Creating a Post-Peak Future Worth Living Into
Posted by Gail the Actuary on October 29, 2008 - 10:06am
The future most people are living into is beginning to disappear. The financial crisis threw the first punch, but oil depletion will deliver the knockout blow. The moment people realize that the society they have known their whole life can no longer function the same way without the energy provided by oil, it will become glaringly apparent that the future will be very, very different. It’s not just that we will no longer have fresh food flown in from around the world. Some of the fundamental assumptions held by people living in the rich countries will no longer hold:
- many jobs that have never existed before will once again no longer exist
- retirement, a phenomenon only a century old, will disappear
- accumulating “wealth” will be out of reach for most people
- most children will no longer be able to attend institutions of higher education
- diseases and conditions that are easily treated now will once again claim lives
Once a person has realized that these and many more futures will no longer exist, they will ask themselves the following question: If the future I’ve lived with my whole life will not longer occur, what will my future be?
Before continuing, I am going to outline a principle that is a part of the coaching model I use. It is not the only model in the world, but it has worked consistently for me and my clients.
Your Future Gives You Your Experience of Now
In this article, I will operate on the following principle:The future a person lives into determines how they operate in and experience the present.This may seem counter-intuitive to you because there seems to be so much evidence that it is the past that gives us our experience of now. For example, don’t we feel proud of our accomplishments — and didn’t those accomplishments happen in the past? Don’t we suffer from events — and aren’t those events in the past?
To see that it’s our future that gives us our experience of the present, try this simple experiment. Imagine you are holding a lottery ticket and are about to check the winning numbers. You might be interested and cautiously optimistic. As you read the winning numbers you realize that yours is the winning ticket. What is your experience at the moment you realize you’ve won the jackpot?
If you are like most people, you will be surprised and ecstatic. But has anything — in physical reality — changed in any way? No, it hasn’t. But the future you see before you has completely changed and your happiness comes from a new future filled with a life of leisure or travel or the finest things in life.
The same principle operates whenever a future changes. Whether it’s agreeing to marry someone, getting a new job or facing a serious illness, in all these circumstances the future determines how you operate in and experience the present.
What about those past events, the accomplishments and tragedies? Don’t they impact us in the present? They certainly do, but the impact comes from how they have changed the future that we live into because those events happened. I’ll leave it as homework to the reader to determine the future that is created when we experience an accomplishment or tragedy.
People who panic when they learn of peak oil see a terrible future for themselves and society. Although I didn’t panic when I first learned of peak oil, I did experience a feeling of dread. I looked into the future and saw the possibility of social turmoil and hunger. This seems to be a common reaction, and most people move through the experience in hours or days as they gradually see that the gloomy future is not inevitable.
Gloomy Futures Are Useful — To a Point
Gloomy futures are often conjured up by your brain without your permission or guidance. Your brain is simply an associative machine that took in the idea of oil depletion, recalled images from its past (perhaps including a Mad Max movie), and plopped the result in your mental lap. Although it may have you prepare in ways you wouldn’t normally, this gloomy future can also paralyze you and turn you into a morose individual unable to experience the joy there is and will always be available in life.If you are unsatisfied with the future your brain invented for you, you will have to create one yourself.
Quality of Life vs Standard of Living
We’re almost ready to discuss how to create a future worth living into. I’m going to make one more distinction that should help the transition. With the loss of inexpensive and plentiful oil you are not just confronting the loss of vacations in the Tropics. It will look like the sudden loss of much more than that. But what is it you are losing, exactly?At this point it’s valuable to get yourself clear on what you are actually going to lose. If you don’t stop your brain, it is likely to say, “Everything!”, send you down a dark tunnel and leave you there. But you aren’t going to lose everything; you aren’t even going to lose the most important things, as you’ll soon see. That’s because almost every person tends to make one fundamental mistake (myself included when I’m not paying attention).
We tend to confuse what economists call “standard of living” with “quality of life.” The two are not the same, no matter how many vacation advertisements try to convince you otherwise. The standard of living index measures the number of things a person can purchase or possess. This is again useful only to a point. Beyond the very basics of life, like food and shelter, we want things not for the things themselves but for what they give us at an emotional level.
We want money to go on vacation so that we can have fun. But is it necessary to leave town to have fun? We want to send our kids to college so that they can “create a future for themselves.” But what does that mean? Are people who don’t go to college incapable of experiencing happiness in their life? If your children were healthy and happy, wouldn’t you have done your job as a parent? We know that the poor can be happy and the rich can be (often desperately) unhappy.
Things and circumstances fool us into short-term happiness, and then the happiness wears off and the cycle starts again. Have you noticed as your income rose, your expectations rose with them? If you hadn’t noticed that, you’re in the standard of living trap and you don’t even know it.
Creating a Future Worth Living Into
Now we’re ready to look at futures worth living into. This future won’t be attached to things and circumstances or you’ll never get out of the trap. So, as you create your new future, remember to resist the pull of equating being fulfilled with having things. Many people who have been preparing for peak oil have found that their life has dramatically improved as they have taken on new responsibilities and learned new skills, like growing their own food, even as they started to lower the number of luxuries in their life.One of the most powerful ways I’ve found to create a fulfilling future is to distinguish a role for yourself. Roles are powerful because they establish a context to live in and are easy to remember. When we take on a role, we automatically get access to all the properties that define the role. For instance, if I say that I will take on the role of being a loving husband, I don’t have to memorize “The Ten Steps to Being a Loving Husband.” I will immediately have access to ways of expressing that role I’ve heard about (like hiding love notes around the house) and I will easily invent new ways to express the role with just a bit of creativity.
You are undoubtedly playing all sorts of roles right now, and there are thousands of roles you can play in post-peak oil world. Your job is to create a new, fulfilling role for yourself. Here are a few basic roles, starting with some roles you may want to avoid.
- The Victim. To play this role, you should complain that the world isn’t fair and that there isn’t enough time to prepare. Talk only about things that we will lose or how other people or groups are better off than you. Unfortunately, this role isn’t very attractive and people will try to avoid you — but it is a valid role. I include it so that you can recognize when you are playing the victim, discard it, and choose a different role.
- The Drama Queen. Be a Drama Queen by saying, “We are so screwed” or similar things after describing how you see the future playing out. This can be a fun role to play, especially when describing a Mad Max scenario in great detail. Most people will eventually want you to talk about how they can actually prepare for the future. The Drama Queen role can often be matched up with the Victim role to great effect, but people tire of it quickly.
- The Bystander. To do a good job with this role, say “what will happen will happen” whenever you hear about something terrible happening, preferably in Spanish. This is actually a good role to keep handy because often events will truly be out of your control, and there is no need to get your knickers in a knot over them.
- The Leader. With this role, you see peak oil as an opportunity to make a difference in your community and the world. You can be a leader in thousands of ways, from starting a community garden to inviting friends over to teach them a useful skill you know. The only requirement to be a leader is that you create a future that wasn’t going to happen anyway. You don't need to know how to speak in front of crowds and you don't need a commanding presence. All you need is the commitment to create a future that wasn't going to happen unless you became involved.
Being a leader can be an immensely fulfilling role and one I wholeheartedly recommend, especially since we are going to need many local leaders very soon. I'd like to see the leadership positions filled with people who see it as way to serve the community rather than to enrich themselves materially. But that doesn't mean you won't get benefits by being a leader, and there should be some benefits. For example, being a leader means that you will create your own support network faster, and you will gain information about the world earlier than others, allowing you to prepare better.
Many people shy away from being a leader because they think it is a burden, but they have it backwards: the Leader role can be freeing because small inconveniences stop being annoying — as a leader you’ll have bigger, more inspiring goals on your mind.
Conclusion
In this article, we looked at how your experience and actions in the present are a function of the future you are living into. We also saw that your brain will invent a gloomy future given no direction: To have a fulfilling future to live into, you’ll need to take charge. Then we noted one of the most common mistakes people make: confusing the economists’ standard of living with quality of life. Last, we looked at some roles that you might consider taking on, particularly the Leader role.Ultimately, the purpose of this article was to point out that many of the roles you are playing now are no longer going to hold, and that you will need to take charge. Take a moment and ask yourself, “What kind of fulfilling role can I create for myself in a post peak world?”
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Sounds like a politician who can't speak the truth about the economy or the future, since doing so might become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Don't tell people what they don't want to hear, least they tune you out and you lose all influence with them. Paint a rosy picture and get your essay published on the internet. Tell the truth and get labeled a "drama queen." TOD can do better than this pap.
I think the difference between leader and drama queen is important. A leader does not necessary paint a rosy picture, they just take the proper course of action. Such as the violin players on the deck of the Titanic. There may be a point where there is nothing left that an adult can do but comfort the dying. But that is still a very important action. And far more useful than running around the deck in a panicked wail "we are all going to dieee....."
I believe Andre is saying keep your wits about you and keep pushing toward the best outcome.
I'm fascinated with Peak Oil..but I believe in human ingenuity more. We base our assumptions on the outcome of Peak Oil by what we can see now & do now. 20 years ago, we didn't have an inch of the technology that we do now..and many of us could never have dreamt we would. When man IS forced to adapt or "die", he will. We can & will wean ourselves off fossil fuels...probably to a much brighter future. It may be smaller, with less people on it, but that can be achieved in a single generation by limiting the number of children that are born (ugly thought, but perhaps required).
I'm a long time IT person..and many years ago I would sit in envision the things computers might do one day. Most of them were written off by the mainstream as "impossible" or "not feasible" or "too expensive". Today..many of those ideas are mainstream. Did you ever imagine you'd make phone calls on the Internet ? Did you ever imagine you'd be able to listen/watch media on a digital file ? Did you ever imagine we'd have the technology to do what we do today ? Of course not. But, society was driven, much of it because of the potential profit.
Alternative energy will be much the same way. If we WANT all those wind turbines, we'll get them. The earth produces more energy in a day from solar/tidal/wind than..all the fossil fuels that have ever existed on earth.
...of course the road getting there is going to be rough...
Perhaps 1 or 2 months of sunlight exceed the energy content of all the fossil fuels that ever existed on Earth. If fissionable and fusionable materials, such as Uranium and Deuterium, are included, I think Sun delivers about 10,000 times more energy over the next 4 billion years. Sun is definitely the primary energy source.
solar constant: 1353 W/m2
mean radius of Earth: 6.378 * 106 m
World energy consumption in 2005: ~500 EJ = ~5 * 1020 J
The estimates of remaining worldwide energy resources vary, with the remaining fossil fuels totaling an estimated 0.4 YJ = 4 * 1023 J
Earth receives: 1.7291 * 1017 W
During 1 day Earth receives: 1.49 * 10 22 J
First of all this is based on the false premise of what has been will always be.
Second, the history of life on this planet is replete with examples of highly adaptable organisms that actually died when the circumstances permitting their survival either changed drastically or ceased to exist altogether.
