Hello Stuart,

Thxs again for your work!  So the US consumption dropped just a little, but I surmise it was mostly 'painless' conservation where, for the large part, people just planned their auto errand trips around town just a little more carefully.  If instead, a huge Energy Reform Policy [ala Hirsch Report] had been passed in Congress to rebuild the railroads and mass-transit [ala AlanfromBigEasy]-- the energy required to start accomplishing this, on top of the normal economic activity--would have probably reversed this percentage change bigtime.

The converse of this is China.  If China had resisted the auto-craze, and instead, kept on the path of bicycles and mass-transit-- their percentage growth in oil consumption would have been much less.

It will take huge amounts of energy to re-engineer for the next paradigm if we wish to do it peacefully, yet every day we globally build and enlarge this faulty infrastructure.  It would be much better for the world to proactively start choking production; to force an early Hubbert downslope vs. continuing the Fiesta, then having the geologic downslope imposed by detritus entropy. The production plateau, although reassuring, is just a short timeframe abberration-- it cannot last the twenty years or more that the SAIC Hirsch Report recommends to achieve maximum mitigation.  The population Overshoot continues too, which is probably the worst force of all.

Solid and wise world leadership is required to peaceably guide the masses in the optimum Powerdown direction and voluntary population controls.  As mentioned before by some other poster--we need a bunch of Winston Churchills who can only offer us 'blood, toil, sweat,and tears'.  Since this does not seem likely, I fear the Thermo-Gene Collision is only gathering strength.

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

but I surmise it was mostly 'painless' conservation where, for the large part, people just planned their auto errand trips around town just a little more carefully
I think probably the better picture is that the wealthier classes made no effort to conserve whatsoever, and the poor conserved because they couldn't afford gas. I doubt it was 'painless' to the latter. A tiny percentage of peak-oilers and environmentalists were probably conserving beyond what they had to.
Hello Stuart,

Yep, that is the big question: what is the best way to help those that have economically fallen off the bottom rung of the detritus ladder?  Bereft Indian farmers self-ingesting pesticide, newborns being found dead in the Zimbabwe sewers, the crisis in Sudan, people freezing from lack of natgas heat...on and on until the mind reels.  Yet, detritus entropy dictates that this will only get worse with the passage of time.  The 'trickle down' theory doesn't apply to energy as it can only be burned once.

When the US welfare and Social Security system collapses: how will we treat our elderly, sick, and disabled?  The recent EnergyBulletin article talks about the possible future difficulty in replacing a worn-out water heater--How about the decision of choosing between feeding Grandpa or feeding your child?  Will it be wiser to spend your money on family health insurance vs. spending it on heating oil when it is bitterly cold outside?  What percentage of Americans will take in another family that cannot afford their own housing and the energy to run it?  How willing are we to decrease from using 25% of the world's oil to the world average?  Isn't that inherently fair?

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

If only the pope and other influential Christian leaders (e.g.: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, etc.) would thunder from the pulpit about these things....  After all, compassion for the vulnerable, and a stern insistence that the privileged make personal sacrifices on their behalf, WAS a core teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

I've been frantically trying to get the attention of influential Christians in my own little corner of the world, but, alas, to little if any avail.

People that live in desert cities should probably think about leaving. They are one of the most energy intensive places to live and property values are probably going to plummet once oil shortages begin.
Stuart,
Are you suggesting that, with oil production at a plateau, if the U.S. poor, middle and/or upper class, and industry conserved say 2% to 6% a year we could have a reasonable chance of avoiding a catastrophic situation?

Or is the plateau model one that leads to a cliff?

Also, sometime would you update the above 9-month center moving average graph.

Your work and wisdom is much appreciated. Your hard data balances off a lot of the doomers' speculation.    

Stuart,

Internal political pressure for subsidization from countries that do NOT subsidize must grow as price pressures hit home to producing countries. As an example see: Bolivia. This is the equivalent of bread and circuses for the Romans.

Do you really believe that Norwegian and Canadian governments would be able to stay in power as the squeeze for their energy sources becomes more intense while at the same time they maintain an equivalency between foriegn and domestic consumers?

 I see Venezuela using it's reserves for political diplomacy, SA keeping the blooming youth population at bay, Nigeria in civil/piracy war. When the benefits are not seen locally chaos reigns. The fungibility of energy MUST lessen as supplies grow tighter and costs increase simply because the local politics are what controls the well heads.

