Does it make sense to move to a new location because of peak oil? I can think of reasons on both sides of the discussion. I list some ideas below the fold. How do readers feel about this issue?

This is a guest post by Sharon Astyk. Another related post by Sharon that may be of interest is Peak Oil Is Still a Women's Issue and Other Reflections on Sex, Gender and the Long Emergency. She also has some posts at this blog site.

One of the things we’re talking about right now in our “Finding Your Place” class are issues specific to men and women. The women’s issues often seem to focus on material and physical discussions – what can I do about menopause; how do I handle birth control, menstruation and other bodily issues; or about sex and love. When we have these threads about men, they invariably end up focusing on the psychological results that seem particularly acute for many, if not all, men. While all of us have anxieties and many women struggle with these issues, somehow when we get to gender-specific consideration, what comes up for many of the men in the discussion is how difficult it is to deal with shifting roles, and the prevalence of anxiety, depression and over-reliance on drugs and alchohol.

It takes a long time to make big changes to society. I would argue that looking ahead 40 years, to 2050, is probably a wise thing to do for planning purposes.

The problem is that when we look ahead that far, there are so many conflicting ideas of what the future might look like, it is hard do know what to believe. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to put together some graphs of a range of fuel supply possibilities, in order to understand better what the challenges are. Depending on which scenario we believe, perhaps it will give us a better idea of where we should put our efforts.

In this post, I look at the following scenarios:

1. A Business as Usual (BAU) Scenario, as perceived by the press and EIA

2. A Scenario constrained by fossil fuel resource limits only, assuming that there are no issues with Liebig's Law of the Minimum, or reduced demand because of high prices, or international credit issues. It is assumed that wind, solar, and nuclear will continue to grow, at the rates assumed by EIA forecasts. I also show a related scenario with coal phase out.

3. A Crash Scenario, in which some combination of credit collapse, reduced demand because of high prices, and Liebig's Law of the Minimum (relating to oil) cause demand to collapse very quickly.

Obviously, all of these scenarios have wide ranges around them. Some people will believe one is most likely, others will believe another is most likely. But having some idea of what fuel supplies might be 40 years from now gives at least a little context for planning.

Last week, Nate outlined his New Year's Resolutions. Related to his thoughts:

1. What insights have you gained in the past year, that have caused you to see things differently about the future?

2. What things are you planning to do differently in 2010 because of these insights?