The Expected Economic Impact of an Energy Downturn

I have been asked to give a short talk about the expected economic impact of an energy downturn. The talk is to be part of public health program called "Converging Environmental Crises: A Teach-in on Energy, Climate Change, Water, Agriculture and Population." I expect that the audience will be university students plus physicians and others in the public health field. The talk will be recorded, and will appear on the internet. I have added some to the talk, since my first draft. These are the PowerPoint slides I show. This is a link to the recorded version of my talk.

Good afternoon. My name is Gail Tverberg. Some of you know me as "Gail the Actuary" on TheOilDrum.com web site. The Oil Drum is a web site about energy and our future.

Today, I will be talking to you about The Expected Economic Impact of an Energy Downturn. If, after this talk, you would like to learn more about peak oil and about resource depletion issues of all types, TheOilDrum.com is a good site to go to for more information.

Let's talk a bit first about the energy downturn. As everyone is aware, the price of gasoline and diesel has been rising recently. The reason the price is rising is because the world's supply of oil cannot keep up with demand.


Figure 1


I have illustrated the situation we are facing in Figure 1. In this chart, I show demand increasing in the future at about the same rate that consumption has increased in the past. One reason for increasing demand is growth of economies of developing countries such as China and India.

The supply of oil has leveled off. Oil production for 2007 was about the same as it was in 2005 and 2006. Many people believe that sometime in the next few years, supply may actually begin to fall. Even if supply remains level, as it has in the past three years, there will be a growing gap between expected future demand and supply.

Why Does a Drop in Oil Production Make a Difference?

Why does a drop in the production of oil, or for that matter, any type of energy, make a difference? After all, oil doesn't cost a lot. We only pay about 4% of the US gross domestic product for it.

In many ways, oil is like food for your car, or food for the earthmover that makes our roads. Without food, we can't do anything. We would starve. Without oil, or the fuel made from oil, all of our big equipment won't work. Our electric power plants use other types of fuel, but if they don't have the fuel they need, we won't have the electric power we need either. Our houses will be dark.

We talk about substitutes, but in the real world they are still a very long way off. Think about plug-in battery-operated cars--that's the kind that use only electricity. First of all, we really don't have this kind of car perfected. Even if we did, it wouldn't solve our need for a whole lot of other kinds of vehicles, like semi-trucks and earth-moving equipment.

Suppose we did have the plug-in cars perfected. We still would have to figure out how to build the cars in quantity. Engineers are looking at the possibility of using lithium batteries, but the supply of lithium isn't necessarily sufficient for making millions of batteries for cars.

We also have to think about how people will pay for all the new cars. If there isn't a good supply of oil, the old cars suddenly are worth very little. How many people are going to be able to buy a new car, if they can't trade in their old car as a down payment on the new one?

Scientists have looked at a lot of other solutions as well, but they all seem to be a long way off. It is hard to get people to tell us the truth about the problem. Politicians don't want to admit there is a problem that they don't have a solution for. Even a publication like Scientific American won't admit there is a problem. They would like us to think that our scientists can fix any problem. No one wants to admit that the solutions they are looking at are a long way off.

Earth Is Finite

What is happening is that the earth is finite, and we are starting to reach some of its limitations. At this point, most of the "easy to extract" oil has already been removed. There is still oil in the ground, but what remains is becoming more and more difficult to remove.

When we try to find alternatives, we encounter limitations of other types. In some situations, natural gas might be a substitute, but in North America it is also in relatively short supply. Coal is in better supply, but it has serious climate change issues.

We hear a lot about ethanol from corn. Growing corn for ethanol requires huge amounts of agricultural land and fresh water. Both agricultural land and fresh water are in limited supply. About 25% of the corn we grow in the United States is now being used to produce ethanol. Even using this huge amount of corn, we don't produce very much ethanol. The energy content of the ethanol produced is equal to only about 1% of energy of the oil we use. Clearly, there is no way we can scale up this process, to cover any reasonable shortfall of oil.

Even the minerals that we might use in batteries, and the uranium we might use in nuclear reactors, are becoming increasingly difficult to extract. We have already removed most of the high quality ores of many minerals. What is left is ores of lower concentration. These ores can still be extracted, but it takes more energy resources to process this ore. The energy resources used for processing the ore are often oil and natural gas, and they themselves are in increasingly short supply.

Immediate Economic Impacts

We are all aware that the price of oil is rising. With the increase in price in oil, the price of things made from oil, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and asphalt also rises. In some cases, it is possible to substitute one fuel for another. Because of this, prices for other fuels, like natural gas and coal, also tend to rise. Electricity is made from coal and natural gas, so its price tends to increase as well.

Food prices are also rising. This is partly because oil is used in growing crops and transporting them to market, and the cost of oil is higher. Higher food prices also reflect the fact that food production is not keeping up with demand, now that demand is so much higher because of biofuel use.

Impacts of Higher Food and Oil Prices

A major impact of higher food and oil prices is to squeeze out discretionary spending, such as eating out at restaurants and flying overseas on vacation. Some students may have to temporarily drop out of college, if their families can no longer afford to help with tuition. Families will cut back in many different ways to keep their budgets balanced.

Another impact of higher food and oil prices is more defaults on loans. We first heard about higher default rates on subprime mortgages. As prices of food and energy continue to rise, defaults can be expected to spread to other kinds of loans, such as credit card debt, auto loans, and student loans.

As families cut back on spending, financial difficulties can be expected to spread to businesses. Some types of businesses that are particularly vulnerable include restaurants, airlines, auto manufacturers, and homebuilders. Businesses with high levels of debt are especially vulnerable, since a drop in revenue is likely to make it difficult to make loan payments.

Financial institutions, such as banks, hedge funds, insurance companies, and pension funds are also likely to be affected by rising default rates. When individuals or businesses take out loans, these loans are often held by one of the various types of financial institutions. If there are defaults, it adversely affects these institutions. Banks and hedge funds often borrow money themselves, so they may find themselves squeezed in the middle if default rates rise. Insurance companies and pension funds may find themselves unable to meet their obligations, if defaults become a serious problem.

