"I'm really becoming convinced that the wealthy people in America are unconsciencly but collectively working on how to ensure that 10% and maybe 20% of the American population can continue to live the good live no matter how bad it gets."
Bingo! Substitute World for america and you have the big picture. The elite plan for the mid 21st century is for the whole world to look more like Brazil where there are 20 million cars for 190 million people. (Actually it will be worse than that as the human/auto ratio worldwide is already 10:1, the ratio is going to go up, not down. The USA ratio will over decades drift down to the world ratio) After the ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, and tractors are fueled, what liquid fuel remains will go to the rich/well connected/inner party members. Is there any other way it could be? If humans couldn't even share well during the 20th century cheap oil fiesta. there is no way they will be more altruistic on the downslope of Hubbert's peak.
Not that kind of bum...... but in the US one is considered a "bum" if they don't have a car, don't work themselves to death, I define "bum" as doing something like washing windows when money's needed, living in a little place, getting by with little enough income so as to be nontaxable, etc.
You need also to substract the consumption from the army (a big one) and for private jets.
Even if this is the plan A, CTL would be a much better pick for the elites. Especially after you consider the labour required for unit of output for coal vs ethanol. Something tells me that they will try to avoid labor-dependant solutions.
Once you reduce the equation down to massive unemployment and third world style cheap labor, labor is not longer a major problem for this type of solution.
nothing makes me laugh more than people who say once the pie starts to shrink we're gonna be forced to cooperate. Could you have a more flawed, disconnected from verfiable reality understanding of human nature?
It is correct, a shrinking pie forces cooperation. The intresting question is how large the cooperating to compete with others groups are going to be. I am afraid that the nation state will have a rebirth. My best scenario is a EU wide cooperation with nice but perhaps a little frosty diplomatic relations with USA, Russia, China and so on.
I disagree, a shrinking pie increases competition, competition might increase cooperation if there is a clear benefit to those involved in the cooperating party. If however, an individual/group/country/alliance finds it more profitable to go it alone they will do so. In the end the amount of cooperation is directly tied to the amount of benefit for a given size entity.
As for the EU, sorry but I think Europe is screwed. If energy vs food becomes a concern, Europe's population density will cannibalize itself. Next to China and India, Europe is the last place I want to be.
Unfortunately, historically, when scarcity comes into play, humanity has shown to bring out the worst in ourselves more often than the best.
The EU has excess food production capacity. People are paid to dump their excess produce. People are paid not to produce.
The fact that people are more densely packed also means that it will take less energy to carry food and provide services. The fact that there is more rail and other forms of public transport also reduces the transportation problem.
Last but not least, consider France: 76% of their electrical production comes from nuclear, most of the rest from hydro, wind power is still mostly untapped, they are net electricity and food exporters. This is the country from where came the TGV and they have a wide electric railroad network.
If the rest of Europe follows their example, things could end reasonably ok.
The excess food production is the result of Oil and Gas based fertilizers, and pesticides.
Without those products to maintain the conventional farming system, the crop yields of an organic system are anywhere from 23 to 60 percent less over a 30 to 80 year period. With that kind of attrition, do you think the EU would still have the food production capability to have excesses, or more importently even enough for its own population. Furthermore those percentages, are generally in reference to grain production. The attrition gets worse when we consider that food production is even worse for vegatable and fruit production which requires more land usage for fewer pounds of food. The attrition REALLY begins to shine when you consider how much grain production is consumed to provide feed for beef, chicken or other meat products.
So sure if you think that a complete well rounded diet of grain only will sustain a healthy European populace I might cede to you, that pure grain production with organic production methods could stave off starvation for a time in Europe but I doubt it. And eventually lack of nutrients from Vegatable, Fruit, and meat products will cause other issues besides famine.
All that nuclear and hydro energy is worth jack if you can't grow the food to move on those nice rail systems you talk about. And to date, I have not heard of too many alternatives to providing affordable or sustainable sources of fertilizers and pesticides.
Literally, when a car is being driven, or a home is being heated with gas, we driving or heating our future meals away.
