The Oil Drum

I recently finished Peter Heather's "Fall the of Roman Empire," and was rather startled to discover that it collapsed in a relatively short period of time (a decade or so).

It had been tottering for a long time, but barbarian incursions delivered the coup de grace.

Timelines are impossible to predict, for several reasons:

1. energy declines are only part of it. Political  responses to declines are even more important. Will the US gracefully live on less income, or will it invade the Middle East and try to control the oil? (we know the answer to that one). Also, as power inexorably flows to the few oil exporters, how will they deal with their profound new power and wealth? (anticipation of which may well be why Bush co decided to off Saddam). How will competitors such as China and the US deal with their competition? If China dumps its dollar holdings and uses it to buy energy, how would the US respond?

2. We can look at the former Soviet Union; who would have predicted that it would collapse at all -- let alone in the spectacular manner in which it happened. (Personal disclosure, I spent much of the '80s studying nuclear deterrence. My professors were outraged when communism collapsed, because their professional trajectories were suddenly irrelevant)

3. I am finishing Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies" 1988. His thesis is that a) societies invest ever more heavily in complexity, and b) the law of diminishing returns impacts these investments, such that soon incredible effort is expended on getting any return at all. GM and Ford are in this boat now; they have sold huge numbers of highly profitable SUVs, and yet they are still going bust. But could any of us predict if and when that will actually happen?

On a larger scale, in 2030 we might be producing two thirds of the energy as now -- gross -- but net may well be much less. Also, we still have to invest in maintaining our present infrastructure,as well as invest in future production and infrastructure. And  that could well be the budget buster. As it is, we seem to be living off debt in many different ways, pushing costs off into the future. At some point these costs have to be paid.

4) The present is qualitatively different from any previous society. Until the industrial revolution, 70 - 90% of all populations were near subsistence farmers, and their lot didn't change all that much from century to century. Now, we are all utterly dependent on what happens in capital markets and energy fields which are distant and opaque.

For all these reasons, we can note the trajectories and try to plan as best we can; but to ask for a rigid timeline is folly.  

The crisis that America faced during the civil war was of a completely different nature, which makes it difficult to make a comparison to the crisis we face now.  However, I believe that the civil war was in fact far less serious.  First of all, it was a localized crisis, rather than a global one.  While that might not have offered much comfort to Americans, it does change the nature of the problem.  Second, most people were engaged in agriculture, which means that they were far more self-sufficient.  Finally, and most importantly, the crisis was a political and moral one, not a question of resources.  Civil war leaders did not face the problem of decreasing fuel supplies, and skyrocketing costs that we will most likely face.  The problem we face will grow worse and worse, while our ability to deal effectively with it will diminish as our fuel supplies decrease.  The civil war was certainly a traumatic time, but it did not spell starvation for millions of people.  This crisis may threaten the lives of billions of people.  

I hope that you are right, of course.  As for the minor archduke, I suppose that that is a contradiction in terms, so I'm sorry about that.  However, on the global scene, he can hardly have been the only reason for the war.  His death incited global powers into a war, but I think most of the strategic reasons for the war were already present, including the unfolding diplomatic battles over middle east oil.  The archduke was just the excuse for the fight.