100 comments on Why We Disagree on Peak Oil and Climate Change: Part III - Our Belief Systems
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
100 comments on Why We Disagree on Peak Oil and Climate Change: Part III - Our Belief Systems
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.
“We have only two modes—complacency and panic.”
—James R. Schlesinger, the first energy secretary, in 1977, on the country's approach to energy
Search The Oil Drum with Google
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- 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
- Technician: Super G
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
- Enjoying Life Close to Home: Fun Streets
TOD:Europe
- UK Energy Flow Chart 2007
- Brown pretends to be tough on Russia
- Russian gas and European energy security - a reprise
TOD:Canada
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
- Weekend Energy Listening: Wind Power with Paul Gipe
TOD:ANZ
Peak Oil Primers
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
- Ecological Economics
- David Strahan
- Econbrowser
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- Environmental Economics
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Organizations
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.






GAIA Host Collective
You did not answer my question, but I will posit an answer to yours. Look at this graph:
I don't see a plateau in China's oil use, do you? Of course, that doesn't prove causality. An economist will tell you that economic growth is driving oil consumption.
My argument stems from the laws of thermodynamics. Rewritten for economists, the first law is that money cannot create energy. The second is that energy will always degrade to a less useful form. Consider the following diagram:
The center square labeled "Economy" includes people, buildings, cars, machines, ideas, information, etc. All of these have embodied energy, and none can be created without the input of energy and raw materials. Many human-related things can limit the inputs, such as a lack of technical knowledge and (importantly) economic or political disfunction. On the output side, the economy discards that which it cannot use--trash and waste heat. Both of these arise from inefficient processes and the fact that things break down and buildings crumble (second law). Massive quantities of emitted CO2 is becoming our biggest trash problem, but the floating island of plastic in the Pacific is probably more visible from space.
Now, the economy CAN grow in spite of declining net inputs of energy and materials, ONLY IF that this decline is more than offset by increasing efficiencies on the use of energy and materials. The US has benefited tremendously in the last 20 years from increased efficiency. China is currently benefiting from vastly increased efficiency (machine labor much more productive than human labor) and increasing energy input.
Peak oil is about having an economy built for a given level and type of energy input having to deal with a steep decline. There is certainly the potential for dramatically increasing the net energy input by utilizing solar, wind, fission, fusion, etc., but the physical infrastructure, political will, and technical know-how are not in place. We can continue to become more efficient (such as by implementing Alan Drake's Rail Plan), but these require those things as well. And there are fundamental limits that we will eventually run up against WRT efficiency. And right now, we are running out of time.
Joules: If you are talking about American suburbia, yes you are running out of time. American suburbia is not the planet. Germany uses approx 25-30% less oil than 30 years ago, with a far larger economy. I know, there is a "thermodynamic" explanation. How much "thermodynamic energy" is Goldman Sachs using to print their money. If you think energy usage and wealth creation are the same thing you should do some more thinking/reading.
If you think that wealth is simply the supply of money, there is no hope for you and I won't even encourage further education.
I was kinda skeptical, but it looks like you're absolutely correct. EIA consumption tables show that Germany (as a whole) consumed 14% less petroleum in 2004 than in 1980 (2.65kb/d vs. 3.08). Pushing back to 1977 - before the second oil shock - would undoubtedly show a larger decrease.
Real per-capita GDP grew by about 1.8% during that time (link) and population grew by a bit more than 10% (link), meaning the overall economy grew by something like 80% (in real terms) during a 14% fall in oil consumption.