Finally, recession is an important impact of higher food and oil prices. Higher energy prices in the past have lead to recessions, including the very severe recession that took place in 1973 to 1975. It is likely that higher energy prices are one of the causes of the current recession.

Longer Term Impacts

The graph I showed earlier suggested that the gap between oil supply and demand is likely to get wider, as time goes on. If the shortfall in oil continues to get worse, and it is not possible to offset this shortfall in other ways, this recession may become permanent. The recession may get worse with time, turning into what we would think of as a long-term depression.

We are now reaching limits of many kinds. One way of representing the economy at various points in time is as disks of various sizes. Each year, society has various resources available to it, in terms of oil, natural gas, fresh water, soil productivity, minerals of various types, good climate, and people available to work with these resources. Based on the investments we have made over the years, society is able to produce a collection of goods and services using these resources. The amount of these goods and services has been growing. Let us look at this graphically.

In the recent past, the economy has been growing:


Figure 2

With a long-term recession, it may change to a no-growth economy:


Figure 3

More likely, the economy will decline as resources deplete:


Figure 4

(TOD readers: In the article The financial crash has a simple cause and a simple solution, Jerome a Paris discusses the fact that since 2002, the US median wage has stagnated. Thus, for a large share of the population, we have already reached the "no growth" scenario. This lack of growth in median wages is likely the reason that the financial services industry developed new forms of loans that made home-buying look more affordable than it really was. The lack of growth in median wage is also a likely reason that those same schemes are now falling apart. To the right is the graph Jerome showed.)

With a declining resource base, the median wage, adjusted for inflation, is likely to decline. This decline in median wage means that default rates on loans are likely to increase, and that discretionary spending will continue to decline.

Future Promises

It is not very obvious just looking at an array of discs, but a change from a growing economy, to a flat or declining economy, is really a major change. With a growing economy, future promises are relatively easy to fund:


Figure 5

The reason promises like interest payments and social security payments are relatively easy to fund in a growing economy is because these payments are generally not growing as fast as the economy as a whole. When promises such as these are made, the expectation is that the payments will be less of a burden in the future, because the economy will have grown. With this growth, there should be plenty of funds left over for other things.

With a flat or declining economy, funding for promises becomes almost impossibly difficult. Food and energy costs become a bigger share of the economy, over time, because of energy shortages. Future promises like interest, social security, and Medicare payments also become bigger, relative to the total. I have illustrated this in another graph. The combination of the two types of increases, that is the food and energy costs plus the cost of future promises, becomes a huge problem. There is not enough left over for "everything else".


Figure 6

Lenders Will Soon Catch on to Decline

If the economy is in long-term decline, it will not be very long before lenders start to catch on. Some creditors may actually figure out that the economy is not growing, and that it is not likely to grow in the future, because of energy shortages and other limits. Other lenders may only figure out that the default rate is very high, and, because of the way the economy is headed, it can only go higher. Regardless of their reasoning, many lenders are likely to come to the same conclusion, namely, that it no longer makes sense to offer loans.

For the United States, the balance of payments deficit is very much like debt. For years, the United States has been importing nearly twice as many goods as it exports. Once trading partners realize that the US economy is in long-term decline, they will realize that it will be almost impossible for the United States to make up for its export shortfall in the future. They are also likely to realize that buying US treasury bonds is not a good substitute for an even trade balance, since the Treasury bonds are likely to decline in value in the future, in terms of the goods they can buy. These issues could lead to a crisis in US imports of all kinds.

World Is Headed for a Credit Unwind

It seems likely that the world is now headed for a major unwind of credit. There has recently been a crisis in the financial markets. This crisis looks very much like the beginning of a major shift toward reduced credit availability. As energy supplies get tighter, economic conditions are likely to get even worse. People will be spending more for food and gasoline, so will be more likely to default on loan payments. If people are out of work, they are more likely to share living spaces. This will reduce demand for houses, and further depress prices.

I expect that the shift toward reduced credit availability will expand in the future. This may even be the "great unwind", in which debt and financial instruments of all types, including derivatives, become very much less common. The real question now is what form the unwind will take. How major will it be? Will it take place in steps, or will large sections of it occur all at once?

The impact of a credit unwind is very much like cutting up a person's credit cards. The person (or business or government) still owes as much debt as in the past, but the organization has no way of obtaining new credit. The debtor must now repay the loans out of current income, in addition to paying current expenses out of income. For many, this will not be possible. Bankruptcy seems likely for many, including a large number of businesses and some governments.

It is possible that a correction to the balance of payments situation, mentioned previously, could be part of the unwind. If this happens, imports of all kinds could drop by as much as half, very quickly.

Looking Ahead 20 or 30 Years

If we look ahead 20 or 30 years, it seems likely that the world will be very much poorer. Personal autos may be rare. Electricity may be unreliable. It is likely that we will have much less in the way of goods and services than we have today. A growing population may add to our problems. If the smaller supply of goods and services is divided among more people, living standards are likely to be much lower than they are today.

If the world becomes much poorer, I would expect social security and Medicare to be drastically scaled back or even eliminated. There will be so little goods and services in total that society cannot afford to set aside much for the disabled and elderly.

I expect that in 20 or 30 years, many business and governments will have failed. Bonds of these businesses and governments will have little value. Stocks of companies that remain in business will continue to have value, but this value may not be high compared to the cost of available goods. Inflation rates are likely to be high, reflecting the lack of goods and services for people to actually buy if they do have money.

Insurance companies and pension plans own stocks and bonds of other companies. When these other companies fail, the insurance companies and pension plans are likely to encounter financial difficulty as well. People who were counting on insurance companies and pension plans for benefits are likely to get nothing, or to receive benefits that are worth very little, because of hyperinflation. I expect most people will choose to continue to work as long as they are physically able to work, because of the poor retirement and pension benefits available.

My expectation is that over the next 20 or 30 years, globalization is likely to be scaled back. A decline in air travel will make it more difficult to manage international businesses. There will be less trust for other countries, because of all the defaults. Countries expecting to import goods are likely to need a corresponding amount of goods to export.

