273 comments on "Peak Oil" or "Limits to Growth"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
273 comments on "Peak Oil" or "Limits to Growth"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- Thanksgiving Open Campfire Thread
- How Relocalization Worked
- How to Set Up and Run a Bicycle Repair Company
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
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
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
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.
“The infrastructure of suburbia can be described as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.”
—JH Kunstler
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- 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
Why?
I don't mean that rhetorically, either, but as an honest question: for what reason do you wish to convince them of this particular proposition?
If you want them to engage in a particular behaviour, such as consuming less oil, then directly addressing that behaviour is almost certainly a more productive approach. For example, simply noting that: (a) oil production seems to be struggling to keep up with oil consumption; (b) that led to high prices in the last few years; and (c) prices are still relatively high and likely to rise in the near future is much less controversial and uncertain, but should have much the same effect in terms of raising awareness regarding oil consumption.
By contrast, if you want to induce a particular mindset, such as believing that civilization is ending, then the timing of peak oil is only one tiny fragment of what you'll need to convince them of. In that case, you're not merely trying to convince people of a physical fact, but of your interpretation of that fact, which is a much harder task. Your interpretation likely relies on a hundred assumptions and leaps of logic you've made, and getting your friends to accept those may be no easy task.
So ask yourself whether you want to convince them of the idea that oil availability is permanently dropping, or of your particular beliefs about what that will mean for society. The first of those is pretty easy - show them a few graphs of prices and rig counts - but the latter is something that will be extremely difficult to provide an evidence-based argument for.
Wow. You think it is "pretty easy" to convince someone that oil availability is permanently dropping? Just by showing a few graphs of prices and rig counts? That is a skill in rhetoric, not of any formal reasoning. I think a person equipped with such scant supporting evidence will get decimated when they get confronted by a real cornucopian.
Relative to the difficulty of convincing someone to accept my interpretation of what that implies, yes.
Compared to $10 oil in the 90s, though, $50 oil in the middle of a deep recession is a steep drop in availability. Compared to the 90s when the West had most of the world's purchasing power, booming growth in BRIC countries has raised the competition for oil substantially, and that increased competition - which decreases availability in the West - is highly likely to continue and increase.
A strong case can be made for falling availability without even touching on supply issues. However, you're probably right that talking about the near future (10-20 years, or so) is both more defensible and more appropriate than trying to convince anyone that anything is truly permanent.
Your point is a good one:
Relative price is a good way to ocmpare rate of production against rate of consumption. At maximum relative production price is likely to be lowest in real terms.
This graph is from the International Monetary Fund, 2009. I added 'Peak Oil'.
From a physical delivery standpoint, peak production was either 2005 (Simmons) or 2008.
If a late- 1990's effective peak is accurate, then current economic dislocations are more easily accounted for. The likely outcome is a continuing general decline in economic indicators with periods similar to current where a return to 'normal' economic activity appears likely.
Steve,
US per capita energy consumption peaked very close to the time frame you are pointing to. This is a graph I put together of US per capita energy consumption (including imports). I am sure it moved down in 2008, and will be down further in 2009.
The graph is based on EIA consumption data.
US per capita energy consumption peaked in 1978.