And before you think I'm way off base, consider Prof Goose's Energy Crisis Diet
Or even better do a search on Dr Pimentel, or the actual numbers on crop yields of Organic versus non-organic farming, most importantly look at those years over an extended maintained period.
Europe might be leading the way on Energy alternatives, and bravo for them, but they had best be able to secure a source for future fertilizers, and pesticides.
Pesticide feedstock can be secured by market price driven prioritaisation, from remaining oil and gas production or biomass. Nitrogen fertilizer can be manufactured with electricity as the main "raw material". The world is not ending but there is lots that needs to be built and done.
Not meaning to imply the end of the world, however, even with oil and gas prioritization driven by the market the effect on the price of food, and to farmers will hurt. Cheap oil and gas equated to cheap and plentiful crop yields.
As for Nitrogen extraction via electricity, while viable, is still energy intensive. If the whole point is to lower our energy consumption then that would fly in the face of that goal.
From what I understand (and I'm not claiming to be an expert) its pretty commonly agreed here and elsewhere that producing the amounts of energy we consume today in a post peak world is going to be a very tough objective to meet barring some pretty innovative technological breakthroughs.
The general method of attack that I've seen espoused here, and on other forums, is two fold, in that we replace as much non-renewable energy with renewable energy as possible (and many seem to think we can't do a 100% replacement) coupled with a conservation effort to reduce the total energy pool needed to operate a high tech society. If both goals are attacked in tandem, then there is a chance we can maintain a technological society, albeit with a different lifestyle (note I say lifestyle, and not standard of living).
In my opinion the sooner we can ween ourselves off using oil and gas as the common purpose fuel and limit its use to specific enterprises such as cheaply produced fertilizers, pesticides, advanced materials (plastics,lubricants, etc), and advanced fuels for select projects such as space and underwater exploration the better off humanity will be and more importantly the longer the window will be open before an end of oil event.
Ultimately, I'm not a gloom and doomer, in fact I'm very hopeful in many respects. I personally think this coming century will be a make or break period in human history. If we can overcome the energy problem, I honestly think our next step will be a massive push for space. Once we get a move into space we will for all practical purposes in the coming centuries have a limitless supply of quite a few types resources to fund a steadily increasing economic, and human growth trend.
Like my dad has told me since I was old enough to understand some of the advantages of space, "The universe is raining soup out there, we just need to figure out how to build a bowl big enough to go get it".
Some might call me a dreamer, and I would agree they are right, but when you read about things like a planet with rainstorms and lakes of hydrocarbons that once we figure out how to harvest could provide for us for who knows how long, then is it such a bad thing to be dreaming and yet also worried that our current path will preclude that dream?
If we can overcome the energy problem, I honestly think our next step will be a massive push for space.
Ha! Another (potential?) singularitarian here!
However you rightly notice :
producing the amounts of energy we consume today in a post peak world is going to be a very tough objective to meet barring some pretty innovative technological breakthroughs.
Yup, barring "some pretty innovative technological breakthroughs" then WHAT?
May be we should care too for some of the "less favorable" outcomes.
Anyway the casual use of the word "energy" all over these discussions is inappropriate an very misleading because energy cannot be "produced" it is negentropy that we are looking for.
This is not a pedantic minor point, it explains why you can be fooled in believing that :
a planet with rainstorms and lakes of hydrocarbons that once we figure out how to harvest could provide for us...
Because in order to take any advantage of "lakes of hydrocarbons" you have to burn them with oxygen and move the "energy" to the place where you need it (or move the hydrocarbons before the burning).
If those hydrocarbons are located in an "entropy well" with respect to this location of use there is NOTHING you can take advantage of.
Switching back to "lay terms" to explain this, it means that if you have to spend more "energy" to move and/or process the hydrocarbons to the point of use and to supply oxygen (conveniently forgotten because it is "all around in the air"), then you are doomed.
So, may be these "lakes of hydrocarbons" are only a mirage (dunno, I did not make the calculations) as there does not even seem to be any oxygen over there to burn them on site.
This is ABOUT THE SAME with biomass, ethanol, etc... and this is the very topic of all the discussions here.