Nature of the Transition

The exact timing and shape of transition from our current economic system to the one that will be in place twenty or thirty years from now is not yet clear. Ideally, the transition will be a slow one, planned by governments. Even if it is slow, it will not look all that slow to people who are laid off, or to people who can no longer afford to drive a car.

It seems at least equally likely that the transition will not be smooth. Many people talk about the possibility of some type of implosion, if our current debt situation cannot be straightened out, or if rising food and gasoline prices make the debt situation worse.

We would like to think that our current financial system can handle multiple failures by banks, money markets, hedge funds, and insurance companies. It is possible, though, that failures will cascade through the system, because each institution owes money to multiple other institutions. If too many institutions fail at once, it is possible that the safety nets in place for the financial system will not work. A lot of people could lose a lot of money, overnight, from multiple failures of institutions holding our money.

There is a second way cascading failures of financial institutions could work out badly. Suppose multiple failures cascade through the financial system, and regulators actually succeed in keeping financial institutions propped up. It is possible that all of the extra cash added to the system may cause rapid inflation, or hyperinflation. If this should happen, we might all find that our money will purchase very little, almost overnight. Our bank accounts would still be full; we just wouldn't be able to buy much of anything.

Unfortunately, the current safety net in case of cascading failures is fairly limited. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has proposed a new regulatory structure that would be wider ranging, and presumably provide a better safety net. Getting agreement on what this new regulatory structure should be is likely to take months. In addition, once a new structure is agreed upon, it is likely to take at least another year or two to fully implement the new plan.

Meanwhile, the problem with failing financial institutions is a very current one. If recent trends continue, it is possible that several large financial institutions may fail within the next few weeks or months. If failures occur this quickly, it is doubtful any new structure will yet be in place. We can only hope that ad hoc methods, such as those used by the Federal Reserve so far, will be successful in keeping things patched together.

Health Care Services

Since this talk is part of a series of talks related to public health, I will close by making a few comments about changes I expect in the healthcare field.

I expect that over the next 20 or 30 years, health care services are likely to be drastically scaled back. In a poorer world, I expect that services of all kinds are likely to become less important relative to actual physical goods, and medical services will not be an exception. Fees paid to physicians are likely to be scaled back even more than health care services in general, because few will be able to afford the high fees physicians currently charge.

Public health may become more important, rather than less. If people are poorer, they may look to the government to provide some basic level of service. We might do well to look at how some of the poorer countries are handling healthcare now, for some ideas as to what we might do in the future.

If there is a shortage of oil, transportation is likely to be an issue, for both healthcare employees and for patients. Smaller facilities, within walking distance of patients, may become more important.

Because we are running into limits in so many ways, I expect that electrical interruptions will become more common in the next 20 or 30 years. These may even become a problem early on, for a whole host of reasons, including lack of water for cooling, lack of fuel for power generation, and poor upkeep of the electrical grid. Healthcare providers would be wise to plan for the day when elevators and electronic records may not be available.

Conclusion

I am sorry all of these predictions are very downbeat. As the world reaches it limits, it is clear that the growth paradigm that we are used to will have to end. Decline is in fact quite likely. The financial world does not deal well with economic decline, so economic problems are likely to be among the more severe ones facing the nation and the world, in the years ahead.

Thank you.

Gail,

Sad, but most probably true.

As currencies become more debt-based (debts that were in-turn based on the promise of fossil-fuel fueled growth) they will obviously lose value. I suspect that a barter-based economy will become more prevalent.

I'm watching the budget debates going on in NJ. There are rumors that government departments might be eliminated. If true, where would the workloads go? After all, things need to be taken care of. Scary.

Things may need to be taken care of, but I suspect that they won't. If there is no Department of Education, each school will be on its, and any funding will be allocated on the basis of the simplest possible formula. If there are not enough funds for prisons, some excuse will be made to let the prisoners out early. Medicaid will go away too, if there are not funds for it.

I also heard the NJ State Department of Agriculture, as well as funding of equipment acquisitions for volunteer fire departments (as if they don't get paid little enough as is).

I live in NJ too and was a volunteer fire fighter a couple of years ago. I'm not sure that the state has ever had a significant hand in providing money for local departements to buy gear. Most of the money comes from private donations or fire distric taxes. Still, the budget situation in NJ is something to be concerned with. Gov. Corzine, as far as I'm concerned, is being realistic about the situation, and a lot of people in the state assembly simply don't want to face up to reality.

California has a 16 BILLION dollar deficit... so you can imagine the cuts going out here on the left coast.

Todd

If I were a lender, I would have serious questions about lending California anything, with that kind of deficit. California looks like a problem waiting to happen.

California is a problem in progress.

Interesting that the Bush regime has brought down three sitting Democratic governors. Gray Davis in California by recall, Don Siegelman in Alabama by dubious prosecution, and Eliot Spitzer in New York State by combing his financial records. (Spitzer is shamefully guilty, but his offenses were uncovered by opposition research. Siegelman seems to have been railroaded.)

The "no growth" situation cannot be recognized too soon.

I wasn't able to quickly find the last time that the CA budget was actually balanced, but it's been broken for a long time. At least 10 years, but my memory says much longer than that. We've been running on borrowed money forever. As in many other things, CA is a microcosm of the bigger picture, and it wouldn't suprise me a bit if, in the same way that we have led the country in pursuit of renewable energy and emissions controls, we also lead it in playing out the inevitable end of the borrowing game.

Great work on this article, Gail! It's not a pretty picture but you told it straight and simply, and you did it well.

Governments downsizing is something that I hadn't really thought much about until I read Kunstler's new book "World Made By Hand", where the State government in Albany is down to one guy working alone in the Capitol building (He has no authority, everything is really run by a warlord). As for medical care, it's just a GP in the little town (Union Grove) which is the main setting. He has to brew up his own pain-killers and other medicines. Most awfully, there aren't any antibiotics to be had. (I personally hope Kunstler is wrong about the antibiotics. )

I think your presentation is good, but I wonder if many young people will be able to fully understand its implications. A few more concrete examples might be helpful: little by little we'll have a tough time getting and affording plastic; we won't be able to fix roads, so people will have a harder time to simply VISIT a doctor, etc.

I'll see if I can add an example or two.