It seems you assume that the smart ass little primates that we are are exempt from the basic laws of thermodynamics. Humans seem to believe we will forever be able to outwit nature due to our technological and cultural ingenuity.
Despite that assumption, there is nothing that actually supports this.
All of the schemes for extracting and producing energy, be they fossil or alternative, don't amount to a hill of beans if you can't produce and distribute enough food to adequately feed the continuously growing population of the world. So whether you accept this fact or not, there are currently massive die offs already happening due to starvation in various parts of the world.
Those people are *NOT* adapting.
Of course if by "Adapt" you mean come up with a plan to voluntarily and drastically reduce the human population of the world I would love to hear your thoughts on how that might be achieved.
Every technological solution that allows more people to live on a planet of finite resources, will only compound and delay the problem. There is nothing that I have seen in any culture currently existing that indicates we understand the need to completely end growth now. So there is absolutely no doubt that the laws of nature will therefore limit the so called adaptability of man.
Best wishes for a sustainable human culture.
I think the problem with many people who say that "technology" will allow us to overcome Peak Oil, or that Peak Oil cannot happen because we will "adapt" is one of unsaid (or even unconscious) assumptions.
I believe the assumption of people that say Peak Oil will be overcome or even say that Peak Oil will not happen is that life will go on (but without us humans), or that people will adapt (but without many people less) or that we will find a replacement (there will be no choice since there will be no more of the stuff).
I think that when many people say that Peak Oil will be a catastrophe, they mean to say that adaptation (yes, we most probably will adapt) will be extremely painful and that many will not make it.
So, yes, if we *want* those wind turbine, we *can* get them. Now, will we want them in time to be capable of building them or are we going to wait until we need to shed half of Earth's population before we can build alternatives?
See? it's not that we "can't", it's just that many people actually want the most of us to be able to continue living and actually think that people dying *is* a catastrophe.
Anti_Elvis,
I don't think the problem is one of not being 'bathed in energy' but one of society being entirely addicted to more extreme/concentrated and easily accesible (high EROEI) forms of it. To use an analogy its a little like saying a crack cocaine user could simply start eating all the coca leaves in the forest as there are literally tonnes of them out there...
What we need is a plan to get us from 'A' to 'B' -a transition plan. Unfortunatley the main issue at the moment is not that we don't have a plan, but everyone thinks we are heading towards destination 'C'.
[Edit]In response to FMagyar I would say that I do not believe it is in the fundamental nature of any species to "end growth" be it organic (yeast) or a higher form (man) -we rush towards consuming all...
Nick.
Nick,
We have a plan?! Whoa, I don't think I got that memo. Pray tell what exactly it is. I'd sure like to be in on it.
First let me agree with the gist of your statement.
However, when you (subconsciously perhaps) attempt to distinguish between organic yeast and (inorganic?) higher form man, you prove exactly the point that I was making, which is that Humans have this false belief that they are above these lowly organisms because of their superior intellect, culture, technology etc.. etc..
like yeast we do not posses the capability to live beyond the natural limits of the carrying capacity of our natural resources. We are a product of and dependent on,the natural world for our existence and can't break natural laws with impunity any more than a bacterial bloom can expect to continue it's exponential growth on a finite substrate.
Then again, given that humans, (some anyways) are capable of realizing that we are heading down an unsustainable path. We could,in theory at least, make a conscious collective choice to change from our present course. Though that means we would have accept the reality that growth cannot be sustained and then take that to it's logical conclusion.
No matter how you slice or dice it I have yet to hear of anyone who is willing to speak openly about the consequence of such a choice.
So, what was that plan 'C' again, that you were referring to?
Cheers!
FMagyar
I meant it to mean: we do not have a plan but more importantly we are going in the wrong direction anyway.
...and yess we are like yeast.
Now for that plan...
Well, off the top of my head and as a 1st step I would say the main thing we have to do is rapidly transition an increasingly large chunk of liquid fuels away from ICE / car / ground transport usage. I watched Obamas energy speech in Michigan last night on YouTube and he seems to have the right idea...
The cost of liquid fuel is going to go up and up but I think people will still pay a high price for the utility in some cases -e.g. Business Class cost flights.
At the same time we should beef up the Electrical distribution capabilities and start to prepare for the decline in Gas/Coal with nuclear and renewables.
Its going to be a 30+ year transition.
Nick.
Yes, it is a little adolescent and idealistic. Also a tad condescending. But let's give him points for engaging with the issue positively. The future is such a dark, mysterious country that all scenarios are just guesses. We could all be vaporised in a nuclear war over resources, for all we know.
Unless "Gail the Actuary" refers to a dude, "he" is a "she".
Nope, she is a he.
A guy named "Gail" --in the deep South no less. Must've been one hell of a childhood.
Gail posted the article, I wrote it.
I met Gail at recent ASPO USA conference and got a distinctly feminine gender impression.
However, the article is written by Andre', who I also met at ASPO and appears masculine.
I disagree-the guy is saying there is no point crying over spilt milk. This thing is happening no matter what any of us does so we might as well make the best of it. There will defintely be people whose lives are improved by this transition-how do you position yourself to be one of these.
This is actually quite funny to me because anyone who has listened to my public talks knows that I pull absolutely no punches when I discuss what is about to happen to us. No matter the audience, I talk about all of it — trouble feeding all 6.7 billion of us included (dieoff). For the purposes of this article, I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the readership is well aware of how bad things are going to get.
But you raise a good point that I didn't draw out in the article, which is that there is a way to deliver the news that is straight and mature and doesn't have the Drama Queen element to it. John McCain's straight-talk express has been derailed, in my view, but I think that talking straight to people is very important. I think they should get the full picture the first time and that they should be related to like adults who can take it.
Once people get the full picture, then appropriate responses can be made. But they must get the full picture, so please don't confuse the Drama Queen role with straight talk. Many speakers avoid saying what they would really like to say because they are afraid some people in their audience will "turn off." Well, some people will. But I don't know of a way to reach the other people in the audience without taking that risk.
If you'd like to see what I think will happen, read my peak oil primer — you'll see that I tell it the way I think events will unfold.
But how we respond is still totally up to us. And I'd like leaders to emerge who face what is going to happen head on and start organizing our communities.
For a man, one huge advantage of leadership roles and status is that the man can get more and better sexual partners. This has been true since paleolithic times, when the main advantage of being headman of the group was the extra wives that went along with the headman role and status.
For women, the same may apply, though I'm not sure. In our society rich women do get more and better sex than others, but my impression of successful career women is that few of them have much time or energy for sex.
I think it was Henry Kissinger who said, "Power is the greatest aphrodisiac of all." or words to that effect. With leadership roles comes power.
Don, I can agree with you on that. Leaders are really such putzes. I think it was Bob D that said "Don't follow leaders...etc" - and anyway a small tribe with many heads is much better than some bozo with a big one. I will negate that negative you have at the moment, as while I don't particularly like the implication of what you say, it seems to be the way things go.
lead on bro, let thy hard on point the way! Save some blood for your brain though... (snicker)
We need a range of different views, if for no other reason than to start a discussion. Getting "hung up" on what is ahead can be a real block, as Andre' points out.
We are going to need a lot of people playing a lot of different roles. We need to start thinking seriously about what these will be. As we lose our highly connected infrastructure, many roles will need to be quite different from what they are today. I expect the ability to do physical labor will become more important than it is today. Knowledge about how to grow crops locally, without much irrigation or commercial inputs is likely to become important in the not too distant future. (Even 20 years would not be too distant to be prepared!) People with needed skills will be in an especially good position to be leaders.
You may have posted elsewhere your view of what we face, but the problem here is that you have too much detached your adjustment advice from the problems we face (yes, you briefly outline them), so that your advice comes off too preachy. But the bigger problem I have is that you fall into one of the niches of the survivalist camp.
The survivalist camp says or implies that what we face can be dealt with individually or by small collectives. And while there are certainly important things that can be done, it overlooks the most important: we MUST have a political response to the crisis. No matter how much we hate (I certainly do) politics, there is ultimately NO other way to have a future.
I just interrupted my reading of FT to check TOD. FT and all other MSM say the way out is to resume growth, revive growth. Nobody (MSM) says retrench, relocalize, and so forth. No one advocates that the gov't direct funds toward helping people rebuild their lives and communities to be dense, walkable, near the soil, etc. How can that be redirected? Only by making these issues political! In the old days, the were socialist and communist movements which addressed the crisis of the 30s demanding essentially help for the bottom 3/4 of society. It succeeded in some sense, and we got our huge middle class after WW2.
But that can't work again. THAT kind of prosperity can never return. No more McMansions with SUVs. Can't be saved. But people don't know that. There has to be a political movement that educates them, and presents the appropriate demands upon the gov't.
My daughter lives on a commune/farm in W Va. It's a good life, and they use the teeniest fraction of the resources that would be used by a suburban community with same number of people. They are not totally self-sufficient, but they are well-positioned to be a lot more so. So I have a very concrete vision in my mind of what's possible. The kind of life they have there along with many other things like it ought to actively encouraged by the gov't. It ought to be a priority. It's not.
BTW, I have the same criticism of my daughter's commune that I have of your approach: too psychological, too introspective. Deal with the reality that confronts us, see it, understand it. The adjusting and remaking will come in dealing with it. Reality is about to pummel us, is pummeling many already. Our attention will get focused. On what though? That's where politics come in. Otherwise we're powerless.
EOR (end of rant)
I think it would be great to have a political response, and talking about people stepping up as leaders is just such a response, no?
P.S. Sorry about the preachy tone...I haven't quite found out how to get that out when discussing this topic. I'll keep working on it. I don't like preachiness, either.
Since when does the town crier need to be a leader. We need news not an agenda. While nothing is perfect TOD seems to come to some sort of general concession on issues ... eventually.
Maybe we should re-evaluate where leadership should come from.
Thank you Ignatz for a very apposite comment.
I am wary of leadership. It is inevitable that within human groups some achieve some form of leadership. How this happens has consequences.
In larger societies (from farming communities onward), the greedier, more sociopathic (ready to kill and subdue) have tended to gravitate into positions of power, the results of which are our history of war, invasion, looting and genocide. From the first kings of Sumer through the pharao's, Alexander the great, Genghiz Khan, the crusaders, Napoleon, Stalin and Hitler and all the rest, leaders have proven to be largely greedy murderers and slavers.
In small 'primitive' societies, on the other hand, leadership tends to require other qualities. The chief of a Yanomamö village cannot order his "soldiers" about, he has to be the first in work as well as battle. this is a recurring pattern: often the chief has to be the hardest worker, the most generous in sharing, the best conflict solver : he has to be the example of manhood in order to remain chief.
I don't know what the rules should be, that could cause us to 'revert' to the more 'primitive' practice of leadership.
But it is absolutely necessary that we think about it, if we want to get through this mess with some humanity.
