Great Post. I have it bookmarked and will refer to it often.
Love it.
However :(
The world is not headed for a peaceful future of powerdown.
This is a geek fantasy.
Name ONE civilization of any importance (and large) that has powered down successfully.
If we were to realize our fate as a global society and take measures to powerdown together we might have chance to bring in a new world.
But anyone can see that this is not happening. ALL nations seem to be preparing for war, we are just waiting for the go signal....
I remember on this site a reference to a study that said that we need 20yrs to prepare for Peak Oil, in order to transition peacefully away from Fossil Fuels.
We have squandered that time.
It seems we now have no option but to fight to the death for the remaining Fossil Fuel reserves in order to try and sustain our country's lifestyles (what ever country you choose to live in).
It is OVER. No amount of technofixes will save us now. It is too late. We need to realize this in order to have a chance to move forward. Forward to an ugly future. A future of countinual WAR. War for oil. War for Water. War for all of Earth's resources.
This will be the last great war. After this there will not be enough resources left to support a world-wide war on this scale. The USA is very aware of this and is trying to prepare. China and Russia are preparing as well. Seen through this lense the events of the last 6yrs make perfect sense.
Soon the world players will make their move and we will see what happens after the dust settles.
One thing is for certain: The world will not PEACEFULLY powerdown for the next 25yrs as some ivory tower fuckheads suggest. WAR is in mankind's blood and WAR it shall be.
I guess I do too, because I'm with Korg. We're on the Highway to Hell. The most perverse aspect of this is that the Highway will be paved with gold for those with the right connections.
I do thank you for your efforts, Euan. I will bookmark this.
The most perverse aspect of this is that the Highway will be paved with gold
I think the most ironic aspect of this will be if the USA and co-conspirators decide to stay on that highway whilst turning down opportunities to change direction.
But in the July 2 Drumbeat:
Japan: Oil imports decline for 13th month
Crude oil imports fell 11 percent in May from a year earlier, declining for a 13th month.
Crude oil imports fell to 17.5 million kiloliters last month, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said in a report Friday.
How have they done this without everyone hearing the noise of their economy collapsing? (No it's not a rhetorical question - I'd be grateful for any comment on what has happened there). I'm not cynical enough about governments - at least in Europe - to believe they will let our economies collapse due to peak oil, if avoiding measures can be taken. In my view, the problem is partly one of conditioning the public to accept the changes that will be necessary and this will take time together with some "shocks" that will alert people to the need for change.
It may be that some actions being taken by governments in the guise of climate change prevention, have a hidden peak oil agenda. However, there are still too many signals and trends going in the wrong direction - road building, plans for airport expansion, weak investment in public transport. The most optimistic scenario is that the current steady increase in peak oil awareness in the MSM will continue and main political parties will soon get the message that they must address the issue properly.
Edit: Korg wrote "... fight to the death", "... a future of continual war". I can see why Euan wrote "not recommended for the faint hearted"!
Re: Japan, there was amention later in the Jily 2 Drumbeat: "Japan's population is aging. Old people don't drive much if at all. Japan's population is shrinking. Less people, less cars. People are moving from the rural areas to the city area. You need a car in the boonies but in the city its a huge pain."
So there you have it: electrify transport (politically OK, but you need the investment); move people into cities ("End of Suburbia" - not popular idea in USA, not much more so in UK, better in rest of Europe); end "car culture" (big problems - powerful lobbies, people's freedom, aspirations, etc.).
The other issue was "fuel switching", in that the Japanese are changing over to an "all electric" housing situation, thus reducing consumption of kerosene and oil used for heating. The problem is that coal consumption and strain on the nuclear power plants of the electric grid are becoming a real problem.
The nation that is the home of the city of Kyoto may run into real issues with the Kyoto treay obligations. So oil consumption declines, but leaves yet another liability.
RC
Remember we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Japanese are changing over to an "all electric" housing situation
Not quite. There is that stupid switch campain http://www.tepco-switch.com/
but its a relativly new thing and hasn't had much of an impact.
In my experience fuel switching is almost non existant in Japan so far.
The biggest impact the all electric house will have is on gas (ng and lpg) consumption. Not oil.
The problem is that coal consumption and strain on the nuclear power plants of the electric grid are becoming a real problem.
The grid in Japan is incredibly robust. Blackouts are almost unheard of.
I have been out of the market for a while but the Japanese import crude (sweet) to burn in their thermal power plants. The reason for the sweet is because the emissions are less...
I am sure that is going p off a lot of people...what a waste...The time of peak imports is when the nukes are not running full...a couple of years ago they had some terrible problems with nuke maintainence which prompted a large proportion of their nuke genration down.