If I give the talk to other audiences later, when I am not constrained to 20 minutes, I can add some more.

I've discovered when you say, "There may not be medications", I get a lot of arguments that this is the highest use, so of course we would have medications, even if we had nothing else. Also, if I say there may not be plastics, someone believes that since they take such a small share of the petroleum, surely they will be spared. And so on.

If this is a part of a group of talks, it is hard to know how much foundation the other speakers will have laid.

Gail, what a great way of expressing the problems of medications or any usage - somehow they end up broken down and we're still using as much oil as ever! That's very helpful to me when I run into these same questions.

Sharon

Hey! Make with the Spoiler Alert! Some of us are still checking the mailbox for our copy of WMBH.

Thought about buying it locally, yes.

(I personally hope Kunstler is wrong about the antibiotics.)

Our grandparents' generation, our parents', our own, and perhaps our childrens', have had the great good fortune to have existed during the extremely narrow window in human history when fossil fuels were cheap and antibiotics actually worked.

Gail - Thank-you for writing a realistic unsanitzed version of events. We are so conditioned to the happy ending that this may sound downbeat. The post-peak world is a different landscape. The sooner we look at that reality and make adjustments the better.

There's a number of international organizations like The International Committee of the Red Cross, The International Organization for Migration, and UN activities like WFP that receive funding from the various member nations. Lots of these programs are already operating on a fairly tight budget and I'd guess things will get tighter still as nations look for places to cut. I doubt that donations will be especially forthcoming in hard times and there's probably some minimal funding level below which they just can't operate. (The bird with one wing can't fly witticism fits here.)

I often read here where folks assert that it's not possible for there to be a massive die-off in this day and time. Perhaps not here in the US (but I'm now so sure about that-things can happen very fast with a confluence of untoward events). Folks killed directly by warfare or a climatic disaster can't be prevented, but timely aid via these international programs can prevent lots of deaths and privation that sets in once the hurricane, volcano, earth quake, tsunami or whatever subsides.
I know from observing the response to the infamous hurricane Katrina that governments can be pretty callous about such things even when it strikes on the home turf and it's probably even easier to ignore if it's some little country somewhere in Africa.

Short answer: they won't.

Entitlement programs of all sorts will be scaled back or eliminated.

Infrastructure, especially roads, will be maintained less well and eventually not at all.

The fact is that we have built an enormous edifice that couldn't be funded even with steady growth, and certainly won't be in a shrinking economy.

In the short term you'll see desperate tax grabs, along with enormous labor disruptions from public sector unions as their disproportionate wage increases stall and even more as serious layoffs begin.

Longer term you'll see a lot of very angry ex-entitlement recipients causing increasing political turmoil.

Inner city riots will be commonplace as welfare stipends disappear.

Ya know - I don't think so. I was around during the riots of LA - but something tell me the anger is not in the air - maybe because we are all screwed?

maybe because we are all screwed?

I'd say the energy peak message has not quite arrived.

When the shelves of food go blank - then you will see reaction.

As an example of government funding problems, think of what happened in California after Prop 13 passed. Lots of departments took big hits, especially education. There was a hiring freeze, which, incidentally, cost me a job and a career. Governments will try to raise taxes where they can, which will only make the problem for the consumer more difficult and hit the consumer based economy even harder.

E. Swanson

The Economist Has No Clothes

In 1847 German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz formulated the conservation of energy principle and postulated the existence of a field of conserved energy that fills all space and unifies these phenomena. Later in the century James Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann and other physicists devised better explanations for electromagnetism and thermodynamics, but in the meantime, the economists had borrowed and altered Helmholtz’s equations.

The strategy the economists used was as simple as it was absurd—they substituted economic variables for physical ones.

Could you double check your link?

Actuaries are involved with a field that is basically economic, but don't go through the same indoctrination as everyone else (unless actuaries choose to take additional economic courses). My MS is in mathematics.

The casualty actuarial profession (what I am) basically grew up outside of the university system. We have our list of readings, and there are short courses a person can sign up to take, taught by other actuaries. Everyone must pass the prescribed examinations. There were never enough casualty actuaries to justify our own university program. There is now a program in Canada, at the University of Waterloo.

The life actuarial field is bigger, and is somewhat more tied to universities, but still pretty separate. I don't think we lost anything by not being closely tied to the economists.

the html in his link seems to have an extra close command at the end of it..

Well...economists might have taught you about supply and demand. When the price goes up.....
I doubt, at these prices, you will see demand rise the way you project on your charts. In fact, I think we have seen the peak already.....US demand now running below year-ago levels.....
add to that fresh supplies coming on..,Shell says they can extract shale oil at $30 a barrel, and they just annnounced they likely can make gasoline from biomass....man, these guys are great....never bet against man's ingenuity....
I hate to bring good news to the party here, but the fact is we will be making plenty of energy in the years ahead, as the demand shrinks...maybe a glut coming.....

Shell can't extract shale oil for $30/barrel or they'd be doing it. Extracting oil from shale requires lots of water and natural gas, gas now being used to heat homes. As it is diverted to produce shale and natural gas supplies diminish, the price of gas will rise exponentially.

And the amount of oil produced from shale will NEVER maintain pace with the loss of easy to refine light crude from existing mature fields.

Wake up and smell the napalm.

I hate to bring good news to the party here, but the fact is we will be making plenty of energy in the years ahead, as the demand shrinks

While you just got here - perhaps you take the time to read the arguments and data posted over the years, then cite how the arguments were wrong.

I'll try to remember your name a year from now - and see how your good news is working out.

Here is the correct link for the article:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes

This is an April 2008 article! People are actually now thinking about the issue. It is well past time.

I'm still confused.

... Was it the April 1 edition?
.....Or the April 31 edition?

Gold as an investment alternative? How would the value of gold develop under this scenario?

I would think it would have value. You probably wouldn't be able to buy milk and eggs with it, because the denomination would be way out of line. You would have to be able to show that it was really gold, and of the weight you said. I don't think ownership of a piece of a bar somewhere in someone's vault would necessarily be all that helpful, but if everything worked out well with paper currency, maybe it would be.