The fact that some ressource "looks like" an energy source does not mean it is really usable because of too poor EROEI!
Upon further reflection, you are correct. Take the war in Iraq as an example. The U.S. and U.K. cooperated quite well when it came time to steal Iraq's oil at the point of a gun.
Yes, they are "stealing" it just in a rather sophisticated way. Just google "Iraq" and "production sharing agreements." As Jay predicted in 1997 the money from Iraq's oil is now flowing to the friends of George Bush.
A better question to think about might be: did social programs grow out of the US Depression experience?
(yes, elites in any system can skim the cream, but take too much and the masses get "active." You get, for instance, a bonus army camped out in Washington.)
"The U.S. and U.K. cooperated quite well when it came time to steal Iraq's oil at the point of a gun."
This logic is worthy of the Downing Street Memo, as far as fitting inappropriate evidence to the desired ideology.
If you want to look at whether people, PEOPLE, will cooperate or infight during times of privation, than don't use two Imperially minded governments with plenty of assets as your example, even if Stealing MORE assets is their motive.
You might look at Civil War Reconstruction, at Postwar Germany, The Depression or Dustbowl era reactions of communities, and where they pulled together to make it through, as opposed to where they fought, lynched people, and generally fell apart as communities. Surely distressed populations will have examples of both sides, but after all these collapses, these societies did pull back together. I don't believe this happened because of the conveniences of a petroleum or coal energy supply, but because we seem to end up realising every time that we are better able to survive when we keep our groups together and at peace, and to find peace Between neighboring groups.
In fact, I would love to know about how the people are struggling to work together in Iraq now, as many certainly must be doing, while scads of others are joining the ranks of the insurgency- a fine example of countless people being divided and destroyed as a result of our inputs of vast amounts of misdirected energy..
I do agree with you completely about the 'arrangements' that have been taking place re: Iraq's future oil production. Nothing like watching our Government set up yet another stick of dynamite to blow up in our faces..
We will either cooperate or suffer the consequences. I wouldn't be surprised if large numbers of people form co-ops, or communes in order to survive more comfortably. I have a friend who lives with 5 other couples on some land in Oregon. They all tend a large vegetable garden, have their own water supply, their own dwellings w/solar heated water, etc. They will probably be minimally impacted by peak oil (unless roving hords of starving people over-run their land).
My fiance and I are moving to an Ecovillage of 30 families in western NY. There's no point in waiting for things to get hard before making the decision to work together. Might as well do it now so you're experienced in shared responsibility while no one is hungry
Amen. When the pie isn't getting bigger, the only
way to get a bigger piece is to get a piece of
someone else's. And I think I agree with AMPOD,
people will always try to get a bigger piece of
the pie.
I think it's all too easy to make these simplistic judgments about what will happen -- cooperation/conflict, nature/nurture, good/evil, blah, blah, blah. It's pretty obvious that humans and their societies are complex and not one-dimensional. Yes, under certain circumstances, they will tear each other apart. Under other circumstances, they will help each other. Living, as I do, in Vermont, on a smaller and more human scale, I find people are more inclined to lend a hand when it's needed. Then again, it all depends on just how desperate things are or at least how desperate people feel. In larger groups where people don't know each other, they are generally inclined to be more callous. There are plenty of other such factors determining these sorts of outcomes as well. So, while it can seem cool to be flip about it, I think it's just naive.
what liquid fuel remains will go to the rich/well connected/inner party members
I read this kind of prediction a lot but I can't help wondering how it could possibly come about. Who is going to produce and dispense all of these oil products to the fabulously wealthy? Maybe only the fabulously wealthy, themselves, will be employed in the oil industry, including the dispensing of gasoline.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The contents below are paid advertisements. Their appearance does not imply an endorsement by The Oil Drum.
