<Flesh on the bones of Mexican oil productionThe Oil DrumDrumBeat: February 8, 2007>

54 comments on Megan Quinn of Community Solution: What Can We Learn from Cuba's Response to a Lack of Resources?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

abelardlindsay on February 8, 2007 - 3:01am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

Yep, Cuba is a peak oil miracle... except that...

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html
Oil - consumption: 204,000 bbl/day (2004 est.)
Natural gas - consumption: 704 million cu m (2004)
Population: 11,382,820 (July 2006 est.)
.0179 barrels per capita / per day

Which puts them on a per capita oil consumption basis about where Mexico is!
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html
Population: 107,449,525 (July 2006 est.)
Oil - consumption: 1.97 million bbl/day (2004 est.)
.0183 barrels per capita / per day

and the Dominican Republic, a fellow Caribbean neighbor, is much more efficient!
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/dr.html
Population: 9,183,984 (July 2006 est.)
Oil - consumption: 127,000 bbl/day (2004 est.)
.0138 barrels per capita / per day

The real model for sustainability is Cambodia which has one of, if not the highest GDP to oil consumption ratios in the world.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cb.html
Population: 13,881,427
Oil - Consumption: 3,750 bbl/day (2004 est.)
.000270 barrels per capita per day
GDP - per capita (PPP): $2,600 (2006 est.) (Not bad!)
Life Expectancy: 56 (Tad on the low side here)

Bolivia has a decent life expectancy (63.21) but is a bit less efficient:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bl.html
Population: 8,989,046 (July 2006 est.)
Oil - consumption: 47,000 bbl/day (2004 est.)
.00522 barrels per capita per day
GDP - per capita (PPP): $3,000 (2006 est.)

Looking at communism as a model for REAL peak oil survival, it appears that North Korea, oddly enough has higher oil consumption than Cambodia and it's population is growing at 0.84% while Cambodia's is growing at 1.78%!

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html
Population: 23,113,019 (July 2006 est.)
Oil - consumption: 25,000 bbl/day (2004)
.00108 barrels per capita per day.
Life Expectancy is 71 but I kind of doubt that the dear leader has included all the famine deaths lately.

I'm all for organic farming and sustainable agriculture but unfortunately a little math proves that the idea that Cuba will show us the way to survive after peak oil is probably just feel good communist propaganda.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
writerman on February 8, 2007 - 3:19am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Cuba is an interesting country which is attempting to follow a different and alternative econmic model, to the one we all know and love. But, whilst I believe it's got substantial relevance for developing countries, I'm sceptical about what Cuba's recent experience has for us in the rich West. Cuba is an exceptional case. It's a country with a limited private sector, some would say a rigid, centralised command economy; and clearly its social and political system is rather "diciplined" to say the least! It's also a country which has vertually been under seige for decades, one shouldn't underestimate the power of the "seige mentality" in enabling tough measures to be pushed through and implimented, and at the same time keeping public support. Furtheremore, and more controversially, we just don't have leaders with the power, status, charisma, or abilities of Fidel Castro to steer the ship of state through troubled waters. I think a more relevant model for dealing with hard times in our neck of the woods, is probably something closer to the way the United States dealt with the Great Depression. Clearly one can argue about effacacy, and how positive or negative the depression model really was/is, in vastly changed historical circumstances, but it's just a suggestion. It also illustrates, in my opinion, just how big a hill we've got to climb.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sendoilplease on February 8, 2007 - 8:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"Cuba is ... a country with with a limited private sector, some would say a rigid, centralised command economy"

What struck me as interesting was that the communist Cuban government, according to the interview, did not try to micromanage the local efforts of each community.

The Great Depression may not act as a model for the current US because of the "vastly changed historical circumstances" as you note. BUT, I do think the mentality of the citizens will move back across the spectrum towards our grandparent's Thrift, savings, and family-centered values vs borrow, spend and narcissistic hedonism rampant today.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
writerman on February 8, 2007 - 11:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yeah, I think you're right on both counts. We humans are incredibly versatile, flexible, and hardy creatures when we have to be. So,we will change, we will adapt, to our altered circumstances, whatever they may turn out to be going forward. We will survive. At least some of us anyway. Whether "society" as we know it will be able to make the necessary adjustments is a far larger and more difficult question. I have my doubts about that. It will be interesting to see how Cuba's oil exploration goes. It would be ironic if they suddenly found huge quantities of oil.

Personally, in many ways, I'm going to miss some aspects of "narcissistic hedeonism rampant today". It's kind of charming, entertaining, and fascinating. It's frothy, glitzy, sparkels 'n' twinkles, it's glossy and grand, and is intoxicating in the extreme; at least for the rich, young, and beautiful.

I've tasted decadence and extreme luxury, and whilst it was great fun, at least for a while, I did get bored rather quickly with how shallow it all was. Not having to worry about money kind of took the edge out of life. The beautiful, glowing, golden youths I was surrounded by, weren't exactly the smartest people I'd ever met. Underneath the surface they appeared almost sad. Perhaps they changed? I know some of them died with silver spoons in their mouths.