As simple as it sounds, if you want a cheap "lifeboat investment" go to your bank and load up on Eisenhower dollar coins and other coins.

If paper inflates, small coins will hold relative value against inflation.

Unless you can defend great wealth in a meltdown, it is best not to go flashing gold coins.

I think we can make the corner. Efficiency increases are so easy to make. The big question is will we make the effort before the fenders hit the corner.

I think we can make the corner.

If by 'make the corner' you mean keep the stock market growing for the rest of the century, I am extremely skeptical that we can do so. If we could create an economic system that did not require constant growth in order to be 'healthy' then it is possible that a combination of efficiency and the development of non-fossil energy sources could maintain a decent standard of living. However, creating an economy which does not 'need' growth requires altering the fundamental power relationships of our society. I am not holding my breath waiting for such an event to occur.

I think it is possible to have an economy that is not reliant on growth. The problem is it would involve government takeover of all banks, with zero interest loans for monetary creation, and an eternally balanced budget where taxes go up everytime government spending goes up.

Doable, but not politically viable until things get a lot worse.

I agree. Unfortunately the number of people who understand that public or community financing is an alternative to private financing is extremely small.

You can buy bags of silver quarters and dimes, that are a whole lot less expensive than gold coins. These would seem to me to be more practical. Check on the internet for suppliers.

I have numerous 1000oz silver bars (the big one in the pic below). Heavy as hell, but can be taken to a bank for a lot of credit. These bars are stamped with serial numbers and the exact weight (rarely exactly 1000oz), so no need to "prove" they are silver or have them assayed.

Must be fun having numerous bricks of that value. Hope you don't have to swim anywhere with 'em.

Nice that they have serial numbers and exact weight, but I think you still might have to "prove" it's really silver. Seems like you could make 'em hollow and pour in lead & aluminum to get the specific gravity just right.

One of my colleagues, metals investing guru Greg McCoach, recommends buying silver eagles in particular, because they are not only silver, but legal tender.

Euro,

Be sure to check on what the costs are if you need to sell/convert to cash. Gold traders - like any trader in other investment deals - do charge fees.

Although I agree with almost every word of this, I suspect it is a bit too harsh an introduction to peak net energy. You come to extreme conclusions (in the context of a typically unaware US audience) whilst presenting very little evidence to support it. It is a big subject to cover in one talk, but a little more introduction to how central energy is to industrial society, and some references to external information for those that wish to review the evidence may help.

In 20 minutes, it is hard to know where to go. I was originally starting from the premise that someone else would be talking about peak oil. After I looked at the list of speakers and talks, I decided that wasn't necessarily the case. Some of the others seemed to be talking about population overshoot and collapse. The speakers mostly seem to come from a medical/biological background, so the whole concept of energy is off their radar.

I ended us with at least a short introduction to energy shortages. I hope that a few of the others will go in this direction as well.

There are some articles on medicine, public health and peak oil, often by Bednarz and sometimes by Montague. See rachel.org. Maybe something there will help bridge to the health aspects.

cfm in Gray, ME

Bednarz is organizing the event Gail is preparing for. I will give a talk, so will my wife, an MD. I think the promo materials will be available soon and it is free and open to anyone who visits the web site.

One blogger:

Peak oil medicine, a blog by Dr Paul Roth exploring health care options for a scarce oil future.

http://peakoilmedicine.com/

Very standard, mainstream.

There is actually quite a bit of standard medicine that one can do with very little electricity. When my father learned medicine in the 1940s, he used a stethoscope even more than doctors do now. He learned to diagnose illnesses more based on symptoms, with much less reliance on medical tests.

Later, my father learned hypnotism, and used that as an anesthetic when delivering babies and when sewing up people hurt in auto accidents.

My father is no longer alive, but he would get very disgusted with the doctors he went to because they couldn't do the kind of medicine he had been trained to do years earlier. He read constantly, so knew many of the more up-to date techniques as well.

Ahem, well perhaps not everybody with such a medical/biological background (I'm a neurologist). Of course, general energy issues are not mainstream, in the sense we see it from the oil drum. However such an audience should be rather easily convinced (if they don't watch CNN too much). In medical training we deal a lot with some forms of energy, be it only in feeding. I think concepts of homeostasis and intersystem analysis are well understood by such people. When I discuss these issues with colleagues, most ot them understand well what I am talking about. Doctors working in hospitals or general practioners are probably already used to increasing poverty among patients.

The people less convinced are the executives from the large pharmaceutical companies.

I would agree that doctors are pretty good at understanding these things. I have discussed TOD topics with my brother, who is a psychiatrist, and he has a good understanding of what is going on. Other relatives, with more like engineering backgrounds, catch on quickly too.

I don't think the audience is really doctors. I think the audience may include a fair number of graduate students, and they should catch on reasonably well.

Well drafted. Please post the URL on the internet once delivered..

I agree that it would be best if someone - if not you - could outline some of the things that NEED to and COULD be done to at least soften the landing and transition.

Sorry to keep beating on the Climate Code Red horse but that is - on the one hand - a very sobering read, but on the other hand things are peesented that can be done to soften the blow of Global Climate Change however they are presented in the conext of we have one chance to get it it right and BAU, PAU, and TAU (thinking as usual) will NOT cut it. No more screwing around.

Seems to me to be similar here. These students can be left with some "hope" - NOT sunshine up the rear end hope - that there are things that can be done and it is (also) up to them to "lobby" that they be done if not to get them.

Pete

Its true that its a difficult subject to cover in such a short time span because of all the inter-related subjects but I hope if anyone is going to grasp the scale of the problem it will be some bright students.

Although I agree with almost every word of this, I suspect it is a bit too harsh an introduction to peak net energy.

I think it is necessary to declare at lease Peak Growth.

The economy is like a freight train. It has momentum and requires consistently increasing energy and/or efficiency gains to keep speeding it up (growth).

The energy source that got us to the party is conventional crude oil. Other forms of oil may take its place, but until proven, I would not bet my life on oil sands.

Looking at Peak Crude, disposable income and foreclosures indicates that lack of steadily increasing crude results in diminishing discretionary income and more foreclosures.