-->
“Pessimism of the Intellect; Optimism of the Will.”
k Nation (Jim Kunstler)
GAIA Host Collective
Bingo! Substitute World for america and you have the big picture. The elite plan for the mid 21st century is for the whole world to look more like Brazil where there are 20 million cars for 190 million people. (Actually it will be worse than that as the human/auto ratio worldwide is already 10:1, the ratio is going to go up, not down. The USA ratio will over decades drift down to the world ratio) After the ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, and tractors are fueled, what liquid fuel remains will go to the rich/well connected/inner party members. Is there any other way it could be? If humans couldn't even share well during the 20th century cheap oil fiesta. there is no way they will be more altruistic on the downslope of Hubbert's peak.
Peter Pan Rat
Even if this is the plan A, CTL would be a much better pick for the elites. Especially after you consider the labour required for unit of output for coal vs ethanol. Something tells me that they will try to avoid labor-dependant solutions.
Once that option is removed, politics will changed quickly, labor unions will be back.
As for the EU, sorry but I think Europe is screwed. If energy vs food becomes a concern, Europe's population density will cannibalize itself. Next to China and India, Europe is the last place I want to be.
Unfortunately, historically, when scarcity comes into play, humanity has shown to bring out the worst in ourselves more often than the best.
The fact that people are more densely packed also means that it will take less energy to carry food and provide services. The fact that there is more rail and other forms of public transport also reduces the transportation problem.
Last but not least, consider France: 76% of their electrical production comes from nuclear, most of the rest from hydro, wind power is still mostly untapped, they are net electricity and food exporters. This is the country from where came the TGV and they have a wide electric railroad network.
If the rest of Europe follows their example, things could end reasonably ok.
Without those products to maintain the conventional farming system, the crop yields of an organic system are anywhere from 23 to 60 percent less over a 30 to 80 year period. With that kind of attrition, do you think the EU would still have the food production capability to have excesses, or more importently even enough for its own population. Furthermore those percentages, are generally in reference to grain production. The attrition gets worse when we consider that food production is even worse for vegatable and fruit production which requires more land usage for fewer pounds of food. The attrition REALLY begins to shine when you consider how much grain production is consumed to provide feed for beef, chicken or other meat products.
So sure if you think that a complete well rounded diet of grain only will sustain a healthy European populace I might cede to you, that pure grain production with organic production methods could stave off starvation for a time in Europe but I doubt it. And eventually lack of nutrients from Vegatable, Fruit, and meat products will cause other issues besides famine.
All that nuclear and hydro energy is worth jack if you can't grow the food to move on those nice rail systems you talk about. And to date, I have not heard of too many alternatives to providing affordable or sustainable sources of fertilizers and pesticides.
Literally, when a car is being driven, or a home is being heated with gas, we driving or heating our future meals away.
And before you think I'm way off base, consider Prof Goose's Energy Crisis Diet
Or even better do a search on Dr Pimentel, or the actual numbers on crop yields of Organic versus non-organic farming, most importantly look at those years over an extended maintained period.
Europe might be leading the way on Energy alternatives, and bravo for them, but they had best be able to secure a source for future fertilizers, and pesticides.
As for Nitrogen extraction via electricity, while viable, is still energy intensive. If the whole point is to lower our energy consumption then that would fly in the face of that goal.
From what I understand (and I'm not claiming to be an expert) its pretty commonly agreed here and elsewhere that producing the amounts of energy we consume today in a post peak world is going to be a very tough objective to meet barring some pretty innovative technological breakthroughs.
The general method of attack that I've seen espoused here, and on other forums, is two fold, in that we replace as much non-renewable energy with renewable energy as possible (and many seem to think we can't do a 100% replacement) coupled with a conservation effort to reduce the total energy pool needed to operate a high tech society. If both goals are attacked in tandem, then there is a chance we can maintain a technological society, albeit with a different lifestyle (note I say lifestyle, and not standard of living).
In my opinion the sooner we can ween ourselves off using oil and gas as the common purpose fuel and limit its use to specific enterprises such as cheaply produced fertilizers, pesticides, advanced materials (plastics,lubricants, etc), and advanced fuels for select projects such as space and underwater exploration the better off humanity will be and more importantly the longer the window will be open before an end of oil event.
