The Oil Drum

I remain a skeptic on Jevon, but that breaks out into a lot of detail.  If you are talking mandates (as we might, if some climate event puts the scare on everybody), it's kind of hard to rebound.  If we're talking about market respones to higher prices and/or carbon taxes ... a lot depends on how high those prices and/or taxes are.

He did talk about mileage mandates around the world, without using the word CAFE.  He made a bit of hay over the fact that China has such higher standards than we do.

Now, while I think he gets it, I'm not sure how far it sinks in with the audience.  Some might think they can "mandage" higher mileage from the automakers, and keep on driving the cars they like.

Yes, if you can do it using clean energy. But can we convert to renewables in time? How much time do we have? Would 5% reduction in CO2/year be enough? Or 1%? Or 20%? A 5% per year reduction (fixed) would take us to 25% of current CO2 in 15 years, or to 47% (declining balance). Is either of these good enough? What should our targets be?

To repeat your quote,
"Don't forget that the US uses only a quarter of the world's oil."

That surpises many people who do not follow the numbers, and puts the world oil situation in fuller perspective.  The impications are extremely important.  It means that changes of a percent or two in the U.S. alone has less of an effect on world price/supply than some believe.  it also shoots down the stereotype that it is only the U.S. that has a hefty appetite for oil and gas.

Does this mean that American conservation/efficiency/alternative energy initiatives are simply pizzing in the wind?  Anything but...

Despite the dreams of the one world of unity through open markets and "globalism" the world is still one of nation states.

As Chinese and Indian demand for fuel grow, and Europe is slung back into the fray of the international hunt for oil and gas by the decline of the Atlantic North Sea, the U.S. percent of world oil consumption will continue to drop.

And, here's the most fascinating part....if we put our educational, industrial and technical advantage to work, we can make efficiency gains and create conservation initiatives along with alternatives and push the U.S. percent of world consumption down even further.

What does that mean to us?  LEVERAGE.  If we are able to maintain one of the most modern and economically strong nations in the world while at the same time becoming more and more efficient, we put the American nation closer to economic independence.  Other nations not making the hard effort, and with even less home supply of oil and gas, and less land space will not be so able to be assertive to the same extent.

 This is already becoming apparent as China is forced to bend it's policy to suit Iran  (does anyone really think that China actually desires yet one more nuclear power in Southern Asia to dillute their own influence?), and India is forced to negotiate with Islamic nations including Pakistan in their quest for natural gas (does anybody think the Hindu majority want to have to do this, given the longstanding ethnic issues between these two groups?), and Europe is forced to kowtow to Russia to get natural gas, something that must be extremely insulting to them just as their great EU dream looked for one brief moment in grasp....they now see their influence and power slipping away.

THIS is the way to sell energy efficiency to the American business and political establishment folks, not with talk of "guess what, Mr. or Ms. Businessperson, change!!, and even if you do, your probably out of business, your kids will live a horrible life as a dirt farmer, and your suburban neighborhood will become a slum."   Does anyone think that message will sell to ANYONE?!  Even if it turns out to be true, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it....because if you can't prevent it, why change now?

Try THIS ONE instead: "Mr. or Ms. Businessperson, we have a rare opportunity right now to enhance the independence and prosperity for you, your company and your nation.  The U.S. is already down to consuming only 25% of the world's oil, and this is including the well known waste and ineffeciency burden we carry.  If we can make the changes now, and conserve fuel, it will free up your customers money.  If we reduce wasteful packaging, wasted transportation consumption, we become more  able to withstand the changes in the energy market, and enhance our competitive position in the world."

"Mr. or Ms. Businessperson, Would you buy a machine in your company that consumed twice what it needs to to do it's job?"  Would you hire ten people to do the job that five could do?"

"Our nation should not make the same error.  We should not consume 10 million barrels of oil if the same job can be done by 5 million!"

"This is normal good business practice to reduce waste and ineffeciency, to invest now for the savings to be gained over the years."

"This is not some liberal scheme Mr. or Ms. Businessperson, nor is some "enviro" goodie cause.  It is simply good business."

THIS is the way America can reduce our fuel consumption, from 25% to 20% to ???, 10% of the world consumption.

It is often said that "growth" cannot occur without energy consumption rising.  This is true only in the narrowest sense, but the effects of growth can and does occur through increased efficiency.  This is part of the old common sense approach to business that has been forgotten.  Enron type growth is not growth.  It is numbers stacking.  

Growth by groing twice the food with half the fertilizer, growth by operating stores with twice the efficiency on lighting, air conditioning, and  refridgeration, having trucks and trains that cover the same amount of miles carrying the same amount of cargo with half the amount of fuel consumed, THAT IS REAL GROWTH.  

Think about this:  If your sales double, but your expenses double, where is the real growth?

THIS is the way we sell change to America, with some hope of them buying it.
I guess this last sentence will be seen here as pure cheerleading, but I have no choice.  America is where I was born, and almost certainly where I will die.  It is the nation that made me what I am.  It is the nation that has given whatever I have in life.  
Do not make the often made error of giving up on America too soon.  We still have a few cards left to play, and a few sharp tools still in the shed.

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

I believe that if demand remains strong, we have a pretty good chance of reaching 90 million barrels per day in the next 3 years, and I don't discount a peak in 3 years. It's just from where I stand, I can't see it clearly yet.

Why does this even matter? I am concerned that people will get too wrapped up in this "Peak is now" meme, and will be disappointed when we start setting new production records. They may lose faith in prediction methods, and lose interest in this debate. I am concerned that anti-peakers will just use this as ammunition that Peak Oil theories are in the same category as Astrology. I want to deny them that argument.

I am very, very concerned about Peak Oil. I am also concerned that we will lose credibility in the mainstream media by calling a peak too soon, only to see production continue to rise. It has already happened with some of the prominent peaksters. This subject is too important for that.

I won't be responding until evening, but I hope that is specific enough for you.

RR

IMO, the HL method works--in Texas; Lower 48; Total US; Russia and the North Sea--because we are primarily plotting the rise and fall of one Gb and larger oil fields.  The smaller fields are mostly just statistical noise.  

To expect Saudi Arabia to show increasing oil production from 58% of Qt is to expect to see that which has never before happened.  Again, just look at the advanced age of most of the large oil fields in Saudi Arabia.