What Jpods have you folks sold? Do they work in the summer, if it gets hot outside?

Hi Gail

We have an agreement to build at the Mall of America and are working on funding. Our British friends and competitors are building at Heathrow. Backed by Korean steel company POSCO a network is opening by Vectus in Uppsala Sweden.

Based on riders per day the elevator is the most successful form of public transportation. Horizontal elevators on automated guideways was recommended by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment as a solution to the 1973 Oil Embargo in study PB-244854. Opened in 1975, Morgantown's PRT, has delivered 110 million oil-free, injury-free passenger miles since.

Hopefully the recent EU study and New Jersey Legislature study will help.

Having the wrong idea does not mean no one will buy. Congress bought biofuels on a massive scale.

Having the right idea does not mean it is easily sold. Opening minds is sometimes a hard sell.

Once the first networks open and people experience the service of a chauffeured car with the cost of an elevator, networks will propagate.

Thanks. It is hard to get a real life model of anything new and somewhat expensive going and tested. Until this happens, no one wants to be the first one, so it is an uphill battle, especially if you don't have an interest group, like corn farmers and ethanol investors, pushing the project along.

There is a joke among people working on this, "There is an infinite number of cities that want to be first at being third."

Reading the history of the Transcontinental Railroads, there is a great comment from the Chief Engineer that no one, not even day laborers would give credit to get started. That all changed once the first miles of rail went into operation.

Innovation is brutal in a free market. It is insanely tough when you need rights of ways from regulatory monopolies.

I love the CSX ads showing they can move a ton 423 miles on a gallon of fuel. In urban transport we use a gallon of gas to move a person 18 miles. We can do better. Someday we will.

Excellent, Gail--you are a superb teacher. Clear, simple, succinct, logical. I hope they listen to you.

Yes very good Gail keep it up.

It’s great to see an enthusiastic discussion about how to improve our energy future. With the cost of gasoline predicted to reach $4.00/gallon by summer and other sources such as coal and natural gas following suit, more and more people are interested in learning about the promise of alternative energy options. Many government and industry leaders believe transitioning to a hydrogen economy will help will to reduce oil consumption and improve our environment. Later this week the NHA Annual Hydrogen Conference and Expo US, March 30 – April 3, is taking place in Sacramento, CA. Please visit hydrogenconference.org to learn more. If you live near or if you’re traveling to Sacramento, we invite you to join us and experience how hydrogen can have a positive impact on our lives. The latest hydrogen technologies from all over the world will be on display, and there will even be opportunities to drive hydrogen vehicles from several leading auto manufacturers – all this is free and open to the public on Monday, March 31 at the Sacramento Convention Center. Stay tuned for upcoming announcements from the Hydrogen Expo.

In addition, the Hydrogen Education Foundation has recently launched a website to help people better understand hydrogen as a fuel. Please visit www.h2andyou.org to improve your knowledge about hydrogen as an alternative fuel.

I am sure hydrogen will save us.

In short, hydrogen is not a source of energy, it is a means of storing and transporting energy.

Hydrogen might be the solution to a shortage of transportation fuel ( i.e. oil) but if we are short of energy itself, hydrogen is irrelevant.

Hydrogen's only advantage as a transportation fuel is that it is fairly easy to create - from natural gas or through electrolysis.

Its energy density (at least chemically) is extremely poor, and it is very hard to store and transport.

If you are really going to try to convert electricity to transport fuel, I think some sort of artificial hydrocarbon would make a lot more sense (especially if it happened to be compatible with existing gas engines).

Compressed air or batteries make more sense (and electrified rail wherever possible). It's hard to imagine a source for all that electricity that will be cheap and plentiful enough to permit single-occupant vehicles to roam at will, though, at least for the average person.

Actually, with electric bikes, it will be possible for people to continue to use single-occupant vehicles, since these can travel up to 60 miles per kilowatt hour, or 528 miles per gallon of gasoline (if generated by a generator). If used with solar panels, the mileage is much greater (though not infinite, due to the energy inputs to manufacture the solar).

Concerned about biking in bad weather? See here

Concerned about being able to carry your kids or groceries? Get a cargo bike such as this or this or this.

Concerned about safety on a bike? The short answer is here, the long answer is here.

Concerned about whether you can handle the hills? Electric bikes are available, such as here and here.

Can't sit upright on a bike/back problems? Get an electric recumbent bike, such as this.

There's really very little excuse for peak oil concerned people to not be implementing these kinds of technologies in their life NOW. Besides, in the process, it improves fitness, which is a good thing when crisis hits.

I have a vested interest in this, since I recently started a company to sell cargo bikes and electric bikes (http://cycle9.com). However, I started this company because of my concerns about peak oil (and to a lesser extent, climate change), and the lack of companies effectively promoting these kinds of tools to reduce oil usage right away.

Morgan

Thanks for all these links.

The quickly declining conditions of oil-based asphalt roads; the uncertain supply of oil-based bike tire material; and the desperate/ criminal element [ease of bicycle-jacking] remain a concern....

Thanks for all these links.

The quickly declining conditions of oil-based asphalt roads; the uncertain supply of oil-based bike tire material; and the desperate/ criminal element [ease of bicycle-jacking] remain a concern....

I hope the links are helpful.

Actually, deteriorating roads are not much of a strike for bikes - e.g. my current cargo bicycle has 2" wide balloon tires that are equally happy on gravel, dirt, or grass, as they are on pavement. If a section of road is utterly destroyed (or a bridge is out), it is often possible to carry a bike around that obstacle. Not true with a car or scooter. I have explored many ancient jeep roads by mountain bike, and I got to places that nothing else but foot or horseback could reach, because I could carry my bike over logs, around washouts, and etc, when necessary.

As for tires, limited petroleum could be a problem, though at least the tires on bikes are far smaller, lighter, and less petro intensive than car tires. Maybe rubber trees will make a comeback?

