 | It's greaves time again | The Oil Drum | Peak Oil Update - November 2006: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers |  |
DrumBeat: November 20, 2006
Posted by threadbot on November 20, 2006 - 9:30am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Motorists face new costs for highways
Frustration over traffic gridlock and inadequate gasoline-tax funds are prompting state and local governments to try alternative ways to finance road building.Oregon is charging some motorists a road-user fee based on miles traveled instead of the state gas tax. Georgia is considering replacing its state gas tax with a 1% statewide sales tax dedicated to road and transit projects. New Jersey is looking at converting more freeways into toll roads.
The Community Solution/Richard Heinberg Energy Use Survey
The Community Solution (Pat Murphy and Megan Quinn) along with Richard Heinberg need your help! The Community Solution, producers of The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil, and Richard Heinberg, author of The Party's Over and PowerDown, are performing a market study based on energy conservation. We are researching a new service that makes it easier to conserve energy.We feel this survey is vital work towards improving The Community Solution's conservation plan, "Plan C." Your response on the survey helps us greatly because we value your input. It takes less than five minutes and allows your voice to be heard while preserving your anonymity. Please, take just a few minutes to follow the link to the survey and fill it out.
You'll be helping us make a difference. We'll be sure to publish the survey results so everyone can see what our next steps will be.
Thank you for participating! Very truly yours,
Pat Murphy, Executive Director
Megan Quinn, Outreach Director
Does The Oil Drum threaten CERA's market share?
CERA is a profit-making business that sells its consulting services and specialized reports to a narrow, well-heeled audience. Why would it care about the pronouncements of a relatively small band of peak oil Internet vigilantes, some mostly retired oil company geologists, a few energy analysts and some concerned citizens who still constitute only the tiniest fraction of the public? The answer could lie in the accessibility, credibility and packaging of their message, a message that can be examined in detail for free by anyone (including CERA clients) at The Oil Drum, Energy Bulletin, The Oil Depletion Analysis Center , the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, and myriad other places.
OPEC should wait before studying output cut: Barkindo
TEHRAN (AFP) - Acting OPEC secretary general Mohammed Barkindo has said that the cartel will have to wait several weeks before examining a new production cut to support oil prices."The market is wrong about the OPEC commitment, we should wait at least for one month to assess the impact of the OPEC decision," he told reporters on the sidelines of an oil and gas conference in Tehran.
Gas prices on the rise again, analyst reports
Gas prices are on the rise again, just as Americans hit the highways for Thanksgiving.
Polish gas monopoly signs new gas deal
WARSAW, Poland - Poland's oil and natural gas monopoly has signed a three-year gas deal with a Russian-Ukrainian gas supplier, even as Warsaw looks to diversify its energy supplies.
A peril that dwelt among the Navajos
During the Cold War, uranium mines left contaminated waste scattered around the Indians. Homes built with the material silently pulsed with radiation. People developed cancer. And the U.S. did little.
Energy Descent Scenarios: Integrating Climate Change & Peak Oil
The world’s oil supply is expanding. It is possible to meet increase in global demand comfortably with new reserves and new technologies. For example, the newly discovered oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico that may contain 3-15 billion barrels will relieve production demands.
Why Being An Oil Bull Continues To Make Sense
When we last visited the oil patch, we found the arguments against higher oil prices lacking. It remains our view that demand for oil is rising at a faster pace than supplies of oil, and that the imbalance will be solved through the price mechanism. We don’t think the correction is even close to done.
Space sunshade might be feasible in global warming emergency
A Sunnier Forecast for Solar Energy: Still Small, Industry Adds Capacity and Jobs to Compete With Utilities.
Four Steps To Energy Independence
Americans have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to dramatically shift the direction of our nation's energy policy by demanding that candidates support policies to reduce our reliance on oil, increase renewable energy, promote conservation and dramatically increase investments in the energy-saving and renewable energy technologies.
Ten Year Moratorium on all Immigration
We need to create jobs for 14 million of our unemployed Americans. We need to solve our 1.5 million homeless peoples’ problems. We’ve got to deal with 13 million of our children living below the poverty level. We must solve our energy crisis as we exceed our ability to produce enough oil and gas for our own citizens.
Information is crucial -- "the truth shall set you free."
Thanks to Richard Heinberg, Pat Murphy, Megan Quinn, and their helpers for exploring this.
By the way, I think that "Plan C" is the most effective option for dealing with the twin challenge -- PO and GW.
