136 comments on An Extension of the World Import/Export Land Model
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
136 comments on An Extension of the World Import/Export Land Model
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Google search
Advanced search
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- Politics and Peak Energy
- How do we maintain adequate phosphorus and potassium levels for crops?
- What should we do with funds set aside for retirement?
TOD:Europe
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- Electric cars an 'attractive proposition' for Australia
- Electric Vehicles: The End Of Australian Manufacturing ?
- Upcoming Forum In Sydney: 'Peak Oil - Is this the end of civilisation as we know it ?'
TOD:Net Energy
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
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“A third of humanity doesn't want to ride bikes anymore; that has profound geopolitical implications.”
—Anne Korin, the co-director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (May 1, 2005)
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Dave Murphy, Engineer-Poet, Glenn, Heading Out, Jason Bradford, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Nate Hagens, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:ANZ: aeldric, Big Gav, Phil Hart
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Once they exporters stop or seriously slow down exports for any exteneded period of time, the nuclear war will begin.
Putin buzzed London airspace three times in two days with his strategic (that means "possbily carrying nuclear bombs") bombers.
Mostly likely just saber rattling for now . . .
Why is a nuclear war assurred?
When the exporters can't/won't export enough oil to keep the AMerican corporate state going, the natural thing to do would be invade and seize. Sure, none of us here like that idea, but if it would keep us secure in our comfortable jobs and lifestyles, we'd all do what we are already doing but simply with more vigor: look the other way.
Problem is the Anglo-AMerican corporate state is already pretty overextended militarily . . . not to mention dependent on an influx of borrwowd cash to finance more war. ..
So that leavea them with the following situation:
A. Accept the situation, retreat to the Northern Hemishpere. This ensures a 0% chance of success in their view as they would lose oil imports not to mention all sorts of other assets.
B. Launch nukes. This will in 99.5% of the time screw up everything. But from their perspective a .5% chance of victory is far batter than 0% chance.
Remember, these people are convinced they can fight and win a first strike nuclear war.
Those of you stuck in a primary target*, there is no pont in worrying about this. Santa Rosa is a teriatary target so if this happens soon I'll be sure to post here "Hey looks like I was right suckers!" before it all comes down.
*list of primary, secondary, and tertiary targets:
http://www.survivalring.org/cd-targets.php
Perhaps mainly for mental health purposes (Matt would say delusional purposes), I am arguing for Alan Drake's vision of the future--which is based on how we moved people and goods around before we really started the OIl Age.
Unfortunately, as Matt points out, current events tend to support Matt's point of view.
Jeff,
Actually, I would not call it "delusional." You are right, for mental health purposes of the vast majority of people, it is better NOT to think about this.
I have the flexibilty of being able to move anywhere I want as I have enough for a plane ticket and a year of expenses, and I can maintain my current income stream from anywhere so long as BAU continues. So for me it is at least possible to take action although as you know from our private exchanges, it is damn hard to figure out what to do.
Most do not have this flexibility. They are stuck where they are. What good would it do for their brain to digest this stuff? They can't act on the info so they would probably have a mental breakdown if they thought the way I did.
If I was not fortunate enough to have this degree of flexibility in my personal life, my brain would probably find a way to delete or deny this out of existence for my own short-term good.
This is why I haven't sent my sister a copy of Crude Awakening. She's a 27 year old teacher in San Jose. What can she do, realistically speaking, to prepare for all this?
@ the hippies: yes, yes, I know. She could grow an urban garden and hold relocalization meetups! *realistically* that's not going to amount to jack squat in her current location. San Jose is not quite as bad as Los Angeles but I think a quick look at this pic will let you know why I think relocalization efforts in the big cities are pretty pointless:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/postoilbulletin/mapoflosangeles.html
Edit:
Here's a satellite image of san jose circa 1994. It's twice as bad now given the development spawned by the tech boom:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/San_jose_ca_199...
There's no point in even trying to seriously prepare in such a place.
