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?