Regarding bikejacking - well, in theory it is possible, but it is not a frequent occurrence. Among other things, a bikejacker wouldn't get very far from the police very quickly. And even though the "cage" in a car seems like protection, just consider the unfortunate events of the Virginia sniper a few years ago - all the people were in cars, and it wasn't protection against a bullet from a rifle. Actually, the nice thing about bikes, is that if you use a cheap and beat up one (like mine), it does not make you a desirable theft target. Most criminals probably think that the next Jaguar or BMW they see is far more promising way to score some riches than someone coming by on a clunky looking bike.

Morgan

The problem here is that the roads are not made for both bicycles and autos. There are way too many autos, and they do not watch out for bicycles. The roads are hilly, and don't have shoulders.

When I talked to my husband a year ago about buying a bike, he basically said there was absolutely nowhere that i could ride the bike that would be safe. After i thought about it, I decided he had a point. I would like a bike, but in this particular area, it doesn't seem to work Maybe it will work better when there are fewer cars.

I've heard this time and again. Many of my co-workers want to ride to work, as I do, but they claim their spouses deem it too dangerous. So they keep on driving -- and become one more presumed danger to existing bicyclists.

Perhaps it will be safer when there are fewer cars...but this will only happen when people decide to take alternatives or...bike!

I have noticed new people lately on the bus and train here, but no new bicyclists. I likely have maybe 3-4 fewer cars to share the road with on my hour long bike ride due to gas prices. This is just a guess -- I 'feel' the traffic is lighter. If safety is a concern, a full on depression or severe oil shock to limit the number of cars on the road would be required.

Blaming the spouse is what you do when you're embarrassed to admit you're chickenshit :)

I admit it, I'm too scared to cycle on my local roads, because drivers are crazy and feel they're entitled to their space and great speed.

I walk on the pavement, since while drivers feel they're entitled to move their car across the zebra crossing where I walk, and they're entitled to zip through lights if it's only a pedestrian they're waiting for rather than a car, and they're entitled to park on nature strips - most stay off the pavement.

And I train and bus.

But I'm too chickenshit to cycle.

Doesn't mean I'll buy and drive a murder machine, though.

If we had spent a fraction of the money on biking trails that we have spent on roads, or for that matter had even attempted to bring the concept of bike transport into our transportation planning, it would be easy. It's not the fault of would-be bikers; the infrastructure isn't set up for their safety, and they know it. Should pedestrians try to walk on the freeways? We need to make paths before they can be ridden.

Oh no doubt. The infrastructure has to be there to support it, no doubt about that.

For my part, I would have the spending be proportional to the desired range of trips. So if I want it to be (say) 33% walking/biking, 33% mass transit, and 33% driving, then that's how I'd spend the money.

But that would be logical and bold and innovative stuff we don't do that here Down Under. It's not the Strayin Way.

I'm still chickenshit, though :)

I do walk most everywhere nearby.

Also, we have a 29 year old son who is currently recovering from being hit by an auto, as a pedestrian, so the fears are not entirely unfounded.

Gail. You are doing great work, thanks. I used to ride a bike from the rat hole I inhabited in Roxbury while a grad student, visiting my to-be wife at Harvard. I rode over all those NO BIKES signs on the way thru the parks, along with all the other cyclists. The cops never bothered us, and we and the few pedestrians were relatively safe.
I won the fair lady over some serious competition because, as she told me later, I was the only one who could or would fix her bike. 'Ray for bikes.

I'm 53 and I cycle to work every day in London. There is a lot of daily friction between (1) pedestrians and cyclists -- because some pedestrians don't look for bicycles and some cyclists ignore traffic rules, and (2) cars and cyclists -- because cars dislike looking out for cyclists, and once again because some cyclists ignore traffic rules. There are some bike lanes. However, because London streets are more narrow than, say, Paris streets, the bike lanes that are there are often very poorly designed (both-way-cycle lane on one side of road suddenly begins or ends, constant disappearances and inconsistencies, cars or even bollards in the middle of them). Pedestrians and cars have less friction because pedestrians are more scared of cars -- cars brush them back all the time.

However, it is no more dangerous to walk than it is to cycle. The dangers are quite localized -- e.g., large vehicles going around not-wide-enough corners cutting across the sidewalk (="pavement" here) and killing cyclists but also pedestrians; cars and cyclists rushing to get through intersections when the light changes; turns (you can turn left from the middle lane, across the leftmost lane here, most intersections don't have 'stop ahead' cycle bays so bikes can get in front of turning cars and diesel exhaust). I try to stay out in the lane through intersections because cars can see me better. I get over once through to let the cars overtake me.

Because of congestion, the overall traffic speed is low, but tempers often flair at peak hours, which is why I avoid peak hours whenever possible. I try to stay of the biggest streets. But sometimes I can't.

The only way to increase the number of bikes out there is to get on one, period. For even an hour here and there. I think it is extremely important to develop social interaction between cars and cyclists, even if some of it is negative. It is very important to work out where to keep your bike (it's difficult to get mine into the building). Cyclists pay taxes and we own the road, too. Cars will slowly adapt to this. It also makes you think very concretely about how things should be changed. There are less women than men on bicycles, but still about 1/3 women. But nothing like in some German cities where women go out for a night on the town in high heels on bicycles.

My wife made me take off the sign on my rear bike basket that said "Cyclists will inherit what's left of the Earth" (which I got from TOD comments). It had been making me pedal faster...

Finally, this place sure is sounding more and more like the 'I mentioned the war/website once, but I think I got away with it'. If you talk the talk, then you should get on your bicycle! -- even if it's just once a week.

As a mother who takes her child to daycare on a bike 15 miles round trip, in a Southeastern city with the same characteristics you describe, I find the safety argument a bit overblown. This is a site where the "downfall of western civilization" is a frequently-raised spectre, including things like resource wars, food riots, etc. And people are worried about the safety of riding a bike? That brings to mind the people from Easter Island. Things were not going well for them, their resources were being depleted. "The gods must be angry," they said. So they built more and bigger statues to the gods, to make the gods happy. This accelerated their resource depletion, leading to a vicious cycle and then collapse. (For more detail on this, see Peter Diamond's book, "Collapse"). I see a strong analogy to this and CARS in the USA. Cars are "safe" so we must drive them. "I can't bike because it is not safe, I'll wait until the roads are safer." And so everyone waits for everyone else to make the necessary changes, such as biking, and off we rush, headlong into a collapse, when one simple solution was right in front of us all along (just like the solution of stopping the rampant building of statues was right in front of the Easter Islanders, and they ignored it).