Andre', I'm very curious. How did this go? Were they receptive?
I think it went well.
We had four supervisors attend out of five. After discussing oil and the alternatives, I introduced some rather radical recommendations, like creating a county-level strategic petroleum reserve, performing a county-wide inventory of all equipment and securing everything immediately (to prevent or slow asset stripping) and various other ideas.
All the questions and concerns they raised were good and valid. One supervisor wanted to hear another point of view, which is also entirely valid. I certainly looked at all points of view before settling on the one I'm advocating now. Besides, for people living in the BAU world still, my message was a radical departure from the norm.
At one point during the question/comment period someone I didn't know beforehand stood up and said that after years of working with Chevron (thus being an oil man), it was his opinion that everything I said was valid.
The video is available online.
You can go to:
http://marin.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=21&clip_id=3203
Then choose "17" from the "Jump To..." drop down menu.
This works well on Windows, but not on OS X, unfortunately. I'm downloading it in the background to see if I can extract just that snippet and post it on my site for Mac users.
I am aware that Andre' gave a peak oil presentation to the Board of Supervisors of Marin County where he lives. So he is politically active.
It's not an either or. Politicians will take you more seriously if they see you are personally committed to walking the talk. And if you can show that making lifestyle changes hasn't hurt you and may even be helping you and your family and your community, etc., it becomes easier for the politicians to then reallocate resources towards more of what is needed rather than more of what they think people want or expect. Actually, you may have just changed what they think people want or expect!
You are absolutely right about how pathetically inadequate the current conversations are. The other week some friends of mine and I spoke to our congressman about a steady state economy, not requiring growth, etc. He doesn't quite get it, but he does sit and listen and not tell us we are wacko, which he is prone to do if he doesn't agree with you.
I think now is the time for the "psychological and introspective" which eventually reaches critical mass and spills over into the political. Don't knock the source for not being a result. The critical point comes closer and closer. The best way to achieve things politically: coil and get ready for the best moment to strike. Political action addicts are too antsy usually lack depth.
What is missing in most of these PO discussions is consideration of our personal life histories. In the best of times, even the luckiest, wealthiest people eventually must confront old age and death. The unprecedented old age entitlements and health technologies of the late 20th century US have done much to gentle the ravages of age, but they never went away.
Humans are mortal, are all going to die. All that remains is whether one chooses to wait out their natural decline or to take control of the process. The philosopher Albert Camus famously stated that "there is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide"
When the "greatest generation" received generous defined benefit pensions plus Medicare and SS with COLAs, the fear of poverty in old age was greatly reduced. Now that fear has come roaring back. So life in the present is immediately less enjoyable.
From a female perspective, aging can be particularly pernicious. Instead of being seen as a distinguished gentleman, one is viewed as a wrinkled old hag. With economic collapse, many are saying goodbye to future hopes of being able to afford and obtain the Botox and plastic surgery that extended their mother's apparent youth. (This seems like a very vain and shallow concern, but it is real for many, see Frances McDormand's character in "Burn After Reading")
Leadership roles are harder for women to obtain as well.
Is it any wonder that the suicide rate is up, particularly in middle aged women?
Seriously, all these brave thoughts about austere, stoic, survival into a diminished future are fine for those in their 20s. But for those of us who are over 50, the incentive to persevere through great adversity is slight. Our "glory days" of glamour, athletic victories, academic awards, and maximum income are in the past and will not return. The future is at best about aches and pains and social invisibility. At worst, we can also look forward to being blamed by younger generations for consuming the planet.
I am healthy now and enjoying life in the moment. But if it gets to the point where I can't heat the house or have to subsist by eating raw potatoes from my garden, I won't want to soldier on. And since I don't have young children, I don't have to.
Kurt Vonnegut predicted a future where suicide had switched from a discouraged behaviour to an encouraged behaviour. That future is not yet here, but it is drawing closer. There is no more effective way of increasing resources per capita than reducing the population. And no population is more expendable than the older people.
The movement is already growing now: http://www.compassionandchoices.org/
...Strewth.
Hi, MicroHydro.
I think it's entirely possible for almost everyone to create a future worth living into. If they "give up" then trying to point this out to them becomes impossible: every point is met with "evidence" that "it's hopeless." I've had to deal with someone who was suicidal so I know exactly the vortex the mind can enter and it's sometimes very difficult to get it out. But in the case I dealt with, the person did get out of the vortex and is living a normal life now.
This is different from people who are suffering from painful wasting diseases. At some point I think it's entirely rational to simply say goodbye to friends and family. We all have to go at some point and I think it's useful to remember that we are all but a brief candle.
But these situations are rare and I would say that the possibility contained within the overwhelming number of people out there is almost unimaginable — middle-aged women included. But few people know exactly how powerful they actually are because they don't try, or they tried some time in the past, were unsuccessful and convinced themselves that it wasn't worth trying again or that they were inadequate in some way.
Reminds me of the movie 'Logan's Run'.
and 'Soylent Green'.
Funny how the late 1960s and into the mid-1070s there were several movies made that seem to address the issues...
The big hand-wringer amongst many is how to sustain Social Security and medical benefits for an expanding pool of seniors/retirees with a flat or declining base of young working people. Unfortunately, many traditionalist/conservatives point to the evolving demographics in Japan and much of Europe and clamor for government/moral/church-driven incentives to increase the birth rate in these graying industrial counties, big time, right now! They even decry the upcoming demographic shift in China due to the one-child policy....as if the answer is for Chinese women to go into baby-making overdrive! Of course we import citizens, but many conservatives decry these folks of being the wrong color and cultural background, thus the urgings from the Pat Buchanan crowd for the upstanding, pure white Judeo-Christians to multiply their numbers to maintain numerical superiority...the same is said for breeding pure stock Europeans rather than be taken over demographically by the Moslem hoards. China and Japan are much more xenophobic than even Europe and the US. However, the idea of breeding more young people to support more old people is an overshoot fools' errand.
It is glaringly obvious that most people still cannot let go of the 'growth-forever' Ponzi scheme and envision a steady-state population sustainable World. Just look at our games: Monopoly; classic computer simulations such as Sim City and Railroad Tycoon...our games teach us that the only way to 'win' is grow. At least Sim City did a descent job of showing how growth has costs that lead to diminishing returns...unfortunately, once the cheat code keys became known to receive an unlimited budget, the idea of dealing with resource constraints went away and the game became a big sand box to see who could build the biggest castles.
Our reality 'cheat code' is the idea of the Fed and other institutions in the World being able to 'print' unlimited amounts of money and the belief that technological advancement can out-run population and resource pressures and contraints.
I work for a very large firm that is still briefing its employees of the need to grow 15% year-over-year and for all projects to realize a minimum of 7-8% ROI. This performance is expected forever. Growth is often being realized by absorbing smaller companies...ultimately we are in a zero-sum game, but do not want to admit it.
As we can see from the current election spectacle, the 'grow, baby, grow' crowd becomes highly desperate when their paradigm is threatened. Everyone in that mindset from all the 'Joe the Plumber' pawns up to the Greenspans and Roves and others who like to run the game get very upset when the game changes. This leads to the destructive politics of distraction of blame and fear: Stir up the racial, social ,and nationalist prejudices...just like the 1930s and early 1940s. Socialist! Communist! Terrorist! Community Organizer! The call for Lebensraum and oil for the divine Emperor's empire...permanent bases in Iraq, anyone?
Am I being a 'Drama Queen'? You Betcha, by golly, dontcha know! Maybe we can elect a leader in 6 days who maybe can at least slow the march off the cliff.
I agree, and disagree.
I agree that suicide will likely become more acceptable, and probably should. Jared Diamond noted in Collapse that sustainable societies often used suicide, even of the young and healthy, as a method of population control. Rather than being an unforgivable sin, it was seen as heroic.
However, I don't think lack of botox will be as terrible a scourge as you think, nor will the elderly be useless. The glamorization of youth is not universal.
My parents have reached the age where they're vacationing a lot, and my mother loves going to Asia. In China, Japan, Korea, etc., she gets a lot of attention and respect. The kind of public interest she hasn't received since her youth in the US. Because the elderly are respected there. I read an article once that described how happy a Chinese woman was to reach her 40th birthday. Until then, she got zero respect, but life changed for the better once she hit 40. Suddenly she was respected. The younger women in her family were jealous, and couldn't wait to be 40 themselves.
If things get as bad as many fear, the knowledge that old people have will be even more valuable than usual. Because they'll remember how to do things we may suddenly need to learn how to do again.
I attended a meeting our county's emergency preparedness committee this past week. One of our urgent agenda items it to network with our most elderly citizens in order to start learning and dissmeniating their skills to our younger generation. We did not have electricity in this county until WWII. That means our elders know how to live without electric, save seeds, store food, care for each other in a powered-down world.
Two nights ago I had my 80+ year old neighbor over for dinner. He still gardens and has perennial food crops that he began in 1934 at age 7. He talked about how the house we live in was once lit with carbide (?) and had a carbide system (?). That system sits in a corner of our attic- unused and mysterious.
Here on this ground, our elders are our key to food and light in the future.
We have some old folks that still raise draft horses-- for fun now, but they have the "old time club" that will still take a team out to work up a part of the field. For fun.
In this place with a strong agricultural heritage we will need and depend upon our elders.
Calcium carbide reacts with water to make acetylene (ethyne, C2H2). It burns with a very bright flame.
If you are adventurous, you may want to see how difficult it is to make your own calcium carbide. Did your neighbor make his own, or was it a purchased commodity?
They bough the carbide in pellet form. If I understood, they had an automatic feeder box in a shed outside that was based on pressure-- dropping pellets in when the pressure got low and it built back up again.
In fact, he said that last weekend he finally got threw out the last of the old carbide that was in the old welder that they used. I'm pretty sure he said they used it in a welder.
If I can extract the fixtures from the attic-- it was a lighting system-- I would be interesting in trying to make my own carbide and seeing how it works. Are there any poisonous fumes or explosion dangers. I'll research it some more myself.
Also our house was one of the first in the area with running water (1912). It has a cistern the size of a cave just outside the dining room. There was a huge pressure tank in the basement with a pumping bar that kept water running in the house. We still have some of the system intact.
Thank you!
Acetylene is highly explosive in air (flammability limits are 2.5% to 81% in air, and it will exothermically decompose up to concentrations of 100%; see this MSHA info sheet). Electric lights are definitely safer, but if you need welding done it's hard to beat oxy-acetylene.
Also, studies of primates have shown that having a "grandmother" increased the survival rate and well-being of the following generations. So do not discount the value that having a grandmotherly figure in our communities has upon the youngest generations.
My post-peak vision of my elderly self is to cook stew while minding the small ones; to use the spinning wheel I found in our attic to spin fiber; to knit clothes, dry apples, shell peas for as long as I can...