I suppose what I really wanted out of life was knowledge, that what I really craved, not luxury. They sure had impressive libraries though. My parents never, bought, or even read a book, in the lives. In contrast to my youth, I now have a cellar full of really good literature, and usful textbooks and manuals, and lots and lots of quality tools. I have a sensible truck, not a sports car. I can, given the right materials, literally build house from the ground up if I have to. Perhaps I've become a one man Cuba.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
abelardlindsay on February 8, 2007 - 4:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Interestingly enough if we measure a country's oil efficiency by how much GDP per capita we get for each barrel of oil consumed per capita, The U.S is FAR more efficient than Cuba.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cb.html
Cuba:
GDP - per capita (PPP): $2,600 (2006 est.)
Per capita Oil Consumption Per Year: 6.633 Barrels
$ of GDP - per capita produced by 1 barrel of oil per capita per year: $392.15

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html
U.S:
GDP - per capita (PPP): $43,500 (2006 est.)
Oil - consumption: 20.73 million bbl/day (2004 est.)
Population: 298,444,215 (July 2006 est.)
Oil Consumption per Capita Per Year: 25.39 Barrels
$ of GDP - per capita produced by 1 barrel of oil per capita per year: $1713.27

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BrianT on February 8, 2007 - 8:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Abe: Yep. India is 2.6 X as oil efficient as the USA, while China is 2.46 X as efficient.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Zoe di Magnifico on February 8, 2007 - 8:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yeah, but this fails to take into account the fact that the US doesn't really produce much any more. Everything's imported. If we took the fuel that's used to make and ship in all of the imports and compared it to Cuba, which is still under a trade embargo, US oil consumption to GDP efficiency would probably be really low.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Coilin on February 8, 2007 - 9:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

But we shouldn't be using GDP in our measurements at all. GDP is a measure of turnover, not output. Also it only measures monetary transactions.

So if you grow all your own food and eat well, for instance, this adds nothing to GDP. On the other hand, if you buy all your food, this adds to GDP, even though you might not be able to buy enough to eat well. If the food you are buying is non-organic, produced with agrochemicals, tractors and other machinery, and is transported around the world and packaged, then this adds even more to GDP.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Laurence Aurbach on February 8, 2007 - 10:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I too am interested to compare energy use with living standards. Is it possible to maintain a decent quality of life with low per capita energy consumption? Which nations are leading by that measure? And how about per capita CO2 emissions vs. quality of life? This blog post addresses those questions. Instead of GDP as a measure of living standards, I used the Human Development Index, which is a combination of life expectancy, literacy, education, and GDP-based standards of living.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on February 8, 2007 - 11:13am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Is really possible to make global comparisons like that?

Obviously, a country that doesn't have a winter, like the Philippines, will use less energy than one that does - like the U.S.

Also, energy consumption stats are pretty meaningless in this age of globalization. Energy used outside the country isn't counted, even though we are the ultimate consumers. DVDs, computers, aluminum cans, fertilizer, cars, etc. It takes a lot of energy to mine, refine, and transport the raw materials, manufacture and distribute the goods, etc. But the energy consumption is charged to the country that makes the stuff, not the country that uses it.

This was a great way to reduce energy use in developed countries when there was cheap energy elsewhere. But if the problem is global supply, obviously, offshoring isn't going to be much help.

And shortage or no, it doesn't help on the GW front. If anything, manufacturing moves to areas with fewer environmental regulations.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Laurence Aurbach on February 8, 2007 - 11:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Those are all good points. The warmer nations will have lower space heating needs. On the other hand, there are quite a few cold-weather nations that rate in the top percentiles for energy efficiency with high living standards. Denmark, Ireland, UK, Switzerland and Germany are some examples. Similarly, there are a number of cold-weather nations that do well in terms of low per capita CO2 emissions with relatively high living standards. Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Lithuania, and Latvia are some examples.

You're probably also right that the less industrialized nations and the post-industrial nations will rate better on the low-CO2-with-high-quality-of-life measurement. (But remember how much energy is used and CO2 emitted by the building sector and by private vehicles -- significantly more than the industrial/shipping sector.)

At any rate, all proposed greenhouse gas reduction schemes are applied on a nation-by-nation basis. As far as I know, no nation has figured out a carbon tax or capping scheme that accounts for lifecycle energy costs across national borders. It would be a good idea, though, should it become politically possible. The advantages and disadvantages of a global carbon tax should be debated.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Wayne Harris on February 8, 2007 - 11:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Overall energy usage is a poor metric to apply to Cuba's post-peak agricultural transition. We're talking about a totally time-warped economy here, running on outsized 50s-vintage American automobiles and antiquated power plants. Organic, localized farming would reduce only the energy usage formerly devoted to agriculture. The best metric is the one supplied by the filmmakers: Cubans were severely calorie-deprived in the years immediately following the collapse of the Soviet economy, and now, apparently, they're not.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on February 8, 2007 - 7:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

This analysis misses the REAL savior of the Cuban Revolution; tourism including a large and thriving sex tourism industry.

Prostitution has more to do with the current economic viability of Cuba than organic farming. Fat & Horny Germans may supply more calories than the agricultural reforms I am afraid.

I prefer the Swiss example over the Cuban one. A viable Western industrial democracy with a decent quality of life survived a 6 year 100% oil embargo. The Swiss per capita oil consumption in 1945 was 1/400th of current US consumption.

Best Hopes,

Alan

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TrueKaiser on February 8, 2007 - 9:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

still a bad example. the war only lasted a short while, then they went right back to their old ways. it's quite easy to make a country take that kind of sacrifice because they /knew/ the war would not last forever. also the swiss were not neutral they did deals with both the axis and the allies. i am sure that large influx of nazi gold had more to do with keeping the country afloat then some other factor that you do /not/ talk about yet hold the country up as a example.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.