The thing is, it is has been shown pretty clearly that if only a few percent of the populace is on the roads on their bikes, biking safety is dramatically increased, because cars learn to look for bikes (I'll post the link as soon as I find it). And, it doesn't take everyone biking every day to make a huge dent in the problem. See, for example, my piece on the gas that would be saved if 1/3 of Americans replaced only 2 car trips per week with a bicycle trip: http://cycle9.com/Blog/files/TwoCarTrips.php

Statistics clearly show that biking, if done properly, is much safer than it is perceived to be: http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm (and, it is safer than sitting on one's rear end, leading to all sorts of negative health consequences). One of the key facts from all the biking statistics out there is that people's biggest fear, being hit from behind, comprises only a small portion of bike accidents (less than 10%). And most of the bike accidents are preventable.

But what's more, there are many things one can do to mitigate safety concerns, all it takes is a little self education. Here are examples:

1. Get a flash flag. This is a $10 fluorescent flag that sticks out to the left side of the bike, mounted on a flexible shaft. Cars give a lot more room with this, but I see almost no cyclists using it, probably because standard bike shops don't promote such items.

2. Get a mirror. Helps see approaching traffic to have a better idea of what's going on.

3. Choose the route. Most people who go from their cars onto the bicycle assume that they should take the same route that they did in their car, which is the wrong thing to do. Good car routes often don't make the best bike routes. The key is to spend some time with a map or with a tool like bikely (bikely.com) to plan out a route with quieter streets. Sometimes it is a bit more distance wise (I bike 5 extra miles every day to take the quieter route). But doing so is a time to relax, get some exercise, and slow down a bit from a hectic life.

4. Take the whole lane when appropriate. This is counterintuitive to the non-cyclist. But when the cyclist is hugging the right shoulder on a busy, narrow roadway, it only encourages cars to make dangerous, close passes.

5. Use lights - even in daytime, lights increase visibility. At nighttime, they are essential, a large portion of fatal bicycle accidents are due to people riding at night without proper lighting.

There is much more at sites like this: http://bicyclesafe.com/

All it takes is some education. In school, we all go through "driver's ed" to drive a car, but there is no similar program for biking. People mistakenly assume that what they learned riding a bike as a kid will somehow be adequate for bike commuting on the road, but that isn't true. Since there are no programs, educating oneself is the key. But with all the great websites on the subject, it is really not that hard.

So, again I ask, if people are concerned about peak oil here, and the major negative consequences to everyone's life that will bring, why aren't you thinking about biking/walking? Are we going to continue living a life dependent completely on our addiction to cars and car culture, leading us off that cliff? Or are enough of us going to lead the way into a different and better world? I know that my own bike riding in my town has inspired at least 3-4 others to start doing the same. If each TOD reader was to set a similar example, it would have a huge effect. Sadly, most will probably just sit there reading more dire scenarios and wait for "someone else" to do something about it.

Morgan

Morgan said all the things I forgot to say! Superb summary. I agree with every point.

Thanks! Those thoughts are helpful!

Firstly, I don't think Western civilisation is going to collapse, so I don't see that as a danger. I'm no doomer.

Secondly, even if it were, that's a danger tomorrow, whereas the cars and trucks vs little me on a bicycle are a danger today. I'll worry about tomorrow tomorrow, and deal with today today.

Lasty, that we choose not to cycle does not mean that we must all drive SUVs. We have still our feet and can walk, and most of the West has public transport which certainly sucks in its quality, but is useful enough to get us from A to B.

I think the collapse or revitalization of Western civilization is a choice we make with our actions.

The assumption of ever increasing cheap oil has failed. What we do to transition seems critical. What brought this point home to me was being asked "Of the 10 worst famines of the 20th Century, how many happened in Africa?" My answer was 8. The correct answer is zero.

Despite the hardships in Africa, to have a truly spectacular famine you need a complex economy and government policy. We have a very complex economy and worrisome policies. World grain supplies are at an amazing low 57 days, and we are burning them moving a ton to move a person.

I think if we stress self-reliance and communities build economic lifeboats, we will be just fine. The paradox of economic lifeboats is that if enough communities build them, we will not need them.

Lacking self-reliance, when oil supply shocks hit, we are likely to look like the Super Dome after Katrina. Massive numbers of people waiting for food to be delivered by trucks that, out of gas, will never come.

I think it would be a good idea for every community to:

  • Implement 55 mph speed limits.
  • Plant Victory Gardens, at home, at schools, ect....
  • Maintain 2 years of seeds and 4 months of food stores.
  • Close gas stations one day a week.
  • Have ride a bike to work one day a month during the summer.
  • Limit cars on Sunday afternoons and evenings.
  • Elect block captains and practice civil defense. Peak Oil is going to be great for world peace and hell on local peace.

We can get used to any hardship, it is the surprise shock that creates panic.

I would like to see TOD post a persistent area on the best ideas for communities to create economic lifeboats. Assuming you are safe is not safe. Assuring you are self-reliant gives you a sporting chance if you live in a community that has also prepared.

I have seen soldier fail under unexpected hardships. I have also seen them endure far worse hardships that we expected. Preparation is the mirror in which we see ourselves as strong and durable.

Despite the hardships in Africa, to have a truly spectacular famine you need a complex economy and government policy.

You have a good point. I am afraid this is the problem. We are so bound up in thinking our current way is the only right way, we won't be able to change to the simpler ways that have worked for millennia.

Yes, I think this is both a wonderful and terrible time. We are facing civilization killers in Peak Oil and Climate Change.

There is not time to save everyone, there is time for everyone to save themselves. Each economic community needs to build an economic lifeboat. Here is a wonderful quote from Ben Franklin:

“To be thrown upon one's own resources, is to be cast into the very lap of fortune; for our faculties then undergo a development and display an energy of which they were previously unsusceptible.”

We have defeated civilization killers before, we have a choice. We cannot whine about it. We need only roll up our sleeves and become self-reliant.

BTW, I like how yo