Yes, there will be black markets, wars, trade 'agreements' but it all just adds up to making the energy just a little bit harder to get, a little more expensive as each producer must use more and more of it's resource to assuage the pain at home in order to not be replaced by a more inward looking regime.

Westexas is more on target than even he dreams.

Gary

Don't know about Canada but Norway seems to keep a tight rein on domestic consumption: "The $6.66-a-Gallon Solution; Oil-Rich Norwegians Take World's Highest Gasoline Prices in Stride" By SIMON ROMERO (NYT) April 30, 2005, Saturday.  Probably well over $7 by now...
The Canadian Federal Government signed away its rights to legislate preferential access or pricing of Canadian crude oil and natural gas when it signed the FTA and successor NAFTA agreements. Further, under clauses in Chapter 6, Canada cannot reduce its exports to the US to meet a shortfall in supply unless it reduces its own consumption in direct proportion.

While Canada produces more than it consumes, it exports most of that production (about 70%) to the US. To meet its own requirements it imports about half of what it consumes from off shore suppliers, primarily Europe. This liability is shared unequally. Western Canada is supplied wholly from Canadian sources (primarily Alberta), while Eastern Canada is supplied primarily from imports. There is currently no crude oil pipeline connecting western and eastern Canada that traverses wholly on Canadian territory; the only east-west connectors pass through the USA.

When it comes to energy, geopolitics can override national self interest, especially for a small nation adjacent to the world's greatest military power. In theory Canada could take  back control of is energy supplies by withdrawing from NAFTA, but at what cost? If Canada were to attempt to curtail exports to the US, would the US invoke the Carter Doctrine?

To misquote Mao Tse-Tung (or so I was told when I previously posted this quote):

"The only kind of power that ultimately matters in this world is the power that comes out of the barrel of a gun."

Hello WKO,

Your points are extremely valid, and as a US citizen: I apologize for what our misguided leaders have done.  I encourage Canada to withdraw from NAFTA if your country starts a huge biosolar habitat effort to do your best to extend your remaining supplies for internal use only for decades.  This shrinkage in energy shared carrying-capacity to the US will help jumpstart conservation and the building of biosolar habitats in the NE & NW parts of the US, maybe elsewhere inside the US, too.  The Carter Doctrine is only enforceable if our military has lots of energy, and the military knows that attacking Canada would be pointless because you could easily have detrito-terrorists constantly blowing up the pipelines and powerlines running south.  The US & Canadian military should both understand that setting up mutual Earthmarines to protect the biosolars is much more energy efficient, humane, and protective of biodiversity and existing infrastructure than a continental war.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Hey man, a deal's a deal.  Why even talk about invading Canada?  Doesn't it mostly just seem to be another State anyway?  Dare I say "puppet on a string?"

Why apologize for US actions?  If Canada perceives it's sitting on the short end, who's to blame?

It is possible US usage could be inhibited by a currency collapse. Canada has to sell to the US at the market price-demand destruction on a major scale will occur in the USA if the currency collapses. It is unclear at this point if US citizens would support a military attack against Canada to seize oil reserves (it is felt to be unlikely).
Hello Brian T,

I cannot imagine the average US citizen being for our B-52s doing cluster-bombing runs on Canadian cities ala Dresden, nor for a blitzkreig military thrust to secure the Canadian energy resources.  I would rather sweat to death in Phx than see our military attack Canada.  The US should first prefer internal detrito-civil war between native-energy exporting states [Tx,La, etc] and non-energy states [Wa,Ma, etc] than to us attacking Canada or any other country cutting off our imports [as they inevitably will].  If our country adopts the 'Nuke their Ass--I want Gas' mindset of the '3 Days of the Condor' scenario and is willing to kill Billions for the non-negotiable American way of Life--I am ashamed to be an American.  If all Americans understood Peakoil, we would proudly Powerdown from the 9gal/day avg to the Bangladeshi avg of 2cups/day, but Powerup biosolar energies to the maximum.  Our wasteful burning of 25% of the world total detritus energy is unsustainable:  America has a moral obligation to use this wealth to peacefully lead the world into the next paradigm.  We can do it the easy way, or the world will impose it upon us the hard way.  How much blood for oil will be lost before we get smart?

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

If America's politicians were on the ball they would attempt to bring Canada's resources into the US economy by annexing Canada peacefully. I'm not sure if it would be successful, but a large percentage of Canadians would vote to join up with the USA (mainly the ones that hate the weather).Having said this, the percentage (whatever it is) was far higher before GWB came on the scene.