Jason Bradford on Sunday November 19, 2006 at 1:43 PM EST
Nate Hagens will be the next guest on my radio show. Stream it live from http://www.kzyx.org or wait for it to come out on Global Public Media.
We will be talking about ASPO, CERA, net energy, natural gas treadmill, climate change and conflicts with the Hirsch-report type "mitigation" strategies, etc.
The show runs from 9 to 10 am PST.
The truth is we can't handle the truth.
The truth is that we are bound to the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The truth is that the Technology Fairy is not coming to save us.
The truth is that the Mindless "Market" is driving our society straight for the Apocalypto edge.
Cellulosic Ethanol Reality Check
This should help you understand why cellulosic ethanol plants aren't springing up from coast to coast. I decided not to do this as a TOD essay, because someone else is working on an excellent guest essay on this topic.
When people start talk about doubling cellulosic ethanol yields from today's values, which would take the yields well beyond the theoretical capacity, I get concerned. What I am hoping is that some day the reality slaps some influential people in the face: We must get away from this liquid fuel, internal combustion engine paradigm. Right now that paradigm is alive and well, because as you say, cellulosic will "save the day".
And trying to accomodate another 100 million or more in the next 30 years is going to trash any "solution" that anyone comes up with now to make more fuel, etc....
Yet, even here on The Oil Drum, when one starts talking about some actions to reduce population there is usually a piling on of opposition.
I have finally reached the point where I think any more efforts to "solve the problem" of peak oil, global warming, overpopulation are wasted effort. Far better to spend the time and money to take care of ones self and ones family for the future - If it is even possible.
And I have never been a "doomer" before. But the total denial of most of the draconian measures that will need to be taken in the population arena before any real solution is possible has brought me to the "doomer" mentality.
Shutting our borders will only make us the target of all those outside (even more than we are already). The "philosophy" of us versus them is being discredited right in front of our eyes, yet you want to extend it even further.
Please, please think beyond an American perspective. This is a global problem that is exacerbated by American consumption out of proportion with our population size. We will not solve anything by simply protecting our own.
Reducing US population WILL reduce global oil consumption and Global Warming.
Bestb Hopes,
Alan
But I could also suggest that since new immigrants are typically poorer than average they will use less and pollute less than the average. By this logic we should invite even more immigrants in to help us reduce our per capita consumption, etc.
Reducing US population does nothing in and of itself. If the result of our shutting our borders is to push growth outside of the US (as it would do if capitalism works as it is designed), we do nothing to global consumption or CO2 creation.
Again, this is not a problem that can be solved in isolation.
You are making a faulty argument by relying on Globalist capitalism, which many capitalists who are also nationalists decry as being a very stupid model of capitalism to follow if you have any desire to maintain control over your own resources, and wish to maintain some level morals and standards in your economy/nation.
Capitalism has many flavors, the current flavor of the month (dare I say last couple decades) is globalism. I am pro-capitalism, but specifically I'm pro-protectionist-capitalism which is a MUCH different beast than the globalism that is infecting the planet now.
A nation which practiced protectionist capitalism and had enough capability to provide for itself most finished goods, and raw resources would do fairly well. The US is such a nation. The immigration issue is basically a symptom of globalist capitalism, and in the end its going to cost the Average American quite dearly as they will drown in this over crowded lifeboat along with all the immigrants (legal or otherwise) that we've allowed to come flooding in.
Jon Kutz is right in that many of these resource issues ARE a population issue, and the ONLY way to solve that is start letting people die. Its an ugly and nasty reality that nobody is going enjoy watching take place save for a few sickos. But the subsidizing of life in remote deolate hostile climates where the people cannot produce enough for themselves but instead rely on imported goods needs to end.
The continued support for nations with extreme population densities such as China, India, Japan and Europe needs to end. The support of nations on the brink of extreme population densities needs to be weighed carefully and given only with stipulations that those nations will keep things under control and/or reduce their risk of going over the edge. That includes the US, Mexico, and South America. But Jon is right, the sheer draconian laws needed to accomplish this would not be tolerated in most nations, or at least not tolerated until the survival of the nation itself is in dire danger.
I disagree with Jon on the carrying capacity of the US, as I don't think we are pass or too far pass that carrying limit, but we are AT or perhaps just a bit beyond that limit and I believe that a suspension and/or eventual reversal of population growth in a controlled/humane manner can be accomplished yet in this country. First and foremost would be a complete STOP to illegal immigration and a serious review of our legal immigration quotas.