Now i have been out of the market for a bit so the market maybe changing (hence the reduction in crude imports) as they switch to to alternatives, however I dont think because crude imports are down is a sign necessarily of lower demand...it needs more research it maybe a fuel switch.
I dont think because crude imports are down is a sign necessarily of lower demand...it needs more research it maybe a fuel switch.
That fits nicely with my anecdotal experience as well. There has been no major change in Japanese consumer habits (that I have seen) that would lead to lower consumption. And as someone in another thread pointed out, demographics would change much to slowly to show such a large month to month decline.
Japan does use a surprisingly large amount of oil to generate electricity. The nuke explanation is the best one I've heard so far.
The bit with the oil peak is real stealth. Governments are keeping it hidden even as they use global warming as the excuse to pull off the policies to try to deal with the peak. A government will want to keep the oil peak hidden so as not to panic the financial markets. But nonetheless, the oil peak is needed to understand why the world operates as it does.
Without knowing about the oil peak, the world makes no sense. But once you know about it, suddenly, the world makes, well, all the sense in the world. The prime example is the Iraq war. The war makes no sense until you find out about the global oil peak. "It's the oil, stupid!" That paraphrase sums up the bit with the war.
The original Iraq war of 1992 was also about oil. Saddam got greedy and we had to push him out of that oil patch called Kuwaut. We could not let Saddam Hussein corner the market. Once Saddam sent in the troops into Kuwait, we had to act. We had no other choice. And now, with the repeat Iraq war, we had to act. After all, Iraq represents the last largely untapped oil reserve of a significant size. Of course, we want to plateau the peak. The only way to do that is to tap the reserve in Iraq.
But beware. The repeat Iraq war is not working out. But it could end up being a good thing. Plateauing the peak might help a politician, but it also means a steeper decline. You don't want a steep decline. A 3%/year decline is going to be maddening enough. A 10%/year decline would be absolutely disasterous.
The world is not headed for a peaceful future of powerdown. This is a geek fantasy.
I pretty much agree with this and don't see a future with everyone living once again on family farms and communes that don't currently exist.
The real question I'm posing here:- "is powerdown essential?" Are there sufficient alternative energy supplies (nuclear, wind and direct solar) to enable industrial civilisation to adapt to a new, sustainable energy future? If the answer is no then we are well and truly stuffed. If the answer is yes then does our industrial society have the will and wherewithall to grasp the opportunity?
Or is it easier to overcome the problem by force? And the elephant in the room is population.
Get Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict v.16 to hand out condoms? He will not do it for an incredibly simple reason: More followers means more power. Any preacher will preach "be fruitful and multiply" because it means more people to brainwash with crap. All the successful religions preach overpopulation.
This is a major reason I hate organised religion. I have come to the conclusion that religion if organised is a force of evil that must be removed. Islam only serves as the present example. Religion is enough to get someone to want to drive an airliner into a building. If there is ANY damn lesson to be learned with the 9/11 disaster, it is that. Organised religion is evil. Pure and simple.
Islam might be the example now, but Christianity is not innocent. After all, the crusades were done up. The only reason more abortion clinics were not blown up is that Americans are on average too stupid to develop a car bomb. We Americans have our own homebrew Al Queda-like group, the "Army of God". The whackos are Christians not Moslems. But they serve as a danger to any abortion doctor. Doctors have been whacked by anti-abortion whack jobs, as well as clinics being torched. So far, they have not yet resorted to the "poor man's air force" of the car bomb.
For peace, the world must give up religion. Religion must be phased out, but it cannot be done by force. We find that out with the former Soviet Union. When the empire collapsed, religion re-started. Sweden is an example of non-force phasing out of religion. We Americans need to get off religion, before we blow ourselves up with the stash of nukes.
Religion is not the problem, human nature is the problem. The new levels of persecution seen in State enforced Marxism amply demonstrate that.
Based on that observation, I think you will find that the backlash from Peak Oil in secular countries such as in Western Europe will be no better than religiously oriented countries. In fact, it could be worse if the individualism so beloved of secular humanism is allowed free course in a crisis.
I was implying that? There are a lot of opposites to religion, not just one thing as you state and individualism, now you mention it, is one.
As for the "sine qua non" of skepticism during a Peak Oil crisis, unfortunately skepticism will cut both ways depending on the prejudices and agendas of the mind exercising it. We already have people applying their form of skepticism to say that Peak Oil is just an engineered scam to send more money flowing to "corporate fascists".
In the secular worldview everything is relative, including skepticism. Excuse my skepticism on skepticism!
Skepticism is demanding that all claims be supported.