My husband's Norwegin great grandfather lived off the kitchen off the small house out here on the prairie, where his daughter raised her 12 children. He knit for his grandchildren and greatgrandchildren and led a domestically productive life. And he is remembered as being a joyful, happy man all his days. May we all be so blessed (albeit with a few less grandkids kids!!)
Your primer is a good presentation, and I agree with much of it. You discuss the inability of alternative energy sources to quickly rise to the challenge of compensating for the decline in oil production. Indeed the new IEA report is roomered to estimate the annual decline rate has increased to 9%. However, you make no mention of the ability of conservation to alleviate demand and buy more time. The U.S. is very inefficient with its energy consumption and a significant reduction can be obtained quickly by carpooling, using the compact second car, using mass transit and similar steps. Certainly conservation will be able to cope with the initial decline rates. Adaption will become most difficult when we descend toward the mid portion of the peak oil curve, where the declines are the greatest. You do a disservice to your reader by not mentioning the mitigating potential of conservation.
Hi, BlueTwilight.
Yes, I've been thinking of going back and discussing that, but I would come to a very different conclusion than you. I would demonstrate that after three or four years of oil decline, all the opportunities for conservation have been used up. I think we're coming to the end of the car as personal transportation for most people. Scooters and motorcycles, yes, but the personal automobile will soon be for the rich who can afford the initial capital cost and the cost of fuel.
This is, of course, only if the monetary system doesn't collapse, like what has begun to happen with the financial crisis but on a much much larger scale. I discuss why it would collapse in the primer (essentially, because money is debt and if the debt can't be repaid, the whole system comes crashing down). If that happens, then all bets are off until a new currency is devised and we can begin trading across the country and between countries again.
Now that people have seen the (beginnings of) the financial crisis, perhaps they are more open to seeing how precarious our currency systems really are. Take away the oil and the currency and stocks etc. essentially become worthless, in my view, because of our dependence on oil to perform work. Eventually we'll adapt, but the current stock market valuations will be wiped away.
How does Jeffrey Brown phrase it? What value do the ten largest banks have without the ten largest oil fields?
"after three or four years of oil decline, all the opportunities for conservation have been used up."
First (from a driver's perspective), reduce fuel consumption by 50% buying a Prius (if you don't telecommute, and eliminate it entirely). Then carpool with one other person to reduce fuel consumption by another 50%. Then carpool with four other people to reduce fuel consumption by a further 50%. By then consumption is 12.5% of current: if more is needed by then, buy a Volt, and reduce another 80-99%.
"because money is debt and if the debt can't be repaid, the whole system comes crashing down"
Can you show me an intelligent discussion anywhere of why this could be the case, by a real economist, not someone waving their hands and saying "debt-based fiat money requires growth"? Look at Japan in the 90's, which had zero growth and zero interest rates - why didn't they crash?
"our dependence on oil to perform work"
This, I think, is where your blind-spot is - you've accepted uncritically the idea that oil is essential. How did the US industrialize in the 1800's, without oil? How did Switzerland function during WWII?
"Eventually we'll adapt"
I don't think you've fully integrated this into your worldview, as evidenced by the previous quote. The fact is, this adaptation is already in progress: I'll copy part of my comments to Westexas:
We'll have to find something else. Just as electricity almost put oil out business in the late 1800's when it took over the illumination market, we'll have to electrify transportation.
That won't be hard: the total cost of ownership of ErEVs/PHEV/EVs is about that of the average US ICE at $2.00 gasoline. ErEVs/PHEV/EVs are ramping up very quickly. As many never tire of saying, few people understand the exponential function: one of the features of the exponential function is that it's growth looks deceptively slow at first, and surprises later. Electric drivetrains are in 3% of new vehicle sales in the US - that is likely to roughly double every 2 years. Toyota expects electric drivetrains in 100% of their models by 2020 - other manufacturers, like GM, are close behind.
You must be supposing either
(a) a very fast decline, or
(2) that people are useless drongos.
My household is moving towards the one tonne CO2 lifestyle, and at the moment we cause an average of 258kg of emissions monthly each, compared to the Aussie domestic average of 1,125kg monthly.
Compared to the average Aussie household, we use one-quarter the petrol, one-seventh the water, one-third the electricity (and that bought from wind generation), and consume less than one-tenth the meat and fish.
Our lives are as pleasant and good as any with average consumption, and in fact we are in better health than average - at 37, I have the health of an average 25 year old, due to my varied diet and exercise from walking instead of driving.
Doing this has not caused us any expense, we did not have to buy a Prius or solar panels or spend a dusty day putting in ten grand's worth of insulation, on the contrary it's let us save money, so that far from being in debt, after six years of saving we had enough that the interest could pay our rent, but we've used that as a 50% deposit on a unit we'll move into in a couple of months, and we ought to be able to pay it off in five years at the same rate of saving as before.
Any Westerner could do this, but not every Westerner, since we had available wind power and some (though not great) public transport. However, if more and more Westerners chose to live like this, the demand for renewable energy and mass transit would rise greatly, and it'd be built up. It could be built within a decade or so.
So I can say from experience that it is possible within a year or two to reduce your fossil fuel consumption by 90% or more, and your greenhouse impact by 75% or more, without any disruption to your life, and do it with saving money and improving your physical health. Doing this requires certain amenities be available to you, but these could be available to all within a decade without trouble - if people are demanding it, there's money to be made supplying it, that works for everything from heroin to porn to frisbees, I don't see why it wouldn't apply to railways and renewable energy.
Since the domestic sector accounts for around a third of all energy consumption, and half the greenhouse gas emissions, we can fairly say that fossil fuel consumption could drop 20% and greenhouse gas emissions by 35-40% within a decade without it being a big drama. All just by domestic conservation.
If there are so many opportunities for conservation in the domestic sector, I'm sure there must be similar ones in the industrial, commercial and agricultural sectors.
Thus you must be supposing a very fast decline of fossil fuels, or that people are generally lazy and stupid. This latter is most common, I think, and I reply, "speak for yourself."
Kiashu, what I mistakenly left out of that comment was "...before dramatic changes in people's lifestyles are required."
Of course we can continue to change our lives right until we're down to no fossil fuel use at all. But that is not the life to which most people in a rich country are accustomed and it is certainly not what they are expecting in their future.
If you think that eating less meat, walking any trip under 5km, turning off appliances when not in use are "dramatic changes in people's lifestyles" then I would suggest you've led a pleasantly sheltered life.
It really is not that dramatic. We're not talking about everyone living in the countryside as subsistence farmers or something.
Conservation can't do everything, but it can take us a very long way indeed, and it can happen faster than most rational projections of post-peak decline in supply.
I think this may be in reverse. How you operate in and experience the present contributes to the future you live in. The ends are determined by the means.
But then the choices you make which define your modus operandi are based on expectations of the future, said expectations being based on the framing of your past experiences.
An example of framing past experiences is the difference between "I had a difficult childhood, woe is me" and "I was being tempered, that I may better withstand hardship and take action". While you can't change the past, you can change how you think about it.
So if you were to start with the idea, "woe is me", then starting on the path toward being a leader, or toward any kind of significant change, is next to impossible.
I think both of these are true:
I also think that the key to this is to remember that only the present exists. The past is gone and the future has not arrived yet. We get to see the results of the past in the present, but this is a different thing entirely from the past itself.
From this perspective, descriptions of the past and the future are both stories or narratives of events that no longer exist or only may possibly exist.
"The future a person lives into determines how they operate in and experience the present."
"How you operate in and experience the present contributes to the future you live in."
Both true in my books but then the past also contributes to how you operate in and experience the present and future.
If I had'nt read about PO in the past I would'nt be here now or making preperations for it.
I do like the original post though for its positive spin on things. I'm going to try some of this out on the Misses. She absolutly gets PO but finds it so dismal she cant even discuss it most of the time :/
This isn't how Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity works - which helps to highlight just how wierd that theory is! In relativity, events B and C can both be present to A, and yet C could be in the future of B. Very strange! Add in quantum mechanics and the whole mess becomes really unintelligible - merely the most accurate theory available!
Our challenge is always how to steer our course toward one of the better futures available to us. So often we act destructively, creating a highly sub-optimal future, by continuing to beat our heads against the walls of reality. The amazing advances of technology have been engineered by carefully studying those walls and navigating in the spaces they provide.
A curious feature of world history is the roughly simultaneous rise of the modern outlook, which I would date to Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes - around 1625 or so. See Toulmin's Cosmopolis - together with the explosion of industry and the exploitation of material resources. It seems like the modern outlook came first.
What we may be experiencing is not just peak oil, but the bankruptcy of the modern outlook.
The world view of most non-modern, i.e. traditional, cultures has been spiritual, i.e. focussed on development of internal qualities rather than external quantities. That avenue is still open to us, though nowadays it has become somewhat marginalized. To some extent the religious institutions that perpetuate spirituality have become warped by the modern outlook.
Spirituality - inner development - is just as much a communal project as external material development, though equally prone to individualist thinking. Not that lone cowboys/girls don't have legimate roles in either project!
So one way to open up roles that can help us see our way forward is to look at traditional cultures to see how did people cultivate inner qualities?
- handicrafts, e.g. practical work in wood, metal, stone, etc.
- arts - poetry, music, sculpture, painting
- healing
- food - growing and cooking
- martial arts
- prayer and meditation
Well since I have a whole web site devoted to being a doom sayer I guess one should take my comments appropriately.
The problem is that there are some large-scale movements where an individual can do almost nothing to alter the course of events, or even protect oneself.
The typical examples are when a country goes to war (or gets invaded) or in a financial crisis like the German hyper-inflation of 1923.
What one can do here and now is not create a bomb shelter or a disaster preparedness kit, but work to alter the future course of events. This means speaking out, taking political action and investing in areas that are promoting the right sort of future. There is still time to prevent even worse future outcomes, but it is drawing short.
Here's an example of what I mean:
Planning For a Steady State (No Growth) Society
Quite right...the problem is that one doesn't know ahead of time when that is the case. So I assert that taking action is almost always best once it has become clear that action is required.
As for this:
I see no reason why taking personal responsibility for the basics of life (stocking extra food, learning to grow food, disaster preparedness kits (which are a good idea no matter where in the country one lives, in my view) etc.) and working to alter the course of events are exclusive.
Why do you think both shouldn't or can't be done?
My worry is that people will take some minor steps ("preparedness") and then think they have done all they need to do.
It's sort of a personal version of greenwashing - install CFL bulbs and think you have done your bit.
By my calculation a sustainable society in the US (given the present level of technology) would be similar to those in Eastern Europe. People have homes, a selection of modern conveniences, but a standard of living which is about 1/5 of that in the US. Does the average home need 3 TV's and 14 radios?
My push has been for people to shift to a lifestyle that is less based upon consumption and more based upon community. This means more interactions with others - anything from chatting over the backyard fence to sitting around in cafes. It also means participation in more group activities like ceremonies or cultural or sporting events - and not just as a couch potato.