Yes, that all falls under basic diasaster prep. I have all of that stuff in spades msyelf, mostly because of the earthquake risk. She does to and even has stuff in her classroom in case the school annnounces a "security lockdown" and they are locked down in the classroom.(They've even had drills for this.)
In terms of a temporary crisis, one that lasts between 5 and 50 days, all of that can save your butt. But that's not what I'm talking about here which is a long term, permanent crisis.
Yeah, cause mankind is so fuckin dumb it'll nuke itself rather than figuring a way out of this mess. Christ, I mean, its a shared fear we all have been having for like 60 years now? But to literally say that its the most probable thing, well, it had to come only from Matt. He's the one who thinks the gov is preparing to change our genes, while creating a terminator robot (LOL) and freaks out because pres. Bush is being substituted for a day by his own vice-president... ('Doh!)
What a doomer! You beat them all, man. Keep it up. Until the bomb goes, that is!
The problem with such apocalyps porn is that it removes attention from serious civil defence for handling reasonable disaster scenarios.
Right.
Because with 20,000 nuclear weapons floating around in an international environment in whichl the critical life support, energy, and trade systems are failing it isn't reasonable to be concerned about nuclear war.
Now, now ... let's not turn TOD into a disasterbation page
This is hysterically funny. When people bring up completely unrealistic schemes such as ethanol, there is always someone like yourself to jump up to defend them and "discuss" them in excruciating detail. But when someone brings up real world facts coupled with opinions about potential conflicts in geopolitics (opinions shared by notables such as Henry Kissinger even about Sino-US competition and West-vs-Islam confrontation), the pro-technology crowd resorts to ad hominems, citing "doomer porn" or "disasterbation" in an attempt to discredit those discussing such dangerous situations. You and your pro-technology "tribe" automatically close ranks and attack those whose opinions dissents without ever actually entering into a rational discussion of these things.
So there is NEVER any open discussion of potential disaster scenarios here. They are always dismissed, out of hand, without regard to historical facts, without regard to human psychology. This absurd whistling-past-the-graveyard behavior is very notable to someone actually looking at the psychology of this site. And you are not the only one doing it either. This goes back to my earlier statements that TOD has deliberately chosen to be wholly closed to any solution except a happy ending to peak oil. Even Don Sailorman talking about a recession gets harsh emotional reactions here, let alone anything worse.
You and your tribe may (note that I didn't say will, just may) be the most harshly surprised of all those reading here though. Let's all pray that your hopes and dreams come true, that there will be no use of 20,000 nuclear warheads, that Hansen is wrong about climate change, that peak oil will be a long slow gentle decline with no loss of exports from the exporting nations, and that the "free market" (ha!) will leap into action and produce miraculous results for you and everyone else in every single looming problem area. Because if all those things do not turn out as you wish, then people like Savinar may have turned out to be optimists. And even if those things do happen, you are probably ignorant of the larger problematic trends in the entire system anyway.
Hell, even when someone does purely statistical analysis of the current situation, such as Stuart or Ace, there is great wailing and gnashing of teeth whenever the numbers indicate something worse than "acceptable". This is why the knee jerk reactions to the export land model, because it highlights extreme rapid change, change that you and your tribe refuse to accept and probably will continue to refuse to accept even if it actually happens, instead invoking your "gods" and wondering if you had just said the right incantations or the right prayers (made the right investments in technology) that things would have turned out ok.
But don't let me stop your irrational bashing of "doomer porn". No, go right ahead! We wouldn't want to even potentially admit to anything except our predicted happy ending, right?
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone
Yeah, but it is the purpose of this site to discuss the technicalities of things. We are not know-it-alls, and people may have big doubts. Perhaps someone remembers a killer fact, like "ethanol has very low EROEI and it will consume away food otherwise eaten". And then people discuss the veracity of it. That's reasonable. Rational.
But then a doomtard just comes and says. "We are fukin doomed, this just signals the bombers green light to nuke us all, see those russian bombers? See them? See them? Told ya! Told ya!". It's like listening to Bill O'Reilly, but backwards. Totally irrational. Come on! We could discuss if the bombings could be a choice, but how on Earth could we discuss it? Doesn't everyone understand that a nuclear war is a always LOST war, like, FOR FOREVER? Yeah, we could ramble about the stupidity of mankind, like Einstein did, but what's the point?