Skepticism != nay-saying. Skepticism is most certainly not anti-capitalist dogma. You should know better than to post nonsense like that.
In the secular worldview everything is relative, including skepticism.
As a skeptic, I'm going to demand that you either support that claim (starting from the implied claim that there is a unified "secular worldview"), retract it, or take the intellectual drubbing you deserve.
You may demand but most people go through life carrying assumptions or an "on balance" approach. Yours is an idealistic approach. Life is too short for idealism as Peak Oil will demonstrate. The post peak oil world will be more the world of the pragmatist than the idealist.
As a free-market capitalist I am not sure where I said skepticism was anti-capitalist "nonsense". If you meant the brand of skeptics who deny peak Oil and say it is a corporate conspiracy, that remains true - whether they are right or wrong. I was merely pointing out that this brand of skeptic exists. You misread me I am afraid.
As a skeptic, you may demand but since you have already hastily misinterpreted me (see above) I am unsure you're not just in this to grab some debating points with no intention of being swayed in your opinions.
most people go through life carrying assumptions or an "on balance" approach.
In other words, they are using intellectual shortcuts instead of working through all implications and getting facts where they lack them. This means they'll believe many things which are wrong.
"It ain't what you don't know that hurts you; it's what you know that ain't so."
You are a prime example of this:
In the secular worldview everything is relative.
You "know" this, but you can't support it and won't defend it. If someone calls you on it, you tuck your mental tail between your legs and run away, trying to change the subject.
We already have people applying their form of skepticism to say that Peak Oil is just an engineered scam to send more money flowing to "corporate fascists".
That's dogma, which is closely allied to religiosity.
it could be worse if the individualism so beloved of secular humanism is allowed free course in a crisis.
Har. One of the things I find annoying about major secular humanist publications is that they are heavily socialist, not individualist. Of course, this doesn't matter to you when you're picking bogeymen.
The USA isn't going to make progress on the energy problem until frank honesty pushes the dogma from center stage and produces a set of responses based on the facts. All the dogmatic beliefs that "ethanol from corn will save us" or "when we throw out the enviros and drilling is allowed in ANWR/off Florida/off California we'll have cheap gas" or "I'll just drive my Excursion until I can buy a hydrogen car" are small variations of the same sort of mental errors you exhibit (and cravenly refuse to address squarely).
Heaven forbid you should change your mind, especially in response to ugly things like facts.
(1) Self-imposed population stabilization or even slowing of growth so as to reach an asymptotic limit.
(2) Democracy - rule not according to what's true, but by brute force of the most people voting for the prettiest face on the emptiest head, or the zingiest nonsensical sound bite.
(3) Tribalism and nationalism - nowadays driven by political correctness and ethnic special privileges, ever more firmly enshrined in law. If we can grow to outnumber you, or, failing that, at least grow enough to become able to deafen you with our whining and sniveling, then democracy authorizes us to loot you rather than earn our own living.
So pick any two from the list. You cannot ever have all three unless population magically stabilizes on its own. And if we're in for a rough patch, the often-mooted universal demographic transition based on everybody becoming rich simply will not occur for the foreseeable future. Nor will exhortation have more than a transitory effect, as the subsequent generation will simply consist of those who are not amenable to exhortation.
In reality, the unshakable modern simultaneous insistence upon (2) and (3) renders any serious discussion of population taboo, as we have seen from the periodic fireworks in the Drumbeat thread. No go.
You cannot ever have all three unless population magically stabilizes on its own.
Fortunately, world population appears to be doing exactly that.
If you look at the UN figures on world population, you'll find its growth rate grew until about 1970, but has been falling ever since. Moreover, it's projected to continue falling for decades to come, reaching a growth rate of only 0.36% in 2050, and should become negative before the end of the century.
And if we're in for a rough patch, the often-mooted universal demographic transition based on everybody becoming rich simply will not occur for the foreseeable future.
And if we're in for a patch rough enough that it stops global GDP growth - which even the oil shocks of the 70s could not accomplish - then poor, rapidly-growing countries may become unable to support that rapid population growth. Recent history suggests that will lead to localized starvation (Ethiopia), genocide (Rwanda), voluntary population control (parts of India), and involuntary population control (China).
All of which global civilization has successfully weathered in the past.
I assume you are referring to ammonia production requiring natural gas. It doesn't, the Haber-Bosch process originally used coal to produce the hydrogen needed in ammonia production.
C + H2O --> H2 + CO
Any electrolysis of water can make H2 to fix on N2 to make Ammonia. This needs, of course, electricity and water, but can be done in the middle of nowhere without access to the grid - not real cheap, but flexible!
All of which global civilization has successfully weathered in the past.
Huh?