The crowds coming out for Obama show that the potential is there, people just need a bold leader, not a timid one. As I've said elsewhere this is hard to produce when elections are controlled by money and money comes from the wealthy and their business interests.
This is a very valid concern. But shouldn't we work on that rather than tell people not to get started at all? If 10 people take minor steps and only 2 continue, isn't that better than zero people getting started?
Yes and no. When you see only the first step, it's hard to know whether they're taking the first step of many, or dancing in place.
There's a sort of cosmetic change which in a way is worse than no change at all, because people use that cosmetic change as a shield against demands for genuine change. "I inflated the tyres on my car to improve the mileage, what else can you expect me to do? Jeez!"
Too often people in progressive movements are scared to propose bold measures. They settle for token efforts, scared that if they offer something bold no-one will listen to them. In fact the reverse is true: token gestures are ignored, bold words get attention and eventually action.
For example, a few months back there was a lot of talk of how to improve your car's fuel efficiency by better driving and the like. Nobody dared utter the words, "drive less, or not at all." The result was overall a zero improvement in fuel efficiency across the West.
I think you're right that many changes are done that make little or no difference (or even make things worse) and many possible changes that would make a big difference don't get done at all.
But at least people are in this conversation rather than being oblivious.
This sort of dialog is under appreciated on TOD, so I welcome it.
I have noticed that most of the people I speak to about peak oil, say 99%, either ignore it right away or take it seriously, get scared, then consciously chose to park themselves in the denial stage.
Those who stick with the subject may get stuck in a victim or bystander role, but I eventually loose track of these folks because they are so annoying that they are shunned from social/affinity groups. Now, we all play these roles to some extent now and then, but we can't for long and be on good standing among our peers. This is because anyone who sits around and whines while others are busting their butts is going to be told to get lost. (I run a farm and sometimes volunteers show up. Every so often someone comes along and decides they just want to talk to us but not really work. It is very, very annoying).
I appreciate that Andre' points out how leadership can take many forms and his definition is very empowering.
This doesn't mean that if I were there I still wouldn't get the hell out of Las Vegas asap! Certainly the biophysical trumps the cognitive/social, but humans can do a lot to either better the situation or make it much, much worse. In order to be personally effective, I had to place myself in a situation/geographical location that I could rationally consider to have a decent chance of meeting the lower rungs of the hierarchy of needs without massive imports. I still get queasy whenever I visit places that are obviously too resource-import dependent, either because I fear for my own security, or I shudder at the frivolous waste and unnoticed dangers.
When people ask me, "Why do you want to do all this extra farm work? You are so busy with Work, Rugby, and a Farm.... why" that is my opening. I usually start with, "OK, put on your tin foil hat, because this is going to sound a little crazy to you...."
But most people, when they see how hard I am working, and what I have created for myself and my family, tend to think maybe I know something they don't. The key here is I'm not talking about it... I'm doing it.
Of course I end the spiel with, "Look, I might be wrong. If someone magically comes along and solves all our energy problems (AVA Solar, SPS Solar, Magic Fusion) then great... I've still got a business that I own and makes a profit in the high energy world. I also LIKE raising sheep and chickens and the wife ENJOYS her greenhouse. So what have I lost? Ski trips? Yeah ok, I miss those, but how many lambs did YOU get to see born this year."
This weekend's "firsts" for me included putting up stock fencing, killing and plucking a turkey and making sausages. Not on my own account at this stage, as I'm trying to learn the ropes and get some pointers en route to taking on perhaps 10 or 12 acres as a smallholding.
Why? Because I won't have a pension in 12 years' time; my "knowledge economy" PR job associated with the car business may outlast the current recession but not the subsequent one; and it won't hurt to be more self-sufficient (and hopefully produce a surplus for sale or barter locally). In order to achieve this without taking on debt may mean moving into a trailer on the land to start with. That is I admit a bit of a sticking point with my wife at the moment although I'm sure we'll get there somehow!
Would I be doing this (and a lot more besides) if I'd not learned about peak oil? No. Could I do less and still be prepared for the changes I think may happen in next two decades? Perhaps. Whatever "works" for post-peak society will undoubtedly centre on local communities, and in an optimistic scenario our town will transition into resilient local interdependency, with communal access to community-owned land for food and fuel production.
On the other hand, if things don't go so well, owning a few acres and developing skills to support myself and my family may prove to be a useful form of insurance.
And if it all goes totally Pete Tong? Well, in the best tradition of human endeavour, at least I tried.
Through much of the summer we watched a pair of hawks who would fly over the yard only to be chased away by a group of barn swallows. Then one afternoon we looked up and saw seven majestic hawks riding a thermal toward the base of a cloud. The older pair were out teaching the youngsters some flying magic. That was a quality of life factor that economists can't put a price tag on. Also in the big city I never saw blue sky reach all the way down to the horizon. I may live in the poorest county in Iowa but there are some things that are priceless and of infinite value.
Giddaye Larry,
I've had a year to absorb the discussions on TOD. Though your life-style sounds wonderful, the jump from where I live in mainstream to yours still seems light-years away.
Having said that, October job-bookings are dreadful. I just hope the window of opportunity stays open long enough if things don't improve soon.
Regards, Matt B
Your graph of "Oil" production would better be labeled "light oil".
Then there is "heavy oil", "very heavy oil", "bitumen", "shale oil", each with their respective amounts of "oil in place". e.g., see: Heavy Oil and Natural Bitumen Resources in Geological Basins of the World By Richard F. Meyer, Emil D. Attanasi, and Philip A. Freeman, 2007, USGS.
Even if 10% is recoverable with conventional technologies, that could still provide some 900 billion bbl compared to 31 billion bbl/year of global usage.
Recommend showing multiple "peaks".
Then there is "solar energy" which is 10,000 times larger than conventional "oil". The issue is scaling up to competitive size and developing cost competitive solar fuels. Concentrating thermal electricity and thermochemical fuels are possible and potentially cost competitive with sufficient development and resources.
The major challenge is developing technologies and methods to move to alternative fuels in a timely fashion and at competitive prices. With suitable vision, and the appropriate coordinated effort, planning, and resources, alternative fuels can be provided in abundance at costs lower than conventional fuels. Inadequate conversion rates will result in economic chaos and famines.
Extracting and converting bitumen to synthetic crude nominally needs capital investment of about $100,000 / bbl/day. To provide 100 million bbl/day would require about a $10 trillion investment. Global GDP is about $46 trillion (based on US GDP of $13 trillion being 28% of global GDP). While $10 trillion sounds large, it is about 3 months of global GDP.
We have the choice of abundant or scarce fuel for our future.
We don't know precisely how the future will play out. Without huge investments (which we cannot even imagine the source of), there won't be a second hump of oil from heavy oil. There may be other sources of energy that become more available, but we don't know that this will happen for certain either. The graphic chosen gives one representation of how oil production might look to a person looking back, many years from now.
When faced with shutting down our economy, no jobs or retirement etc., I expect that substantial investment will be forthcoming. The critical issue is the time taken to develop alternatives and bring them on line. Existential threats tend to concentrate the mind and mobilize efforts. e.g. The massive military mobilization and manufacturing During WWII.
"Extracting and converting bitumen to synthetic crude..."
So we could be digging up our roads to make fuel for cars to go on them?
Beautiful, beautiful irony. That's as good as people welcoming global warming melting the Arctic because then we can get more oil to burn which will warm the world more. It's like when in Fight Club they stole the waste fat from liposuction. "Tyler sold his soap to department stores at $20 a bar. Lord knows what they charged. It was beautiful. We were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them."
Beautiful, beautiful irony.
Dry cask storage of nuclear waste, and mining bitumen for light crude oil. You hear it all online.
excuse my duplicate post
David Hagen: you cannot look at non conventional oil sources without considering the net energy(EROEI) aspects of its production and I don't mean just the unit energy costs to yield a given energy unit. In some cases other inputs eg., water might be needed in large amounts to facilitate the yield. The problem I constantly run into is trying to get a reliable ratio of EROEI. There is no consistent methodology. Of course there are vast amounts of oil and gas and solar energy available from deep ocean hydrates, oil sands to solar energy intensity/sq meter of earth's surfaceetc. The amount of any energy reserves is almost meaningless. If it costs too much to produce it and/or it lacks scalability, it will not be produced. Given the level of debt today, many of the planned projects will be scaled back or abandoned. The amount of debt to GDP in just the US is 3.7 times our GDP. How do you plan to obtain the money?
Yes, EROEI considerations are absolutely crucial, but unfortunately these kinds of numbers tend to be heavily politicized - like so much else where what is in fact desperately needed is raw, unvarnished truth.
Nate Hagens estimates EROEI for bitumen from oil sands at between 5 and 6. See Unconventional Oil: Tar Sands and Shale Oil - EROI on the Web, Part 3 of 6
Thank you for your article. I'm an engineer and had dipped into depression over the inevitability of living in a reduced energy world. The whole LATOC scene can get one whipped up into a survivalist frenzy. I haven't buried my head in the sand but rather focused upon the present and what I can actually do with positive actions. I now have 15 chickens, a large garden and a landscape populated with many edible native plants. I hunt and now have two freezers full of venison and elk.
What I have done that is most useful though is give up the drama queen, victim, and awestruck bystander perspectives. I've kicked antidepressants (I've also got a child with severe disabilities so it's not just P.O.)and even phased out counseling. I'm happy now. And my secret? Living in the moment. The present now is OK. Being preoccupied with WHAT the future brings or HOW I will get my family through it is unproductive mental anguish. I've been able to peacefully watch the US economy crash because I knew it would anyway. It really isn't a surprise. And $60 oil... who knew! I will finally get my 401k cash that was parked in sort-of-safe money market funds into gas & oil royalty trusts.
It will all work out. (Even if a large die-off is needed to restore balance) Some kind of spiritual faith in a cosmic order helps too. Meditation is a real refuge for me in that it brings me back to the present. So is all this psycho-babble worth anything? Isn't this just "soft" nonsense? Don't we need to be focusing upon solving or transitioning into a soft P.O. landing? I think at the core is keeping our peace of mind. If you are crazy, mad, or depressed you can't be creative and work on the innovation we need to navigate through the chaos in energy, politics, and the economy. (And I think Kunstler has it right that the sh*t storm is only beginning)
To me, “What kind of fulfilling role can I create for myself in a post peak world?” is best answered by being at peace in the midst of the hurricane outside and taking personal-sized real actions toward living in the post-peak world. I guess you could sum it up by "Don't worry, be here now, and be active."
Why do you believe this to be an inevitability?
