<Nuclear Power for the Oilsands The Oil Drum DrumBeat: May 28, 2007>
<DrumBeat: May 26, 2007 DrumBeat DrumBeat: May 28, 2007>

188 comments on DrumBeat: May 27, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Theycallmeun-American on May 27, 2007 - 3:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"There are innumerable reasons to stop using fossil fuel. Energy security, air quality, peak oil, climate change....
Any one of them could be wrong, but it seems unlikely that they all are."

I have to say that your approach to "the big issues" is one I wish we heard more of from the those who have strong feelings about such matters. I think the general public would perhaps be more open to a multi-reason approach to dealing with climate change and peak oil rather than the oft heard "the world is going to end.." As some say, you can catch more bees with honey.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LeGorfou on May 28, 2007 - 3:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Please explain how we feed 6.5 billion people without fossil fuels.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ThatsItImout on May 28, 2007 - 6:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"Please explain how we feed 6.5 billion people without fossil fuels."

Please explain to me why we would have to.

Because we are running out? But I thought the peak oil informed insist that peak is NOT about running out.

Because we are so efficient in how we use fossil fuel that we have no room for efficiency gains to provide for the needs of agriculture and food transport?
(What is the percentage of food transport energy use compared to the percent of fuel used for other commercial and industrial materials transport?

Because of all the ways we use fossil fuels, if production drops, agriculture will have to the first area cut, instead of cutting the waste and ineffeciencies in other areas?

Because we use so much oil in food production, (or was it natural gas that is used in making fertilizer, and is the predominant fuel in food processing?
(and is the natural gas situation equal in all areas of the world, or are we talking about a world supply of natural gas that is still relatively large, even though North America suffers on this issue?)

time for someone to stand up and say the emperor has no clothes: Constantly trying to terrify people with immediate threat of starvation is nothing but a scare tactic, and sends anyone who can think packing away from the peaksters. It is one more way of discrediting the real and serious energy issues. And before you jump in and point to some third world country where people are starving, yes, there are starving people in the world and has always been, but if you are going to contend that lack of fossil fuel is causing starvation, there must be a causal relationship. If not, I could make the argument that:

(a) I drive a Diesel car
(b) There are starving people in the world
conclusion: Because I drive a Diesel car there are starving people in the world
Proposal: to keep people from starving, I must switch to an gasoline car.

Such is the logic in modern problem solving thought, 21st century American style.

Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Burgundy on May 28, 2007 - 8:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Even after peak there will be plenty of increasingly expensive oil, but as you point out, sufficient for the purpose of farming. I believe we will see economic factors, climate change & ecosystem degradation, plus increasing energy costs coming together to put downward pressure on food production. The result being increasingly higher food prices, less choice and more of the economy devoted to farming at the expense of other less important areas.

I agree with you that there is a great deal of flexibility in the system regards how the available oil/energy is used.

Strange, as I was writing this post a BBC news item came on discussing and linking energy availability, food production and the need to expand agriculture onto marginal land (presumably with lower yields and at a higher cost). Essentially, suggesting we trade up on our vulnerability, let someone else deal with the even bigger problem in the future whilst we just carry on as normal. We're toast!

Triumvirate of collapse - Economy, Ecosystem, Energy

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

188 comments on DrumBeat: May 27, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version