I thought a major reason to discuss these matters was to see if there might be a way to transition out of fossil fuels and out of infinite population growth in a somewhat humane manner. If genocide and mass starvation are satisfactory outcomes, the whole discussion, not only this one but the one on Peak Oil itself, becomes unintelligible, or at least superfluous.
As to the UN figures, they are only educated guesses, not gospel, and I insist that they are predicated on robust economic growth. The "6" in "0.36%" is pure noise, and the "3" is probably pure noise as well. In addition, voluntarism is guaranteed to be transitory, as the volunteers will be represented less and less in each future generation. There are still many large families even in rich countries, and they will "win" out.
Oh, and the Chinese involuntary approach is falling apart.
Oh, and the 1970s were only two transitory blips, with long gas lines for only a few months and really bad only in limited areas.
Genocide and mass starvation have happened throughout human history though - nothing is likely to change that until the entire world is living in prosperous economic conditions (which didn't stop Hitler either, but hopefully our memories aren't so short to allow such a thing to happen again).
Transitioning away from fossil fuels may well happen in a "somewhat humane manner" - if we restrict our focus to developed countries. For developing countries, especially those like China and India that are only just now getting the taste of fossil-fuel power, it's really hard to see how things could be smooth sailing. For truly impoverished countries where fossil fuels are not an integral part of economic conditions, things will probably get worse as developed nations increasing find themselves worrying about their own problems, and aid/tourism/medical assistance/export dollars dry up. I don't hold much hope for sub-Saharan Africa at all, sadly.
The best I think we can realistically hope for is a) prevention of out-and-out large-scale warfare and/or collapse of democracy and b) moderately quick recovery time - perhaps within as little as a decade. Given a major problem with making progress today is the entrenched attitudes of consumers and corporations with vested interests, a decade-long recession should largely rid us of those attitudes.
The biggest unknown is how will various nations deal with huge changes in the global balance of power. If the U.S. does as badly as many here expect it to, and Saudi Arabia becomes an enormously powerful country, global politics will be vastly different.
I thought a major reason to discuss these matters was to see if there might be a way to transition out of fossil fuels and out of infinite population growth in a somewhat humane manner.
And the first part of that is seeing if there's a way to transition out at all.
Which, despite the insistence of a few die-hard doomsayers, there is.
If genocide and mass starvation are satisfactory outcomes, the whole discussion, not only this one but the one on Peak Oil itself, becomes unintelligible, or at least superfluous.
False dilemma fallacy.
You're holding peak oil mitigation to an unreasonably high standard. The world already has genocide and mass starvation at times, so expecting a post-peak world to not have those is expecting a substantial improvement. If their prevalence is approximately the same post-peak, I would think that would be a reasonable outcome vis-a-vis peak oil.
As to the UN figures, they are only educated guesses, not gospel
Of course; however, they're almost certainly rather more well-founded than most of the population numbers people here throw around.
and I insist that they are predicated on robust economic growth.
Meaning population growth is tapering off even without harsh resource constraints, making it basically an upper bound. So the pressures associated with population growth should be assumed to be declining towards zero, rather than increasing towards infinity, as they might with a "constant growth rate" model.
In addition, voluntarism is guaranteed to be transitory, as the volunteers will be represented less and less in each future generation.
Only if you assume that the reason for not volunteering is genetic and inheritable, rather than cultural and changeable.
Care to back up that assertion with evidence?
Oh, and the Chinese involuntary approach is falling apart.
Care to back up any of your assertions with evidence?
Oh, and the 1970s were only two transitory blips, with long gas lines for only a few months and really bad only in limited areas.
Oil production fell four years in a row - from 1979 through 1983 - by an average of 3.5% per year, and by almost 5% in the first 3 years.
That that caused only a "transitory blip" is perhaps evidence that declining oil production will not cause the massive disruption you seek, rather than evidence that a sudden 13% decline in oil production was minor.
So, I say, Houston, we really do have a problem.
Yeah, we do - nihilists with a doomsday fetish keep throwing up nonsensical statements without providing a shred of evidence to back them up.
Of course; however, they're [UN population figures] almost certainly rather more well-founded than most of the population numbers people here throw around.
Pitt, do you have UN figures for individual years, going from 2000 to the present? from what I've been able to find out elsewhere, population growth remained only static (in percentage terms) from the UN's 2000 figure, and the latest estimate I've seen shows a slight uptick this year. So I see no evidence for falling growth, at present, even though it clearly fell in the past.
That that caused only a "transitory blip" is perhaps evidence that declining oil production will not cause the massive disruption you seek
True, but then there was capacity to increase production, which did happen. What evidence is there that oil production will increase in the future?