That's not a rhetorical question, by the way, but an honest and serious one. Consider a few facts:
Taken together, these mean that one year's worth of world manufacturing capacity would be more than enough to replace the oil burned in cars world-wide. (1B cars x 10k miles/yr x 0.3kWh/mi = 3T kWh/yr = $6T < $15T)
Accordingly, there is no a priori reason why the future could not see higher availability of useful energy (exergy) than the present, provided appropriate investment is made in appropriate energy sources. The technology, the manufacturing capacity, and the physical resources are all there already.
Fundamentally, any argument about an energy-limited future is a sociological argument, and not a physical argument - it necessarily relies on assumptions about what people choose to do with the available physical resources. That doesn't mean such arguments can't be right, of course, but it makes them much, much harder to provide solid evidence and justification for, meaning that anyone who has iron-clad certainty in their view of the future is almost certainly deluding themselves.
Our future depends almost wholly on what people choose to do. Don't kid yourself that you (or your favourite author) knows what that will be.
What makes you believe that the choices that will get made that truly have civilization-level ramifications will be good and productive ones? History certainly doesn't suggest such a conclusion.
I wouldn't hold my breathe, for example, waiting for the U.S. elites to take the $700 billion a year that currently goes into military spending and diverting that into crash-programs to develop a wind-based electricity infrastructure and a world-class rail and canal network.
Why do I believe this is an inevitability? Perhaps because I am an engineer NOT a scientist. What you outline is possible but I would put it in the statistically less likely to occur category. "Facts" don't lead to actual changes, people, governments, and programs do and they all are non-linear and defy common sense. I do believe we will have alternative sources of energy in the future and I am doing my small part to promote them, but it is the liquids for transportation that will be the hardest to replace. Electricity is the future but there is hardly a more regulated and messed up industry in the USA. Plus huge capital requirements which are hurt by financial melt-down. I'm not trying to be a doomer but from following PO for over ten years I've read a lot and have debated a lot of approaches. So I am not loosely talking on emotion or making a sociological argument, what I have thought through is based on lots of physical constraints and concerns. There will be changes, but I don't see them happening fast enough to prevent a major decline in world energy usage along with the global economy. I agree with R. Heinberg that we have missed our window of opportunity as a society to avoid major pain. Again this is just my 2 cents based upon engineering, intuition, and experience. Please don't abandon or let up in your fight to implement 1. through 4.!!! I just foresee a rougher road toward maintaining any sense of energy sustainability and I will be delighted if I am wrong!
Because of Peak Oil I savor, savor and delight in today. When I drive my car to the City 180 miles away I marvel and enjoy the perfect asphalt, the feel of speed, the sound of my satellite radio. I relish and enjoy it. Because these things will past, but they are here today to enjoy. I appreciate this computer, the light in my kitchen, my espresso maker. It might not be here for ever or even for long. But it is wonderful now.
Peak oil has opened my eye to the wonders and ease of the modern world. It is all so easy, comfortable, and pleasant. Hot showers, central heat (we live far north).
When our 80+ year old neighbor was here for dinner two nights ago he talked about being cold. As a child he was cold. My mom, age 62, raised in a log cabin even farther north says the dominant memories from her childhood is of being COLD. Of getting black, flacid carrots out of the sand pit under the kitchen floor, of using the well as their cold storage in the summer. But mostly being cold.
I'm grateful for warmth, light, mangos, jazz. I have it all today. What bliss. It is not taken for granted.
Thanks for mentioning all that...I've found I'm enjoying life as it is even more now. I'm savoring it, too.
But I also recognize that the planet has taken a beating and my lifestyle is contributing the deterioration of all our ecosystems.
AAngel-- so true about the planet taking a beating.
We live in the praire pothole region-- the duck factory of North America, and perhaps the world. This fall there are no ducks- no geese.
Millions of acres have come out of set aside (conservation reserve program) in Minnesota and the Dakotas -- to grow corn at high prices. Those acres translate into the loss of many millions of ducks, according to Ducks Unlimited. It is heartbreaking to see the skyies and the sloughs empty.
Godspeed to our missing waterfowl.
My husband and I are taking 100 acres out of row crop production and turning it into pasture. One of our neighboring farmers stopped in last week (he was trying to hunt ducks in fact) and said "you know when you told me you were putting that 100 into pasture, I thought you were an idiot. With the drop in corn prices you're starting to look like a genius."
We are trying to tread lightly. Trying.
"my lifestyle is contributing the deterioration of all our ecosystems."
It's your net contribution that matters. If you've educated 10 people to reduce their footprint by 10% (which you've probably done - you make your living doing this, right?), you've eliminated your contribution.
The moral? Don't feel guilty, take action!
It seems aangel is little inconsistent. Because he wrote this just a few days ago in another thread:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4702#comment-426707
"I advocate powerdown and an orderly reduction in our numbers.
Anything else, in my view, is inadequate to meet all the challenges we face: loss of energy, loss of soil, loss of fresh water, climate change, etc."
And now: "a fulfilling role in a fulfilling future"??? In an empty world?
Please see the section about Standard of Living vs Quality of Life.
However, in my view, the world will not be empty, and there will still be much opportunity for love and laughter and fun even as we take action, or don't.
You depict a world that will have lost a lot of almost everything. That's gloom.
And your proposed action was: "powerdown". That's is inaction.
And your recipe was: "reduction of numbers". That's doom.
Now, here is the definition of leadership: "lead and others will follow". Like the other guy said: "you first"...
Here is another way of looking at it (not the only way).
Many people I know look at what is happening rather optimistically because their interpretation is that some sort of collapse is necessary to stop the train. They think the way we've set things up is unsustainable but no one has figured out how to move to a steady state economy living within its means. Despite decades of trying, the inertia of the existing system seems to be insurmountable.
In the discontinuity that arises, something new has the chance of being built (and these same people are busy building it, btw).
And there will be, in my view, some really hard times ahead.
That's why I raise the issue of the role we are each going to play as events unfold.
As for walking the talk, I believe I am. But why would you wait for me before taking action? What's the purpose of that?
Stopping the train doesn't get you anywhere.... Throwing the switch might however avoid a wreck.
Wind, ethanol, (yes, even the much reviled corn ethanol), biodiesel, solar, conservation, etc.. are all small steps in the right direction.
And no, I am not waiting for you.
I apologize if I left you with the impression that we should not add lots of wind and solar, as well as conserve. (Personally, I think mere conservation will not be enough, I think it will have to be closer to a powerdown.)
However, I don't recall ever saying that those things shouldn't be done. I think we should do everything possible to move off of oil before the economy breaks down further and slows the transition process even more. But I also would say that pouring money into roads and not rail is inappropriate considering the future that I see. Directing the money more effectively is an excellent way for a leader to make a difference, in my opinion.
As for the train wreck, I think we are watching it right now. ("The financial crisis threw the first punch, but oil depletion will deliver the knockout blow.")
Why is a world with fewer people consuming less, which is my view of powerdown, an "empty world" as you put it?
My point of view is that the world is rapidly being impoverished by our excess biomass and trash. How many habitats of other species need to be taken over for us? How rapidly does the climate need to change for us?
I don't believe many humans will survive if we don't recognize that we are absolutely dependent upon other species to make soil, clean water, balance the atmosphere, produce our food and fibers and medicines.
What habitat have you taken over? Maybe give it back, if that is what you must believe. Or it could be that the world needs you, somewhere, somehow.
I live in a place that used to have a mixed forest of Tan oak, Douglass fir, Oregon oak, Madrone, Bay Laurel and probably a few other trees. The understory was very rich in plant life too. In that forest lived a few dozen mammal species, numerous birds, lizards, amphibians, who knows how many insects and other invertebrates.
That habitat has now been claimed by me and my neighbors. More of my kind, humans, means less of the rest.
Sorry if you are not aware of that. My professional job was to clarify these sorts of things. Probably about a third of the species I studied were threatened with extinction, mostly due to habitat takeover by the human species. Do you need references for this?
I don't think the world needs me at all, or any of us, for that matter. But I am just like any organism that is part of an evolutionary lineage--I come with an inherited will to live. I also have created meaning for myself by having a family and a set of friends and a role in those people's lives.
If you're "just like any organism that is part of the evolutionary lineage" then there should be no problem at all whether you caused other species to become extinct or whether you yourself would become extinct. Because then all that must be the Fate of Natural Selection. The beauty of such evolutionary thinking is that there is never any problem by definition....
Fate is not a concept I understand and my doctorate is in Evolutionary and Population Biology. I have never seen or heard of the "Fate of Natural Selection."
There is what is called the "Struggle for existence," but absolutely no fatalism is implied by "struggling."
I would like to live. I would like my descendants to live. I would like the same for most other people. In order for these wishes of mine to come true, I believe that in the struggle for existence that encompasses all people we shouldn't violently or inadvertently extirpate the life support systems of the planet.
If we did that our "fate" would indeed be sealed. This goes against my definition of what is a "good" outcome and that is a problem.
I assume that if you have a doctorate you can consult a dictionary. Look at Merriam Webster for instance: Fate = "the will or principle or determining cause by which things in general are believed to come to be". Natural Selection is certainly an evolutionary principle, is it not? Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to speak of the Fate of Natural Selection.
You may not personally consider the outcome of that principle "good". But in the overall scope of things it (NS) is considered the motor of natural progress, is it not? How else did we get from slime to primates if indeed we did?
Let me be clear: I don't advocate "the destruction of the life support systems of the planet", if that was what you thought.
Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning. I took your use of fate as in the sense of "inevitability."
I could argue with you about progress but would rather read a book.
What habitat have you taken over? Maybe give it back, if that is what you must believe. Or it could be that the world needs you, somewhere, somehow.
This is a joke, right? You don't actually believe that the 6.7 billion human inhabitants have *zero* measurable impact on our environment and the other species around us, do you?
Also really enjoyed the implied false dichotomy: "Your either FOR humanity or with the eco-terr'ists. It's either the current no-limits-to-growth path or Mad Max die-off. No other alternatives --what's it gonna be?"
"You don't actually believe that the 6.7 billion human inhabitants have *zero* measurable impact on our environment and the other species around us, do you?"
Setting up strawmen so as to then be able to torch them? Because I never said anything remotely like that...
What a breath of fresh air! So the article is not highly scientific and lacks statistics. It nevertheless addresses a crucial topic - seizing the opportunity to lay the foundations for a better future. What Jason Bradford describes - that most people lack a constructive response to the idea of peak oil - resonates with my experience. Our work now is exactly to find paths to move past that, while keeping an eye on the financial markets and the price of oil.
In a recent museletter, at http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/192, Richard Heinberg reminds us of an important Milton Friedman (and others') insight that great change can happen only when there is great crisis, and seeks to turn it to the advantage of those who would plan for a better future ahead. We can put forth the ideas that would underpin a world of cooperation, lower energy living, whatever... and point out that attitudes prevalent under the Chicago School (unfettered markets that concentrate wealth into a few hands, looking out exclusively for number one, etc...) will in fact lead to everyone's worse doomsday scenarios.