And mostly, I believe you can bring it here, for no one will censor you. So what are you rambling about? Problem is, I disagree of instilling desperation. People that instill it are, curiously, not that very desperate at all. I find that these kind of people are just so into their character that they've learned to appreciate the "power" that they believe their words cast like if they are some kind of prophets. They even believe that they are prophets. Their style of writing is also very similar, prophetic, evangelistical, the "all of your sins will be awashed in pain and sorrow" type, the Apocalypse Now. It's oh so christian-nuttie-like that even they don't realise the dumbiness of it. Been There, Done That A Couple Thousand Years Ago, Thank You, Don't Come Back. It's comparable to the idiots of "left behind", but rather than established in a faith-fact, somewhat "based" on science-facts. But the attitude is exactly the SAME.
Where are those knee-jerk reactions? This model is way scarier than the normal simplistic Peak Oil model, and it sounds pretty solid as such. I hope it turns out wrong, but I don't see how. So, yes, things will come out ugly. But to leap-frog and start a nuclear war about it is to deny history. 1973 was way farther of a nuclear war than 1961, which had nothing to do with oil. I Knee jerk react to these kinds of doom-it-all fuck-it-all "prophecies" which are nothing but a projection of our inner id desires to just smash up all the rest of the world.
Happy ending? Every time one comes here with a smug smile and "we'll work it out" attitude, one's completely bashed. Be real!
And calm yourself.
duck and cover ?
Matt, never underestinate the ability and need of power elites to foresee and prepare. Power cannot afford to REact, it has to act, to create a situation rather than wait for what happens. Too dangerous.
Hence preparations for the endgame have been running for years, there simply is no other possibility.
The whole economic malaise did not just happen or fall out of the sky, it was set up and executed.
As a result, there will very soon be millions of newly impoverished Americans who will have no other options than utter misery or donning a cannonfodder uniform. No overextended military in sight.
Some will point to a lack of training for the new recruits, but thorough training only makes sense if you value the lives of your soldiers.
Besides, in WWII two weeks was often all the training provided. How much the US elite values the lives of Americans can be seen in New Orleans. It's all been thought of, the choices have been made.
Oh I believe they have prepard for this. That's why they have the underground cities ready to go.
At the same time remember that everything in life, including the ability of any society's elites to maintain control, is subject to dminishing returns. The NSA's electricity crisis, which has been deemed "catastrophic" is an example of this. The developing space debris catastrophe is another example. I wrote an article about this, it might be good for you to read it and consider my points:
http://www.lifeafterpeakoil.com/Archives2007/blognsa.html
Another example: the elites at GM and Ford have access to all the money and sophisticated computer modeling software known to man. Despite this, they were not able to prepare themselves for what is unfolding.
To a certain degree you are correct. But if things were as cut and dry as you seem to believe, the NSA would not be running into a "catastrophic" electricity shortage. Nor would the system of highly sophisticated space satellites the elites use to control the banking, telecom, and propaganda systems be in as much jeopardy as they are.
The "elites" are "elites" but they are not omnipotent gods. At some point even they lose control of their systems. I think we're reaching that point.
Well, maybe we should define "elites". Nobody at Ford or GM belongs in that group, for starters, nor at the White House. Power and visibilty do not go together. Nobody you can see has anything to say, that's the principle.
Second, is the role of one agency, the NSA, as vital as you seem to think it is? Third, I'd feel safe betting that there is quite a bit of awareness of diminishing returns and receding horizons. That, after all, is how it all starts, the preparing.
The sole important question is: what is needed to hold on to power in a time of forever decreasing resources? Number one is get rid of a whole bunch of people, especially the unproductive large-scale consuming kind.
I don't see how space satellites are part of the equation, far too vulnerable, can't depend on that sort of thing. It's crucial to see where your vulnerabilties lie, and minimize them. Secure communication. Not stuff that can be wiped out by nuclear and/or electron(ic) blasts.
