104 comments on Who has to conserve how much?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
104 comments on Who has to conserve how much?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
- An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation
- The Future of European Transport: iTREN-2030
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Pessimism of the Intellect; Optimism of the Will.”
—Antonio Gramsci
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
"The only kind of power that ultimately matters in this world is the power that comes out of the barrel of a gun."
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?
Why apologize for US actions? If Canada perceives it's sitting on the short end, who's to blame?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.