You get to try, you know... and in the end "how we spend our days, of course, is how we spend our lives" (Annie Dillard).
I was a family physician and recently quit to focus on my three little boys and home life (my husband earns the money, allowing me to do this). My focus now is clearly on food security, local food, and building Transition Boulder. I still read The Oil Drum because a community of thinking people have a discussion in the comments sections, and because I I need to improve my understanding of the financial markets in order to justify pulling my "retirement money" out of it, and because Leanan summarizes the news of the day for me. But at times the endless conjecturing on how to navigate the murderously stormy stock market and predict the future price of oil seems like misplaced life energy. At this juncture, we can't afford to be mired in a fast disappearing past.
Global Oil Production Is Falling Faster Than Expected, FT Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=arn1g3qUqKAI
Many peak oil theorists point out that volatility should be expected to increase close to the peak.
The broad future remains the same whether we use 29 billion barrels of oil per year or "only" 25 billion barrels. If your point in posting that was to cast doubt on whether Energy Descent is still going to happen, I think the math shows otherwise.
Sorry to interrupt, but the IEA says:
"The Financial Times carried a cover page article this morning and a second article on page 4 allegedly reporting on the findings of the forthcoming WEO 2008. This article was drafted without any consultation with the IEA. It appears to be based on an early version of a draft from several months ago that was subsequently revised and updated. The numbers in the article can be misleading and should not be quoted or considered to be official IEA results. We are dismayed that such a comprehensive and important IEA report was made public without our input and verification."
http://www.iea.org/journalists/arch_pop.asp?MED_ARCH_ID=477
Hi P!
It's a small virtual world.
I also live in Boulder and last year I quit my job as engineering manager at a major medical device company in order to focus on raising our two children and to focus on home life. (My wife earns the money allowing me to do this). Since quiting work I have turned our small Boulder yard into a packed semi-permaculture site growing lots of food and most recently chickens. I'm interested in learning more about your local food and Transition Boulder activities.
-Chris
To Odysseus, other Boulderites, and anyone interested in reading about the trials and tribulations of a family trying to powerdown a fairly average lifestyle, I write at www.ecoyear.net. You can also email me there.
Transition Boulder, were you on the call with Portland last night? Maybe we will hook up later.
I agree with the thesis that we have to "live into our futures". Live a certain way and the human brain will rationalize it. Then it will find the next steps - steps that were not apparent before you took the first steps. We do need to rebuild our civilization - not just our banking system. You were a family physician - how do you provide health care in a public health model suitable for post-peak oil world? Barefoot cuban doctors? If we had a good public health care system, that would truly be a great unleashing, eh?
We're at the river but we are not willing to get into the boats.
cfm in Gray, ME
The zero energy future does not exist.
Biofuels are already here and can be scaled up.
Unmodified Miscanthus has been found to be 2.5 times more efficient than corn and switchgrass. 9.3% of cropland equivalent to grow Miscanthus to offset 20% of fuel. 23.25% to offset 50% of fuel. Genetic modifications can boost Miscanthus efficiency by 300%. Modified Miscanthus 8% of land to offset 50% of fuel.
So algae and Modified miscanthus should be pushed for biofuels
Jatropha is a weed that can be turned in to biofuel and can be grown on wasteland.
Japan is pursuing genetically modified seaweed for large scale biofuel.
Uranium and deep burn nuclear power can extend nuclear supplies to tens of thousands of years [using one hundred times more than we use now] and up to 5 billion years at a higher usage rate than we currently have
How much is biodiesel now ? Projection that does not include Miscanthus, algae, seaweed or other new biosources.
"How much is biodiesel now ?" - And can they get any to Western Canada, like pronto?
Just because there is energy out there doesn't guarantee that it'll be available to you.
Biodiesel around the world at wikipedia
The Canadian government has stated a goal of producing 500 million liters of biodiesel by 2010."Welcome to Canada Clean Fuels".
Canada Biodiesel
* Quebec - Rothsay of Ville Ste Catherine, Quebec, produces 35,000 m³ of biodiesel per year. The shuttle bus connecting students between the two campuses of Concordia University are run solely on Biodiesel.
* Nova Scotia - The Provincial Government of Nova Scotia uses biodiesel in some public buildings for heating as well as (in more isolated cases) for public transportation. Halifax Regional Municipality has converted its bus fleet to biodiesel, with a future demand of 7,500 m³ of B20 (20% biodiesel fuel mixture) to B50—reducing biodiesel content in low temperatures to avoid gelling issues—and 3,000 m³ split between B20 and B100 for building heat. The municipality forecasts a greenhouse gas reduction of over 9,000 tonnes CO2 equivalents (4,250 tonnes from fleet use and 5,000 tonnes from building heating) if fully implemented. Private sector uptake is slower—but not unheard of—possibly due to a lack of price differential with petroleum fuel and a lack of federal and provincial tax rebating. Ocean Nutrition Canada produces 6 million gallons (23,000 m³) of fatty acid ethyl esters annually as a byproduct of its Omega-3 fatty acid processing.
* Ontario - Biox Corporation of Oakville is building a biodiesel processing plant in the Hamilton harbor industrial lands, due for completion in the first half of 2006. There are also a few retail filling stations selling biodiesel to motorists in Toronto and Unionville.
* Manitoba A rush of building of biodiesel plants in 2005 and 2006 started in June 2005 with Bifrost Bio-Diesel in Arborg. In addition, biodiesel is made by individuals and farmers for personal use.
* British Columbia - the cooperative association proves a successful structure for micro-economy-of-scale biodiesel production reaching the end-user. Vancouver Biodiesel Co-op (located at 360 Industrial Ave, Vancouver, BC), Nelson Biodiesel Co-op, WISE Energy and Island Biodiesel Co-op are notable examples.
Biofuel at wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
Biofuel from waste will also be big
General Motors back Coskata (waste to fuel).
They plan to finish their pilot project at the headquarters by the end of January, 2008 and scale up to a 40,000-gallon demonstration facility by the end of 2008. They are also working on a 100 million-gallon-per-year facility somewhere in the U.S., which they hope will go online by early 2011.
Coskata is entering China
China could produce 50 billion gallons of biofuel from forest and agricultural waste alone. [over 3 million barrel per day of oil equivalent]
National Renewable Energy lab discusses potential of algae biofuel
But what's the source crop (canola?)? What's the productivity per acre? And last but not least, what's the EROI?
I get the feeling that these systems using vegetable oil as boiler fuel would be much improved if they were re-engineered to use bio-oil from stover, straw, forestry and municipal green wastes instead. This would eliminate the competition for food products and add new energy and revenue streams from crops already being produced.
http://www.thebioenergysite.com/articles/70/canadian-biofuel-industry-we...
Biofuel in western canada is currently wheat and corn. But Canola and other sources are scaling up.
Canada could also grow camelina (a weed similar to Jatropha)
http://current.com/items/89267129_camelina_a_better_source_of_biofuel
Productivity 100 gallons of camelina oil per acre. Canola yields 100 to 200 gallons per acre. Compared to about 30 gallons per acre from corn; 50 gallons from soybeans
Dominion Energy Services, LLC has broken ground for a $400-million integrated biodiesel and ethanol refinery in Innisfail, Alberta, Canada, it will consist of a combined 300 million gallon per year production facility (100 million gallon ethanol, a 100 million gallon canola crush facility and a 100 million gallon biodiesel) on commencement in the third quarter of 2008, and will use about 1 million tonnes of wheat and 900,000 tonnes of canola a year for raw residue.
Canadian Green Fuels Inc. last week announced plans to put up a new plant and upgrade its existing plant in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. Proposed production capacity: 63.4 million gallons of biofuel products a year, and will run on energy it creates and is expected to produce biodiesel, biofuels, bio-oil, and bio-additives.
Canola biodiesel
Nice press-release quotes, but I was looking for meatier items like water and fertilizer requirements. These were conspicuously absent from your link on camelina (which put the text in a window which wouldn't even allow the full width to be viewed - atrocious web design!). Wheat and corn need far too much fertilizer to be good fuel crops, even if they weren't required for food.
IIRC, the yield of wheat straw can be as much as 1 ton/acre; assuming 100 gal/ton claimed for some ethanol processes, an acre of wheat could produce the energy-equivalent of about 60 gallons of oil as well as the grain with no additional inputs required. That's the sort of thing which can make a viable business without mandates or subsidies, and part of the fallout of shrinking budgets will be the end of such waste.
EIA cost and energy analysis for soybean and yellow grease based biodiesel [2002, 2004-2006]
Gas 2.0 Clayton Cornell looks at 23 "myths" about biodiesel
Energy return (EROI) soybean biodiesel (2-3)
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11206.abstract
Some australian analysis of the economics of canola biodiesel from 2005
http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/IKMP/SUST/BIOFUEL/20...
Some info on biodiesel from TOD editor Robert Rapier [who just wrote his article questioning conskata)
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/03/biodiesel-king-of-alternative-fu...
Energy density and EROI estimates of different feedstocks
http://www.iclei.org/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/ANZ/CCP/CCP-AU/Proj...
Used cooking oil EROI 34.7/37
Canola 1.39-3.62 (australia)
Palm oil 9
Btw: Apparently my google skills are far beyond the normal person. Because it takes me like 5-10 minutes to find this stuff when most people here write questions and wait for hours/days hoping that someone else does the search for them or people have the questions and assume that the answers are not available.
You do realize that "yellow grease" and other waste products of food cooking total only about 2 billion gpy and are totally unable to scale? This renders their EROI irrelevant.
Besides, I asked you about the stuff for Canada. It's too cold for soybeans in most of the country; only bits of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec appear to be suited. Production is 70 gallons/acre or less even in the USA. This cannot scale; even if 80 million acres were planted to soy, you'd only get 5.6 billion gallons of oil per year.
Canola: 110 gal/ac/yr. Can't scale, and it requires lots of fertilizer. The only reason it's had any traction is because it removes land from food production and helps reduce EU surpluses.
Only because you're completely ignoring the real issues. Niche products are all well and good, but our EROI is set at the margin. The marginal solution must scale.
Nothing derived from oilseeds can scale (even oil palms are an ecological crime). Electric propulsion can scale to 100% of current demand and beyond, which is why it should be pushed much harder than any attempt to create alternative liquid fuels.
(even oil palms are an ecological crime).
HUH?
The growth in oil-palm plantations is occurring on land cleared from virgin rainforest. Not only does this cause enormous loss of species and natural capital such as water retention, but the carbon released from the biomass may not be offset by "renewable" palm-oil fuel for half a century.
South Florida's inter-county Tri-Rail system is to start operating on bio-diesel, the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority has announced today.
Eight of 10 Tri-Rail locomotives, which run between Miami, Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach, will use a 99% blend of either palm or soy oil, official say. The other two locomotives will continue to use regular diesel.
http://blogs.tampabay.com/energy/
The chart image of the biofuel projection is not showing here.