WOW!!!!
Great Post. I have it bookmarked and will refer to it often.
Love it.
However :(
The world is not headed for a peaceful future of powerdown.
This is a geek fantasy.
Name ONE civilization of any importance (and large) that has powered down successfully.
If we were to realize our fate as a global society and take measures to powerdown together we might have chance to bring in a new world.
But anyone can see that this is not happening. ALL nations seem to be preparing for war, we are just waiting for the go signal....
I remember on this site a reference to a study that said that we need 20yrs to prepare for Peak Oil, in order to transition peacefully away from Fossil Fuels.
We have squandered that time.
It seems we now have no option but to fight to the death for the remaining Fossil Fuel reserves in order to try and sustain our country's lifestyles (what ever country you choose to live in).
It is OVER. No amount of technofixes will save us now. It is too late. We need to realize this in order to have a chance to move forward. Forward to an ugly future. A future of countinual WAR. War for oil. War for Water. War for all of Earth's resources.
This will be the last great war. After this there will not be enough resources left to support a world-wide war on this scale. The USA is very aware of this and is trying to prepare. China and Russia are preparing as well. Seen through this lense the events of the last 6yrs make perfect sense.
Soon the world players will make their move and we will see what happens after the dust settles.
One thing is for certain: The world will not PEACEFULLY powerdown for the next 25yrs as some ivory tower fuckheads suggest. WAR is in mankind's blood and WAR it shall be.
Korg, before you meet your doom though, you can say you listened to this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En0A8KGMgq8
stay until the very end for the last comment by Simon for kicks.
amazing.
Even if you are correct the journey and the knowledge is still useful.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
PrisonerX
I was expecting some sarcastic but realistic comment but Simon Cowell was 100% pleasant. Did I miss something?
A six year old girl was "pitch perfect", thru the whole performance.
That is an amazing comment.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
I want my 4 minutes and 57 seconds back.
Don't become a Buddhist. The world doesn't need more Buddhists. Do practice compassion. The world does need more compassion. -- Dalai Lama
Korg - you definitely need to listen to Connie singing "Somewhere over the Rainbow"
I guess I do too, because I'm with Korg. We're on the Highway to Hell. The most perverse aspect of this is that the Highway will be paved with gold for those with the right connections.
I do thank you for your efforts, Euan. I will bookmark this.
I agree there...
I think the most ironic aspect of this will be if the USA and co-conspirators decide to stay on that highway whilst turning down opportunities to change direction.
My fear is that the USA is toast. Your fear has to be that we don't take you with us.
Hahahahahah....
But Connie has provided my nation with hope and inspiration for a better future.
Perhaps the humble phone salesman in his brown suit, well worn, ill fitting, would do for them.
That guy blew me away. I like the first show the best. The finals were great, but the little banter and that that that that came from that figure.
amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oxTy7KIAaA
Never judge a book by its cover, and people can do surprising things.
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
But in the July 2 Drumbeat:
Japan: Oil imports decline for 13th month
Crude oil imports fell 11 percent in May from a year earlier, declining for a 13th month.
Crude oil imports fell to 17.5 million kiloliters last month, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry said in a report Friday.
How have they done this without everyone hearing the noise of their economy collapsing? (No it's not a rhetorical question - I'd be grateful for any comment on what has happened there). I'm not cynical enough about governments - at least in Europe - to believe they will let our economies collapse due to peak oil, if avoiding measures can be taken. In my view, the problem is partly one of conditioning the public to accept the changes that will be necessary and this will take time together with some "shocks" that will alert people to the need for change.
It may be that some actions being taken by governments in the guise of climate change prevention, have a hidden peak oil agenda. However, there are still too many signals and trends going in the wrong direction - road building, plans for airport expansion, weak investment in public transport. The most optimistic scenario is that the current steady increase in peak oil awareness in the MSM will continue and main political parties will soon get the message that they must address the issue properly.
Edit: Korg wrote "... fight to the death", "... a future of continual war". I can see why Euan wrote "not recommended for the faint hearted"!
Re: Japan, there was amention later in the Jily 2 Drumbeat: "Japan's population is aging. Old people don't drive much if at all. Japan's population is shrinking. Less people, less cars. People are moving from the rural areas to the city area. You need a car in the boonies but in the city its a huge pain."
So there you have it: electrify transport (politically OK, but you need the investment); move people into cities ("End of Suburbia" - not popular idea in USA, not much more so in UK, better in rest of Europe); end "car culture" (big problems - powerful lobbies, people's freedom, aspirations, etc.).
The other issue was "fuel switching", in that the Japanese are changing over to an "all electric" housing situation, thus reducing consumption of kerosene and oil used for heating. The problem is that coal consumption and strain on the nuclear power plants of the electric grid are becoming a real problem.