Ultimately, I'm not a gloom and doomer, in fact I'm very hopeful in many respects. I personally think this coming century will be a make or break period in human history. If we can overcome the energy problem, I honestly think our next step will be a massive push for space. Once we get a move into space we will for all practical purposes in the coming centuries have a limitless supply of quite a few types resources to fund a steadily increasing economic, and human growth trend.
Like my dad has told me since I was old enough to understand some of the advantages of space, "The universe is raining soup out there, we just need to figure out how to build a bowl big enough to go get it".
Some might call me a dreamer, and I would agree they are right, but when you read about things like a planet with rainstorms and lakes of hydrocarbons that once we figure out how to harvest could provide for us for who knows how long, then is it such a bad thing to be dreaming and yet also worried that our current path will preclude that dream?
Ha! Another (potential?) singularitarian here!
However you rightly notice :
producing the amounts of energy we consume today in a post peak world is going to be a very tough objective to meet barring some pretty innovative technological breakthroughs.
Yup, barring "some pretty innovative technological breakthroughs" then WHAT?
May be we should care too for some of the "less favorable" outcomes.
Anyway the casual use of the word "energy" all over these discussions is inappropriate an very misleading because energy cannot be "produced" it is negentropy that we are looking for.
This is not a pedantic minor point, it explains why you can be fooled in believing that :
a planet with rainstorms and lakes of hydrocarbons that once we figure out how to harvest could provide for us...
Because in order to take any advantage of "lakes of hydrocarbons" you have to burn them with oxygen and move the "energy" to the place where you need it (or move the hydrocarbons before the burning).
If those hydrocarbons are located in an "entropy well" with respect to this location of use there is NOTHING you can take advantage of.
Switching back to "lay terms" to explain this, it means that if you have to spend more "energy" to move and/or process the hydrocarbons to the point of use and to supply oxygen (conveniently forgotten because it is "all around in the air"), then you are doomed.
So, may be these "lakes of hydrocarbons" are only a mirage (dunno, I did not make the calculations) as there does not even seem to be any oxygen over there to burn them on site.
This is ABOUT THE SAME with biomass, ethanol, etc... and this is the very topic of all the discussions here.
The fact that some ressource "looks like" an energy source does not mean it is really usable because of too poor EROEI!
Upon further reflection, you are correct. Take the war in Iraq as an example. The U.S. and U.K. cooperated quite well when it came time to steal Iraq's oil at the point of a gun.
Yes, they are "stealing" it just in a rather sophisticated way. Just google "Iraq" and "production sharing agreements." As Jay predicted in 1997 the money from Iraq's oil is now flowing to the friends of George Bush.
A better question to think about might be: did social programs grow out of the US Depression experience?
(yes, elites in any system can skim the cream, but take too much and the masses get "active." You get, for instance, a bonus army camped out in Washington.)
This logic is worthy of the Downing Street Memo, as far as fitting inappropriate evidence to the desired ideology.
If you want to look at whether people, PEOPLE, will cooperate or infight during times of privation, than don't use two Imperially minded governments with plenty of assets as your example, even if Stealing MORE assets is their motive.
You might look at Civil War Reconstruction, at Postwar Germany, The Depression or Dustbowl era reactions of communities, and where they pulled together to make it through, as opposed to where they fought, lynched people, and generally fell apart as communities. Surely distressed populations will have examples of both sides, but after all these collapses, these societies did pull back together. I don't believe this happened because of the conveniences of a petroleum or coal energy supply, but because we seem to end up realising every time that we are better able to survive when we keep our groups together and at peace, and to find peace Between neighboring groups.
In fact, I would love to know about how the people are struggling to work together in Iraq now, as many certainly must be doing, while scads of others are joining the ranks of the insurgency- a fine example of countless people being divided and destroyed as a result of our inputs of vast amounts of misdirected energy..
I do agree with you completely about the 'arrangements' that have been taking place re: Iraq's future oil production. Nothing like watching our Government set up yet another stick of dynamite to blow up in our faces..
Bob Fiske
way to get a bigger piece is to get a piece of
someone else's. And I think I agree with AMPOD,
people will always try to get a bigger piece of
the pie.