech society would quickly find themselves outgunned by any country deciding to re-industrialise.

If we do really want a sustainable, peaceful world than the only way we can feasibly go is up - and that means higher technology and more intense power sources. We have reached a point where we simply cannot go back.

[Game_Over]

It doesn't quite hit the nail on the head though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth

You can't have "sustainable economic growth." It's an oxymoron. Sustainability means that we aim NOT to increase the amount of goods produced. It means we have to produce and consume LESS than we currently do. It means making things which last instead of things which are thrown away after two years because they are broken or out of date. It means re-using things until they can no longer be re-used. This flies in the face of modern economic thinking. The powers-that-be want us to throw stuff away and go out and buy new stuff. Hey, if everybody did this, the global economy would boom! That was the whole point of the fiscal stimulus wasn't it? Give 'em some money and ask 'em to go out and spend it. Doesn't matter if they spend it on useless crap that they don't need, because at least somebody was employed making the useless crap.

It sums up the position of Loony left-wing eco-fascists pretty accurately I think.

The Nazis also longed for a return to a simple, pure agrarian exsistence

Unfortunately for this plan to succeed a large number of people have to be disposed of, one way or another.

[gravity always wins]

No doubt when we used wood as fuel and for building houses, wagons and ships, someone was predicting 'Peak Wood'

Just goes to show how most of what you write is based upon a very limited knowledge of the subject you write about.

From the Book "The end of oil"

"The year is 1712...........England is still in a fuel crisis. The rapidly industrialising country has used up most of its firewood and is now utterly dependent on coal......."

Nuff said.

[snowflux]

... (never mind fusion) ...

Indeed. In terms of your fire analogy, the fusion fire extinguisher is the one that's bolted to the floor, sealed with superglue and filled with an unknown liquid.

[snowflux]

It sums up the position of Loony left-wing eco-fascists pretty accurately I think.

The Nazis also longed for a return to a simple, pure agrarian exsistence

Unfortunately for this plan to succeed a large number of people have to be disposed of, one way or another.

Ad hominem, association fallacy. Fail.

[UndercoverElephant]

So why would people go for this 'sustainable' option?

Because you cannot negotiate with reality? Except most people aren't interested in reality, are they?

Effectively telling the vast majority of the world's population that they can't expect anything better?

No, telling them they can probably expect worse.

The amount of energy available through Nuclear fission (never mind fusion) is easily capable of giving the entire world US levels of energy consumption for the foreseeable future.

Sorry, but that is pure fantasy. The economically-recoverable uranium isn't going to last more than about twenty years. The amount of energy recoverable isn't even enough to keep the lights on in the western world, let alone support US-levels of energy consumption worldwide.

This problem is about a hundred times more serious than you think it is.

[UndercoverElephant]

blah blah....eco-fascists...blah blah...

Oh yes, I remember you from before now. I remember the "eco-fascist" tripe, and how several people told you you were being a complete twit. Seems you don't learn much.

[fluffy666]

Sorry, but that is pure fantasy. The economically-recoverable uranium isn't going to last more than about twenty years. The amount of energy recoverable isn't even enough to keep the lights on in the western world, let alone support US-levels of energy consumption worldwide.

Would you like to back up that statement? Bearing in mind the person you are talking to may be a tad more geologically literate than yourself?

[tedies friend]

We then have the wildcard of global population decreasing. If every country converted to a western birth rate of about 1.75 per woman we would see the population decrease by 50% every 5 generations (so every 150 years the population halves).

It wont decrease, it will increase, the cultures that have have negative population growth are by definition dying, the ones with expanding populations will replace them, do the math

[Game_Over]

Ad hominem, association fallacy. Fail.

Given that some posters well known views on the 'perfect' society are very similar to that of the Nazis and their means of achieving this society is by enforced population control in order to create an intellectually superior 'master race' I don't think my description of this viewpoint as Fascist is either inaccurate or unreasonable.

And I'm not looking for an argument either, because I can't be bothered TBH

I am really just pointing out the blindingly obvious to those who are so intelligent that they can't see the wood for the trees.

'Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.'

[Game_Over]

Just goes to show how most of what you write is based upon a very limited knowledge of the subject you write about.

From the Book "The end of oil"

"The year is 1712...........England is still in a fuel crisis. The rapidly industrialising country has used up most of its firewood and is now utterly dependent on coal......."

Nuff said.

Am I supposed to have read this book?

What you appear to be saying is that 'peak wood' occurred in 1712 and yet 300 years later we are not all living in caves.

When did 'peak coal' occur then?

[Game_Over]

Oh yes, I remember you from before now. I remember the "eco-fascist" tripe, and how several people told you you were being a complete twit. Seems you don't learn much.

Sorry, but I don't remember you from 'before'

When people are planning to wipe out half the human population and force the other half to try and survive as subsistence farmers, I call that fascism.

I think this is what Pol Pot did in Cambodia.

In short, the loony left-wing, eco-fascist argument hasn't changed and neither has my reaction or opposition to it.

[snowflux]

Given that some posters well known views on the 'perfect' society are very similar to that of the Nazis and their means of achieving this society is by enforced population control in order to create an intellectually superior 'master race' I don't think my description of this viewpoint as Fascist is either inaccurate or unreasonable.

And I'm not looking for an argument either, because I can't be bothered TBH

I am really just pointing out the blindingly obvious to those who are so intelligent that they can't see the wood for the trees.

'Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.'

Your "arguments" are usually nothing other than name-calling. Just go away, why don't you?

[gravity always wins]

Am I supposed to have read this book?

The same information is widely available to anyone with a passing interest in energy. Try Google.

What you appear to be saying is that 'peak wood' occurred in 1712 and yet 300 years later we are not all living in caves.

You ridiculed the idea of peak wood, I merely pointed out your ignorance in this matter.

When did 'peak coal' occur then?

I wasn't aware it had we were talking about wood - remember?

Nuff said.