The nation that is the home of the city of Kyoto may run into real issues with the Kyoto treay obligations. So oil consumption declines, but leaves yet another liability.
RC
Remember we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Not quite. There is that stupid switch campain
http://www.tepco-switch.com/
but its a relativly new thing and hasn't had much of an impact.
In my experience fuel switching is almost non existant in Japan so far.
The biggest impact the all electric house will have is on gas (ng and lpg) consumption. Not oil.
The grid in Japan is incredibly robust. Blackouts are almost unheard of.
I have been out of the market for a while but the Japanese import crude (sweet) to burn in their thermal power plants. The reason for the sweet is because the emissions are less...
I am sure that is going p off a lot of people...what a waste...The time of peak imports is when the nukes are not running full...a couple of years ago they had some terrible problems with nuke maintainence which prompted a large proportion of their nuke genration down.
Now i have been out of the market for a bit so the market maybe changing (hence the reduction in crude imports) as they switch to to alternatives, however I dont think because crude imports are down is a sign necessarily of lower demand...it needs more research it maybe a fuel switch.
That fits nicely with my anecdotal experience as well. There has been no major change in Japanese consumer habits (that I have seen) that would lead to lower consumption. And as someone in another thread pointed out, demographics would change much to slowly to show such a large month to month decline.
Japan does use a surprisingly large amount of oil to generate electricity. The nuke explanation is the best one I've heard so far.
The bit with the oil peak is real stealth. Governments are keeping it hidden even as they use global warming as the excuse to pull off the policies to try to deal with the peak. A government will want to keep the oil peak hidden so as not to panic the financial markets. But nonetheless, the oil peak is needed to understand why the world operates as it does.
Without knowing about the oil peak, the world makes no sense. But once you know about it, suddenly, the world makes, well, all the sense in the world. The prime example is the Iraq war. The war makes no sense until you find out about the global oil peak. "It's the oil, stupid!" That paraphrase sums up the bit with the war.
The original Iraq war of 1992 was also about oil. Saddam got greedy and we had to push him out of that oil patch called Kuwaut. We could not let Saddam Hussein corner the market. Once Saddam sent in the troops into Kuwait, we had to act. We had no other choice. And now, with the repeat Iraq war, we had to act. After all, Iraq represents the last largely untapped oil reserve of a significant size. Of course, we want to plateau the peak. The only way to do that is to tap the reserve in Iraq.
But beware. The repeat Iraq war is not working out. But it could end up being a good thing. Plateauing the peak might help a politician, but it also means a steeper decline. You don't want a steep decline. A 3%/year decline is going to be maddening enough. A 10%/year decline would be absolutely disasterous.
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
*IF* iraq has that much oil
and thats a pretty big iff.
Iraq certainly could be the worlds #1 producer in 5-6 years.
I find that incredulous. Even if Iraq had the potential (debatable) the time frame you stipulate seems incredible.
Boris
London
I pretty much agree with this and don't see a future with everyone living once again on family farms and communes that don't currently exist.
The real question I'm posing here:- "is powerdown essential?" Are there sufficient alternative energy supplies (nuclear, wind and direct solar) to enable industrial civilisation to adapt to a new, sustainable energy future? If the answer is no then we are well and truly stuffed. If the answer is yes then does our industrial society have the will and wherewithall to grasp the opportunity?
Or is it easier to overcome the problem by force? And the elephant in the room is population.
Our only hope
Is to get the Pope
TO HAND OUT CONDOMS
Get Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict v.16 to hand out condoms? He will not do it for an incredibly simple reason: More followers means more power. Any preacher will preach "be fruitful and multiply" because it means more people to brainwash with crap. All the successful religions preach overpopulation.
This is a major reason I hate organised religion. I have come to the conclusion that religion if organised is a force of evil that must be removed. Islam only serves as the present example. Religion is enough to get someone to want to drive an airliner into a building. If there is ANY damn lesson to be learned with the 9/11 disaster, it is that. Organised religion is evil. Pure and simple.
Islam might be the example now, but Christianity is not innocent. After all, the crusades were done up. The only reason more abortion clinics were not blown up is that Americans are on average too stupid to develop a car bomb. We Americans have our own homebrew Al Queda-like group, the "Army of God". The whackos are Christians not Moslems. But they serve as a danger to any abortion doctor. Doctors have been whacked by anti-abortion whack jobs, as well as clinics being torched. So far, they have not yet resorted to the "poor man's air force" of the car bomb.