It may seem stupid for elites to wreck the planet with pollution, nukes and bioweapons, but if you look one step further, and accept that it will happen regardless, you see everything in a different light, and use it to your advantage, and, yes, go underground and/or build secure estates on top of the Guarani qauifer.
I'll go read you file.
Now how do you get this "kill the middle class" conspiracy to work togeather with the globalization effort creating lots of new middle class people in hungry countries?
I am sure you have twisted theory that would make for a fun read but it would probably fit beter somewhere else then ToD.
but are gm and ford (and the typical cornucopian) doing anything different than extrapolating past trends into the future ?
* warning(s) *
past performance is no guarantee of future returns
objects in this mirror may be closer than they appear
do not remove this tag under penalty of law
ok, i went a little over the edge on that last one
If this description of the world situation is close to the real situation and it indeed is a large conspiracy it is quite a dumb one. Stupidity and organizational alzheimers do not need a conspiracy to do its non work.
Matt - do you have a reference for this: "Putin buzzed London airspace three times in two days with his strategic (that means "possbily carrying nuclear bombs") bombers." ?
I generally don't buy this nuclear war idea certainly not as a widespread thing, though I don't rule out a tactical strike against, say, Iranian nuclear installations.
UK Telgraph, Spacewar.com, and defensenews.com, among other sources. All linked up near the top of my newspage yesterday and being discussed very actively on the breaking news sub forum of my forum.
It could be surveillance, saber-rattling, Putin's way of saying "say hello to my little friend" a combo of the all of the above. . .
FWIW, one of my mods warned us something big might happen on the 18th or 19th. Putin ended up buzzng them once on the 18th, twice on the 19th.
@ TOD overlrods:
hope this isn't blogwhoring or if it is at least not totally blatant blogwhoring.
Thanks Matt, I'll look at them. If Putin is that mad about the expulsions of his diplomats from London, I don't think UK will be seeing much gas from him next winter. I'll admit I did print out what was suggested for a 72 hour bug out kit from survival ring ...
that and this:
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PostOilBulletin/doomerbike.html
. . . and your short term survival chances are greatly increased.
=)
Matt, please don't take offense, but the traditional view Americans seem to have of nuclear war (and the world for that matter) is so narrow as to be actually funny for foreign observers: you seem to think the world ends at Rio Grande.
The most likely outcome of all-out nuclear war is the US being repopulated by Latinos, Europe by North Africans and Arabs, European Russia by Turks and Iranians, and Siberia by Chinese (unless they are also wiped out, in which case first China will be repopulated with Indians). To avoid such an outcome the whole world should be wiped out. That would mean for the elite staying at the supposed underground cities for a long time indeed.
So IMHO all-out nuclear war is not an option contemplated even by the most imperialistic of neocons (as opposed to limited nuclear war e.g. with Iran).
Their actions indicate they think otherwise. But if you need to ignore those in order to get through the day, by all means do so.
As far as the undergournd cities, here's an article on the ones from the 1950s:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/underground_city/index.shtml
Click on the video and take the driven tour. What they have today must be pretty amazing.
>> What they have today must be pretty amazing.
The peak of bunker building in the UK was in 1954 and then again in 1962.
Almost all of the civil defence structure has been dismantled since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Many big bunkers have been sold off - they now house web centres etc.
The 1000+ chain of 4-man "observation bunkers" have all gone ... mostly demolished, some sold.
The idea of advanced "underground survival cities" in the UK is laughable.
I think TOD needs an automated system of "scoring" posts & posters. This would allow prime posters such as westtexas and khebab to shine through, without having to compete with low grade "noise".
>> Putin buzzed London airspace three times in two days with his strategic (that means "possbily carrying nuclear bombs") bombers.
There is no need to exaggerate a mundane event.
The bombers simply approached Scotland and were then chased off.
The Russians used to do this DAILY during the Cold War.
The recent flights were certainly a surprise - but were probably related to the current UK - Russian extradition row.
Hypeing such trivial events and burbling on about nuclear war and target lists does not help the TOD message or its reputation.