Surely you are joking!!

Give up our funded health care?? Give up our funded pension system? Give up our system or elected representatives who are actually elected by we the people rather then appointed by wealthy corporate lobbyists and then formalized via the electoral process?

What does the USA have to offer? A society engaged in class warfare where the top 25% of the earners get tax breaks and the bottom 25% go homeless? A country overrun by wacky religious fundamentalists? A country that turns its back on science and such scientific findings as global warming? That undermines its educational system, that has the highest incarceration rate in the world, that has a corrupt and biased press, a militaristic society that engages in jihad and crusade, one that condones and encourages state sponsored terror and undermines global institutions and conventions? Why would we want to be part of this?

My fear is that global warming and NG shortages will combine to make the southern states uninhabitable and Americans will migrate north. But you will not like it here at all, honestly. We are all gay and have abortions on demand, we drink mostly tea and we all speak french and our money looks funny.

Given the billions you are investing in Iraq, I suggest you move there.

Do you understand that if Canada was annexed by the US, that the Canadians would control American policy by being the swing voters?
We would have the Candian medicine program overnight. Think what more than a dozen senators would do to the Democratic/Republican balance in the Senate.
No more than Iraq is a swing state now.

Regarding the healthcare - wish I had your optimism! The elites are already busy dismantling the safety net worldwide. USA becoming like Canada - wish that was possible... No, Canada will become like USA, guaranteed.

Americans may find it hard to believe, but few Canadians want to join the US. You should remember that many of the early immigrants to the eastern provinces were "United Empire Loyalists", refugees from the American Revolution. There is a quiet but strong sense of rejection of American vision of the world in many Canadians. If there weren't Canada would have long ago been absorbed into the American Union. We do things diffently here. And don't forget Quebec. Quebecers are more interested in leaving than joining!

Even if Canadians were interested in joining the US, it's unlikely that the current administration would welcome them, since most Canadian provinces would enter as "blue" states. That would upset the current balance of power in the US. It's easier and cheaper for the US to get what it wants by indirect means. Simply threating to slow or halt Canadian (non-energy) exports is enough to terroize Canadian politicians and businessmen into making concessions, but we do tend to be stubbornly difficult about it. There is no need for military intervention.

Most Canadian politicians do not know or are not yet willing to acknowledge it, but energy prices and security are about to become major, divisive issues. When the Canadian government attempted to introduce a two price system and energy security strategy in response to the seventies energy crisis -- the National Energy Policy -- Alberta rose up in arms. There is no dirtier word in Alberta than "NEP".

At that time Albertans promised to "let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark". In a sense, NAFTA has become the instrument to make good on that promise. Albertans may yet get their wish.

    Why should Canada be expected to obey NAFTA agreements when the US has not met agreements on the importing of lumber from Canada?
Until this clause in NAFTA is actually challenged it is difficult to say whether it will be honoured or not. Energy has already been invoked as a possible means of retaliating against US' softwood trade barrier - it is very very unilkely to be used. Most operations in ALberta/BC are US owned and the simple fact is that Americans have the cash to pay top dollar and, oh yeah, pipelines in place to ensure prompt delivery payment and return on investment. There just ain't no better customer. Personally I don't see the NAFTA deal as much of a problem for Canada. So long as we are a net exporter high domestic energy prices will encourage further conservation. This is simply necessary given the eventual realities all human society will face. Of course it is possible that the US will seek to control Canada more directly than it already thinks it does. Any increase of political control will be heavily resisted by domestic US industries since they are the primary shareholders in our economy and don't want to be undermined by their own government's market intervention. Then there's the fact that like any proud citizen of a distinct nation there will be resistance. Some may say we'd fight for oil, water and wheat but this would only be a means to the end of self determination. When push comes to shove over material resources could our red, white and blue brothers engineer a little 21st century Anschluss of Canada? They haven't won a war against us so far...
This is what I think WILL happen -- the middle class will carry on as usual -- the only difference is that the middle class will shrink, hunks dropping off like pieces off a melting glacier. What life will be like for those at the bottom -- well, not to worry, Katrina shows that we have a government that cares.
Bob, not sure if you spotted them but I posted some links for you at this other thread on water savings.

On this...
If China had resisted the auto-craze, and instead, kept on the path of bicycles and mass-transit-- their percentage growth in oil consumption would have been much less.