For peace, the world must give up religion. Religion must be phased out, but it cannot be done by force. We find that out with the former Soviet Union. When the empire collapsed, religion re-started. Sweden is an example of non-force phasing out of religion. We Americans need to get off religion, before we blow ourselves up with the stash of nukes.
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
Religion is not the problem, human nature is the problem. The new levels of persecution seen in State enforced Marxism amply demonstrate that.
Based on that observation, I think you will find that the backlash from Peak Oil in secular countries such as in Western Europe will be no better than religiously oriented countries. In fact, it could be worse if the individualism so beloved of secular humanism is allowed free course in a crisis.
You're implying that individualism is the opposite of religiosity. It is not; the opposite of religiosity is skepticism.
One look at all the unworkable "solutions" proposed for peak oil, AGW etc. proves that skepticism is a sine qua non.
I was implying that? There are a lot of opposites to religion, not just one thing as you state and individualism, now you mention it, is one.
As for the "sine qua non" of skepticism during a Peak Oil crisis, unfortunately skepticism will cut both ways depending on the prejudices and agendas of the mind exercising it. We already have people applying their form of skepticism to say that Peak Oil is just an engineered scam to send more money flowing to "corporate fascists".
In the secular worldview everything is relative, including skepticism. Excuse my skepticism on skepticism!
Skepticism is demanding that all claims be supported.
Skepticism != nay-saying. Skepticism is most certainly not anti-capitalist dogma. You should know better than to post nonsense like that.
As a skeptic, I'm going to demand that you either support that claim (starting from the implied claim that there is a unified "secular worldview"), retract it, or take the intellectual drubbing you deserve.
You may demand but most people go through life carrying assumptions or an "on balance" approach. Yours is an idealistic approach. Life is too short for idealism as Peak Oil will demonstrate. The post peak oil world will be more the world of the pragmatist than the idealist.
As a free-market capitalist I am not sure where I said skepticism was anti-capitalist "nonsense". If you meant the brand of skeptics who deny peak Oil and say it is a corporate conspiracy, that remains true - whether they are right or wrong. I was merely pointing out that this brand of skeptic exists. You misread me I am afraid.
As a skeptic, you may demand but since you have already hastily misinterpreted me (see above) I am unsure you're not just in this to grab some debating points with no intention of being swayed in your opinions.
In other words, they are using intellectual shortcuts instead of working through all implications and getting facts where they lack them. This means they'll believe many things which are wrong.
"It ain't what you don't know that hurts you; it's what you know that ain't so."
You are a prime example of this:
You "know" this, but you can't support it and won't defend it. If someone calls you on it, you tuck your mental tail between your legs and run away, trying to change the subject.
That's dogma, which is closely allied to religiosity.
Har. One of the things I find annoying about major secular humanist publications is that they are heavily socialist, not individualist. Of course, this doesn't matter to you when you're picking bogeymen.
The USA isn't going to make progress on the energy problem until frank honesty pushes the dogma from center stage and produces a set of responses based on the facts. All the dogmatic beliefs that "ethanol from corn will save us" or "when we throw out the enviros and drilling is allowed in ANWR/off Florida/off California we'll have cheap gas" or "I'll just drive my Excursion until I can buy a hydrogen car" are small variations of the same sort of mental errors you exhibit (and cravenly refuse to address squarely).
Heaven forbid you should change your mind, especially in response to ugly things like facts.
Consider:
(1) Self-imposed population stabilization or even slowing of growth so as to reach an asymptotic limit.
(2) Democracy - rule not according to what's true, but by brute force of the most people voting for the prettiest face on the emptiest head, or the zingiest nonsensical sound bite.
(3) Tribalism and nationalism - nowadays driven by political correctness and ethnic special privileges, ever more firmly enshrined in law. If we can grow to outnumber you, or, failing that, at least grow enough to become able to deafen you with our whining and sniveling, then democracy authorizes us to loot you rather than earn our own living.
So pick any two from the list. You cannot ever have all three unless population magically stabilizes on its own. And if we're in for a rough patch, the often-mooted universal demographic transition based on everybody becoming rich simply will not occur for the foreseeable future. Nor will exhortation have more than a transitory effect, as the subsequent generation will simply consist of those who are not amenable to exhortation.
In reality, the unshakable modern simultaneous insistence upon (2) and (3) renders any serious discussion of population taboo, as we have seen from the periodic fireworks in the Drumbeat thread. No go.
Fortunately, world population appears to be doing exactly that.
If you look at the UN figures on world population, you'll find its growth rate grew until about 1970, but has been falling ever since. Moreover, it's projected to continue falling for decades to come, reaching a growth rate of only 0.36% in 2050, and should become negative before the end of the century.
