<Liberal markets create an addiction to gas - the Oil Drum in the Financial TimesThe Oil DrumWhat Are Your Energy Policy Recommendations?>
<DrumBeat: February 1, 2007DrumBeatDrumBeat: February 3, 2007>

153 comments on DrumBeat: February 2, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Edgy on February 2, 2007 - 9:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Encourage behavior you want more of and discourage what you don't want: public transportation becomes heavily subsidized, moving to no charge eventually; all non-emergency business close on Sundays (like the good ole days); increase air travel tax; turn yards into vegetable gardens; subsidize bicycles; remove the tax break for families who bear more than 2 kids and any family with more than 2 now who have more; tax meat...

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
abelardlindsay on February 2, 2007 - 10:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It's almost as if you people think that peak oil is some kind of voluntary politically progressive phenomenon. Oil production will be 50% less globally in 17 years at a 4% annual decline rate.

The best thing that could happen right now, for the U.S at least, would be for most of the world to experience a re-birth in old-school maoism. China used so much less energy when they were true communists. Mugabe and Chavez are a good start.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ImSceptical on February 2, 2007 - 2:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Where do you get the 4% decline figure? Out of the money tree?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
abelardlindsay on February 2, 2007 - 4:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

http://www.aspo-usa.com/proceedings/powerpoint/The%20Peak%20Oil%20Contex...

* Global annual decline rate: 4% - 6% / year?

So 4% is actually on the optimistic side.
Calculation is ln(.50)/ln(.96) =~ 17 for 6% ln(.50)/ln(.94) = 11.2 years. This is assuming we are past peak of course.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ImSceptical on February 3, 2007 - 3:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

My, you are good, aren't you. Did somebody teach you about logarithms recently? Since quantities aren't logarithmic, the calculation you provided is nonsense.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Pitt the Elder on February 3, 2007 - 4:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Since quantities aren't logarithmic, the calculation you provided is nonsense.

Your objection makes no sense, a fact which is easy to see if you just plug his numbers back in:

4% decline for 17 years = (0.96)^17 = 0.499587 = 50% less

Tag him for basing the calculation on a wild-ass guess, sure, but the calculation itself is correct.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Aniya on February 2, 2007 - 11:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi abelard,

I appreciate your point: "Oil production will be 50% less globally in 17 years at a 4% annual decline rate."

The rates are quite dramatic, no matter what they are, really (it seems to me). That said, I'd characterize the attempt here ("thought-experiment") as more like an effort to see what ideas and plans might be put forth, using "voluntary", and perhaps even "politically progressive" as part of the cultural components of dealing with the hard geologic facts.

In terms of China:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
"The plan is generally agreed to have failed in its intentions, leading to millions of deaths plus widespread economic dislocation, and is widely regarded both in and out of China as an unmitigated policy disaster."

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.