Are we really sure that its all down to China adopting a car culture?
I have a hazy recollection of reading somewhere (I'll try to find later) that it might be the mechanisation of Agriculture in China that accounts for a large proportion of fuel use. As people move from the country to the city in search of a 'better job' those fields need a labour replacement - anyone with better info?
And, all that plastic in US shops comes from somewhere...
I think we also need to check what Chinas progress/policy on rail actually is.

Also, what is the most appropriate statistic to compare countries?  The frequently displayed 'country consumption' type graphs or a 'per capita' graph? Or both?

On oil consumption in China:

According to Societe Generale, a major French bank, the spike in chinese oil consumption in 2004 and less so in 2005 was due to running thousands of extra diesel generators to meet zooming electricity demand. As China rushes to complete 500+ coal-fired power stations before the decade is over, such demand will certainly diminish and eventually reverse.

Also, is it correct that oil consumption increased in 2005 in China?  Article from "People's Daily":

http://english.people.com.cn/200602/03/eng20060203_239901.html

excerpt:

"China's oil consumption and dependence on imports decreased last year as a result of the government's energy-saving efforts. The National Development and Reform Commission said recently that China's dependence on oil imports was 42.9 per cent in 2005, 2.2 percentage points lower than in 2004. It also said China consumed 318 million tons of oil last year, 1.08 million tons less than in 2004....."

Re: "As China rushes to complete 500+ coal-fired power stations before the decade is over...."

As far as climate change goes, I guess we can kiss the Planet goodbye (a least as we've known it).

China plans to quadruple the size of their economy by 2020, while "only" doubling their use of coal.
I guess they plan to sequester the CO2 emissions as soda pop fizz...burp.
I think they need to expand their rail system.

Adult Diaper Sales Soar in China

Alongside food and fire crackers, Chinese are adding a new item to their lunar New Year shopping: Adult diapers. Sales have soared ahead of the holiday as travelers prepare for long trips home aboard trains so crowded that even the toilets are jammed with people, newspapers said Tuesday.

In Foshan, a southern industrial city with a large migrant population, supermarkets report diaper sales have risen 50 percent since the main travel season began on Jan. 14, the papers said.

The problem arises from the need to sell twice as many tickets as there are train seats to accommodate the crush of travelers. Those without seats must find some place -- any place -- to put themselves, including in overhead racks, between cars, and in the usually stinking toilets.

Just purchasing a ticket can mean lining up for hours.

China Daily reports that some passengers have mental breakdowns from the conditions on the trains, and throw themselves from the cars.

Let's bring in another 100 million immigrants so we can be more like China.
Recognising the strain that the system is under, China plans to increase the rail network (NB: older report)

The plan envisages (i) building 6,000 km of new lines to access
previously unserved areas, with the network reaching 74,000 km; (ii) providing 3,000 km of
double lines, and electrifying 5,000 km of key lines to increase capacity; and (iii) increasing
operating speeds on 5,000 km, with the total length of such lines reaching 15,000 km.

While it is true that there are large investments in the Highway system

Also, China is building a superhighway system, "which is where the bulk of the world's concrete is going today," says Schwartz. China, by one estimate, is now putting $40 billion a year into road construction. At the same time, China is overhauling its rail system, building separate lines for freight and passenger traffic.

In some cities they are introducing Rapid Buses with dedicated lanes, while encouraging smaller car use as...
... private cars in China nearly tripled between 2000 and 2005, from 6.25 million to 17 million. These vehicles now account for one-third of all oil imports. High vehicle fuel consumption has also contributed to the nation's oil shortage, with Chinese models manufactured before 2001 guzzling 20-30 (?) more fuel than their foreign counterparts.

66% of cars have a capacity less then 1.6 L and recently a consumption tax of 20% has been applied to large capacity (ie over 4 L) cars.

Not saying it's rosy, but... what's happening where you are?

As long the world's superpower is controlled by greedy criminals there isn't going to be any humane solution. We just have to have faith in the free market. Actually it isn't a free market because the government's $2.7 trillion budget is an energy burning machine. It needs to be seen as a genocidal dieoff machine. TPTB's greed for wealth and power is going to kill us. What if yeast had nukes?
There is another element to factor in: large corporations taking note of the price of oil and changing how they operate.  Retailers and manufacturers shipping more by train than truck. The freight rail companies making changes of their own, and so forth. I can't quantify it, but a cursory read of the Wall Street Journal finds all sorts of stories about companies changing their ways.