But I doubt any of these actions are going to occur here or anywhere else, as "tolerance" has basically castrated self-preservation in much of the Western World. Its now a mortal sin to consider that your way of life/values/morals might be superior to another cultures', even though the battle of cultures has been raging for eons. What eventually will happen is another culture will come in and wipe out our own. They will not have the hang ups pluralism, and ultra-tolerance and they will destroy us utterly.
If you don't believe me that this is the norm of human history, then just ask the Native Americans that were on this continent... oh wait... you can't because they were not fit enough to survive. Then I suggest you ask the Europeans now while you still can, in a few more decades you might not be able to unless they can get a grip on the influx of Muslim culture that is steadily consuming those cultures. Evolution is not only a biological process in determining which animals procede to the next phase, it also applies to quite a few social situations within the human animal's domain.
There is a question whether or not the US dominates so much of the capitalist economy that its withdrawal would bring the whole thing down. But if it didn't, the US would soon be overwhelmed by the global economy (e.g., withdrawal of critical resources and labor would destroy the "national" economy.
(And just for the record, I don't disagree that population is critical, but so is consumption. What I disagreed with was the false assertion that limiting the population of the US alone through the end of immigration would solve our problems.)
Exactly. That's the point of globalization. It's a way to grab other countries' resources because we've exhausted our own.
You have the ability to speak without the shackles of Political Correctedness, which seems to have somehow become more like a beacon of blinding light that many try to shine in others eyes and so blind them to the truth.
More need to speak out and forget the PC cops.
While I like the Mexicans I run into and chat with I realize that they have values that we seem to have lost, strong family,religious faith...etc, I simply wish they could control their own country and change it for the better instead of destroying ours, even though that is not their intent.
Globalization. The culprit.
While many seem to be chastening the USA so harshly I wonder why it is that so many still want to get in and none want to get out. Like Blair said, this is one way to judge a country. How many want in and how many want out.
I have heard it said by those who cross the border both ways, legally, that it is far harder to pass into Mexico that to come into the USA. The Mexican border guards are far stricter, so I was told. Been a long time since I visited Mexico so I have no personal knowledge of that statement.
When Blair's beloved empire was raping India, Africa, up to one third the world's land surface, immigrants were in fact pouring into London (check out the Italian last names there today). The cost - Britain taught the world that you could win by burning non-renewable resources. That you could use corporations and banking to turn local monarchs into puppets. That the white man was so superior that he had the right to use force to exterminate any problem that got in his way. That the world must be enslaved by Protestants. Meanwhile Britain was so busy with empire that it couldn't invest in decent schools or modern steel mills. Blair will not tell you the complex process by which all this crap helped pave the road to two world wars and a global depression. That's how I judge Britain.
My judgement of America, because of its role in institutionalizing Peak Oil and Global Warming, is harsher than Britain's or Spain's. It will have the blood of hundreds of millions on its hands before it's all over.
If you want to know how this stunning turn of events came about, just ask it real source, Jimmy Carter. His foundation has pushed hard to get free school lunches into 3rd world countries. School lunches cause children to attend school. Children that attend school don't have 12 kids themselves. And indeed, the countries where free school lunches have been implemented have seen a demographic jolt as powerful as any genocide, though much more merciful. I remember the day when the UN predicted that the world population would grow to 15 billion and beyond, today 5 (at least) revisions later it's expected to max out at no more than 9 and then begin a steady decline. If Carter's work expands further, that number will come down even more. Prosperity is a funny thing. People with jobs find themselves less and less likely to have lots of kids, or even any at all.
My grandmother was a farmer, she had 5 kids. My parents and uncles are doctors, lawyers, and teachers, they had (at most) 3 kids. My brother had 1 and I'm not sure I'll have any.
The worst mistakes of judgement come not from faulty logic, but from faulty premises. The "population will grow until we all kill each other" premise is quite faulty, and has been so for some time.
Table 4: Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Population Change for the United States and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005
Geographic Area Total Population Change* Natural Increase Net Migration
Total Births Deaths Total Net International Migration Net Internal Migration
United States 14,985,802 8,651,861 21,329,804 12,677,943 6,333,941 6,333,941 -
http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-comp-chg.html
You can't just look at net migration. Immigrants have larger families for several generations after they arrive. So a lot of the births are also due to immigration.
This is why Greenspan attributes all the economic growth of the past 20 years to immigration.
That is the trend you see when new immigrants arrive in the U.S. That is what is keeping our birth rate so high. Families long-established in the U.S. have birthrates similar to Europe's.