And if we're in for a patch rough enough that it stops global GDP growth - which even the oil shocks of the 70s could not accomplish - then poor, rapidly-growing countries may become unable to support that rapid population growth. Recent history suggests that will lead to localized starvation (Ethiopia), genocide (Rwanda), voluntary population control (parts of India), and involuntary population control (China).
All of which global civilization has successfully weathered in the past.
I doubt the UN looks into peak oil/NG
if natgas falls down in production, farm production will also drop like a rock!
I assume you are referring to ammonia production requiring natural gas. It doesn't, the Haber-Bosch process originally used coal to produce the hydrogen needed in ammonia production.
C + H2O --> H2 + CO
Any electrolysis of water can make H2 to fix on N2 to make Ammonia. This needs, of course, electricity and water, but can be done in the middle of nowhere without access to the grid - not real cheap, but flexible!
I love ammonia, I really do!!
Huh?
I thought a major reason to discuss these matters was to see if there might be a way to transition out of fossil fuels and out of infinite population growth in a somewhat humane manner. If genocide and mass starvation are satisfactory outcomes, the whole discussion, not only this one but the one on Peak Oil itself, becomes unintelligible, or at least superfluous.
As to the UN figures, they are only educated guesses, not gospel, and I insist that they are predicated on robust economic growth. The "6" in "0.36%" is pure noise, and the "3" is probably pure noise as well. In addition, voluntarism is guaranteed to be transitory, as the volunteers will be represented less and less in each future generation. There are still many large families even in rich countries, and they will "win" out.
Oh, and the Chinese involuntary approach is falling apart.
Oh, and the 1970s were only two transitory blips, with long gas lines for only a few months and really bad only in limited areas.
So, I say, Houston, we really do have a problem.
Genocide and mass starvation have happened throughout human history though - nothing is likely to change that until the entire world is living in prosperous economic conditions (which didn't stop Hitler either, but hopefully our memories aren't so short to allow such a thing to happen again).
Transitioning away from fossil fuels may well happen in a "somewhat humane manner" - if we restrict our focus to developed countries. For developing countries, especially those like China and India that are only just now getting the taste of fossil-fuel power, it's really hard to see how things could be smooth sailing. For truly impoverished countries where fossil fuels are not an integral part of economic conditions, things will probably get worse as developed nations increasing find themselves worrying about their own problems, and aid/tourism/medical assistance/export dollars dry up. I don't hold much hope for sub-Saharan Africa at all, sadly.
The best I think we can realistically hope for is a) prevention of out-and-out large-scale warfare and/or collapse of democracy and b) moderately quick recovery time - perhaps within as little as a decade. Given a major problem with making progress today is the entrenched attitudes of consumers and corporations with vested interests, a decade-long recession should largely rid us of those attitudes.
The biggest unknown is how will various nations deal with huge changes in the global balance of power. If the U.S. does as badly as many here expect it to, and Saudi Arabia becomes an enormously powerful country, global politics will be vastly different.
And the first part of that is seeing if there's a way to transition out at all.
Which, despite the insistence of a few die-hard doomsayers, there is.
False dilemma fallacy.
You're holding peak oil mitigation to an unreasonably high standard. The world already has genocide and mass starvation at times, so expecting a post-peak world to not have those is expecting a substantial improvement. If their prevalence is approximately the same post-peak, I would think that would be a reasonable outcome vis-a-vis peak oil.
Of course; however, they're almost certainly rather more well-founded than most of the population numbers people here throw around.
Meaning population growth is tapering off even without harsh resource constraints, making it basically an upper bound. So the pressures associated with population growth should be assumed to be declining towards zero, rather than increasing towards infinity, as they might with a "constant growth rate" model.
Only if you assume that the reason for not volunteering is genetic and inheritable, rather than cultural and changeable.
Care to back up that assertion with evidence?
Care to back up any of your assertions with evidence?
Oil production fell four years in a row - from 1979 through 1983 - by an average of 3.5% per year, and by almost 5% in the first 3 years.
That that caused only a "transitory blip" is perhaps evidence that declining oil production will not cause the massive disruption you seek, rather than evidence that a sudden 13% decline in oil production was minor.
Yeah, we do - nihilists with a doomsday fetish keep throwing up nonsensical statements without providing a shred of evidence to back them up.
Pitt, do you have UN figures for individual years, going from 2000 to the present? from what I've been able to find out elsewhere, population growth remained only static (in percentage terms) from the UN's 2000 figure, and the latest estimate I've seen shows a slight uptick this year. So I see no evidence for falling growth, at present, even though it clearly fell in the past.
True, but then there was capacity to increase production, which did happen. What evidence is there that oil production will increase in the future?