This is why immigration is so important to big business. It's not just a supply of cheap labor. It's also a supply of customers...not just when they arrive, but the new citizens they add to the population for generations after they arrive by their higher birthrates.
But would they, without immigration? That is the point.
Of course not. Did anyone say otherwise?
We're talking about the future here. There is no easy way to slow population growth. But what's the easiest way?
We can't enact a one-child policy, like China. While I like the idea of child credits, and the child-free being able to sell theirs to people who want to have more kids, I just don't see that as politically possible. Ditto taxing children.
No, the easiest way to slow population growth is to cut immigration. It helps two ways, by reducing the number of people coming into the country, and reducing the birthrate, as the long-assimilated tend to have smaller families than the newly arrived.
Hard to say - how far back do you want to go? Immigrants before 1990? 1890? 1492?
That is the true point.
Let's use Mr. Greenspan's figures, if you insist on a timeframe: For the past twenty years, all U.S. growth has been due to immigration.
Immigration was an important part of our growth as a nation. But we're reaching the end of the growth paradigm. What was good on the front side of peak is not going to be good on the back end. We are facing some really hard choices, and immigration limits are least of it.
Limiting population growth, especially by immigration limits, in the US will not solve any of the problems we are facing. They are not problems caused by immigration (except maybe in the minds of those same white supremacists). They are global problems caused by a global economic system that worships growth. Don't think for a minute that preventing immigration will do anything other than move some of that growth elsewhere.
Now, if all you are interested in is protecting your own little corner, go for it; pass limits on immigration, then vote to make all those of x ethnicity leave, and lets get rid of the gays and lesbians while we're at it, and if you don't think just like me please move away. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Because that's the sort of world you are promoting when you start targeting immigration.
"What we are" is going to be removed anyway. It is simply not sustainable.
I get the feeling that this your real concern. No matter what facts, figures, etc., are presented, you would be against immigration limits because so many anti-immigration activists are racists, xenophobes, or worse.
I understand that POV...but we have to move beyond it.
I am thinking it, and for longer than a minute. We are the most wasteful people on the earth. It's good for the planet if there are fewer of us. Whether homegrown or imported.
It may sound that way, but that's not my thinking. I like Jared Diamond's term: lifeboat. Lots of small lifeboats is better than one big lifeoat.
This doesn't mean that "my corner" is better. Who knows? It may well be when TSHTF that Mexico or Canada or Japan or Sweden will be the better place to weather the storm. And I would not blame them for keeping us out. In fact, I think they should.
Dude, that's a big jump from first part of that statement to the last. We already have limits on immigration. It's hardly step one on the road to ethnic cleansing.
I think that's the world we're heading for if we don't limit immigration now. Did you see downthread, where someone is proposing shooting illegal immigrants on sight? o_O
If there is one thing about "America" that would really help us in the future, it is our willingness to become increasingly inclusive.
As for those facts and figures - who is it that has to subdivide and inspect them in order to reach their conclusion that immigration is bad? Who is it that can't accept it as good enough that there are more born in this country than die each year? Why do certain people find it necessary to say that this happens because of "them"? If it was just "us" we'd be fine?
If moving beyond means exclusivity, I don't want any part of it. If your lifeboat is based on what nationality you happen to have been born into, I'll take my chances in the waves. I repeat, this is not a national problem, it is not a problem caused by immigration. Limiting immigration will do nothing to solve the problems we are facing.
If you think its a big jump from stopping immigration to ethnic cleansing, then you have forgotten the history of the twentieth century.
Here's what it comes down to. Proposals for ending immigration are the racist dreams of people who want to blame others for all the worlds problems. You want to assure that the future will pit ethnicity against ethnicity, straight against gay, christian against muslim, play along and support them. But if you want to live in a world that is built on cooperation rather than competition, inclusion rather than exclusion, compassion rather than hatred, put your energies elsewhere.
You know, we could put a fence up around the country tomorrow and it would not do one jot to help prevent the onset of peak oil. It would do a lot to make this an ugly place to live.
For some, maybe. Not for me. For me, it's a way to slow, maybe even stop, growth. Or to prepare for a world where a shrinking economy is the norm.
I'm with Monbiot on that: "If kindness and comfort are, as I suspect, the results of an energy surplus, then, as the supply contracts, we could be expected to start fighting once again like cats in a sack."
The cause of conflict is too many people and not enough resources.
Actually, the people doing the subdividing and inspection came to the conlusion that immigration is good. It propels growth, in both population and the economy, and that's good...right?
Of course, if you think that growth is not good (or at least, not sustainable), you reach a different conclusion.