I have it up at this link
US and Brazil biofuel is 1+ million barrels per day now. With conventional increase to 2 million barrels per day by 2017 from US and Brazil alone.
So the projection out to 2050 or 2100 or 2200 is wrong.
Massive Jatropha biofuel project starting in India and Philippines and other places.
Bill Gates and other invested $100 million in Sapphire (algae biofuels company) targeting first 10,000 barrel per day plant in 3-5 years.
First commercial algae biofuel plants opened this year.
Please don't hijack the thread...I sincerely request that we keep this conversation on the topic of the main post, even if you disagree with its fundamental assumption. There are plenty of other posts where you can (and are encouraged) to make your case.
This was the line we used to convince my dad to take charge of where and how his next years will be spent. If he'd landed in the ER with another untended infection, he may have been placed in a state facility instead of having some degree of choice in the next few steps.. It's pretty easy to be defeatist and despondent when facing a crumbling body, but at that point making your own, clear choices is at least a piece of strength in a weakened environment.
Thanks for the thoughts, Andre'
Bob
I think a Stoic has the best hope of surviving this mess.
I live in a community of stoics-- still call themselves Norwegians in the middle of the US. I always wondered what was the adaptive advantage of being so stoic. These people came from north of the Arctic circle- eat only white food. We had luetifisk last weekend (cod dried and soaked in lye).
As the joke goes- one of the local men loved his wife so much he almost told her.
I'll bet you can see Lake Wobegone from where you are.
You betcha!
Andre,
I think it's important to note that you're too pessimistic. I've said this before, taking apart your argument that we face deep economic depression point by point, but you've avoided a detailed discusion the two times I've raised this. So, I'll raise it again:
Will peak oil force GDP to decline disastrously? Robert Hirsch is perhaps the most visible advocate of this idea.
He has published several studies. The last one suggests that oil consumption is related to GDP in a 1:1 ratio - in other words, if oil consumption drops by 10%, GDP will as well. Here is what he said recently: "So then if one calculates a range of 2 to 5 percent, some people think the number may be larger, 2 to 5 percent per year increase in oil shortage, one comes up with a rather disastrous indication world GDP will decline by 2 to 5 percent a year in tandem with increasing oil shortages."
Is this realistic?
No. We can see this from economic history: in the US, oil consumption fell by 19% from 1978 to 1983, and yet GDP grew slightly. Similarly, world oil consumption has been flat for the last several years, but GDP growth has been quite strong, stronger than for the US (which itself has grown 8% in the last 3 years, with flat oil consumption).
Hirsch seems to have looked at the relationship between oil and GDP over the last 20 years, noticed that the ratio of oil increase to GDP increase has dropped from the previous 1:1 to roughly 1:2.5 (an analysis which he attributes to the DeutcheBank, but which can be derived straightforwardly from IEA statistics). In other words, in previous decades as the economy grew, oil consumption grew as quickly, while lately less oil has been needed. Hirsch drew the very strange inference that GDP has become more dependent on oil, rather than less.
An important and relevant researcher here is Robert Ayers . We see that he showed that GDP is related to applied energy (exergy), and only very loosely linked to energy, let alone to oil consumption. The research indicates that BTU's only explain 14% of GDP,and that the source of those BTU's can change (coal to oil to wind, for instance). Both energy efficiency and energy intensity can change. Further, oil is only one source of BTU's. Oddly enough, many energy commentators seem to misunderstand Ayre's research, and think that it supports the idea of a strong causal connection between oil consumption and GDP.
US (and world) GDP would grow much more quickly than it's energy consumption (even including electricity). The best example of this is California, which has kept per capita electricity consumption flat over the last 25 years, while growing it's GDP relatively quickly.
Ayres used "exergy services", which are not "very close to BTU parity". Exergy services are work performed. So, for instance, a Prius performs the same work as a similar vehicle with half the MPG, but uses half the BTU's. Strictly speaking, a Prius can perform the same work as a Hummer (transporting people), and use 20% of the BTU's. An EV also does the same work as a Hummer, and uses about 1/3 of the BTU's as the Prius, and 1/15 of the Hummer's...and so on.
Another source for this argument is here: http://www.postpeakliving.com/downloads/Sill-MacroeconomicsOfOilShocks.pdf from the Philadelphia Fed. It concludes that a 10% decline in oil availability would reduce GDP, on a one-time basis, by about 2%. This means that GDP growth would be 2% lower than otherwise in roughly the year following the oil shock, then go back to it's historical growth rate. Interestingly, it finds no impact on inflation.
Let's look at your blog.
It advocates for the idea that peak oil will "crash" the economy. However, it provides very little support. The blog simply accepts Hirsch's arguments. It discusses both Hirsch's findings as well 4 other reports. Oddly, three of those other reports actually disagree with Hirsch's thesis of a strong causal connection between oil and GDP - like others, the blog seems to misunderstand Ayres in the manner that is discussed above.
Here is an example of an unrealistically pessimistic perspective: "oil is peaking or will soon peak. I don't quibble over 2012 or 2020 — either date is a disaster for humanity because we can't get ready in time." source: http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/02/yergin-climate.html .
On the contrary, a difference in timing of 8 years makes an enormous difference - an additional 8 years would dramatically reduce the cost and disruptions of the transition away from oil, allowing many car owners, for instance, to smoothly replace their old vehicles with ErEV's. This may explain the flawed perspective - there seems to a confusion about short-term vs. longterm effects: it assumes a large short-term effect predicts an even larger long-term effect, whereas, as shown in the Philadelphia Fed paper, the reverse is the case: a large short-term effect will generally be followed by adaptation which will eliminate continuing impacts on the economy.
In one place you ask a correspondent to show proof that the US economy can survive a 20% reduction in oil supply. Here are two: the Fed paper above, which shows that a 10% reduction would only reduce GDP by 2%, and the 5 year reduction of 19% discussed above, where GDP managed to grow slightly.
The USA is not effectively competing with China in the area of GDP growth so it is unlikely the USA will be able to maintain its current % of net oil exports. A 20% reduction would be considered to be a very optimistic forecast.
"The USA is not effectively competing with China in the area of GDP growth"
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "effectively", but I'd point out that Chinese GDP growth has dropped by about 1/3 recently - see http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/middle_kingdom.html . Automobile sales in China in August 2008 shrank 6.3% year on year to 629,000 units, the first fall in about two years, due to higher fuel prices. I'd also point out that the Chinese are much more aggressive than the US about replacement of oil-based electrical generation with coal and nuclear; energy efficiency (especially automotive); and PHEVs/EV's.
"it is unlikely the USA will be able to maintain its current % of net oil exports"
The US produces at least 40% of it's own oil, so a 20% reduction of overall consumption is a 33% reduction in imports.
I would note that the US reduced it's oil imports by about 15% recently, even before this credit crunch hit.
Not 40%, currently 31.8%. Also, at this current abysmal rate of Chinese growth, China oil imports are up 46% YOY. Further, auto sales are restricted in China.
"Not 40%, currently 31.8%. "
Dependence on Net Petroleum Imports: 58.2%.
20,680,000 barrels/day consumption vs 8.46M BPD production.
per http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
"auto sales are restricted in China"
OK, but how does that change the important point, which is that auto sales fell? If it was a central decision, that would appear to make it even more "authoritative" as an indicator of the future.
"China oil imports are up 46% YOY"
Do you have a source for this?
31.8% is off today's report. Re China auto sales, they are discouraging rapid growth at this time-that is not the same as falling into recession. The 46% is right off this site.
"31.8% is off today's report. "
Ah, what report? Perhaps you're using crude oil, instead of the broader crude + NGL, which is the commonly used measuring stick.
"Re China auto sales, they are discouraging rapid growth at this time-that is not the same as falling into recession."
No. Actually, this shows something more important: that they responded to oil prices by falling.
"The 46% is right off this site."
uhhmmm...where?
Hi, Nick.
Yes, I'm not interested in having that conversation with you, but others may (hopefully not on this thread, I'd really rather keep this conversation on post peak roles, if at all possible).
You've stated your thoughts and I've stated mine including addressing each of the points you raise. I have nothing more to add since I think the ground has been covered well. People can look at both sides and make up their own mind.
Best,
André
"You've stated your thoughts and I've stated mine including addressing each of the points you raise."
That's my point. You've never done so: in two separate conversations, you've never replied to my detailed objections. Never. As you can tell, I find it frustrating, as these seem to me to be important questions to settle before we address questions of adaptation.
If my memory is incorrect, and you've done so somewhere, please point me to it.
I haven't addressed your points in a conversation with you but they are addressed in those blog posts and reports you referred to. You say that they don't provide adequate support for the point of view that I'm advocating and I think they do. In fact, I think the point of view that the world economy depends on oil and would crash without adequate amounts of it (in its present form) is all over the place. I really have nothing more to add to the discussion other than moving it to "what are we going to do next?"
I'm sure someone else would like to continue the conversation with you, but I'm not one of those people. I'd like to spend my time and energy in a different conversation now.
"I haven't addressed your points in a conversation with you but they are addressed in those blog posts and reports you referred to. "
ummm, no they're not. Really. The fact is, only one of the several sources on your blog actually even begins to support this idea of long-term oil dependence, and PO economic collapse. The rest - Ayres, the Fed research paper, etc, - don't at all. The one that does(Hirsch) gives one source that supports the idea of oil not being all that important, and for the crash proposition only makes one simplistic, hand-waving argument (the idea that a 10:1 ratio of GDP growth to oil consumption supports the reverse, that a 1% reduction of oil consumption predicts a 10% reduction of GDP, an argument that's absurd on the face of it).
You've provided no substantive evidence at all (which isn't surprsing, really, AFAIK it doesn't exist). If you disagree, please provide some kind of info: sources, links, something.
"I think the point of view that the world economy depends on oil and would crash without adequate amounts of it (in its present form) is all over the place."
Ah. Now I understand - you feel this is settled fact. Well, really, it's not. It's really not. In fact, it's obviously unrealistic - the US got through an extensive industrialization, up to about 1910, without significant aid from oil at all (it was mostly used for lighting) - the only argument that has a shred of realism to it is the argument that we have a temporary dependende on oil that's too severe to be mitigated in the time available. The idea that oil is essential, and can never be replaced - that's just completely unrealistic.
I have to speculate that you've been living in a very small, insular community of opinion to think that this is settled fact.
"I really have nothing more to add to the discussion other than moving it to "what are we going to do next?""
I have no objection to a discussion of "what are we going to do next?", as long as no unrealistic claims of "certain collapse" are made. I agree we have a lot of severe challenges ahead, and that we have to, as a society, take much, much stronger action on the various resource problems we face.
I would suggest, though, that claims of "certain collapse" will marginalize your message, and make you less effective.
It may not be settled for everyone, but it is settled for me.
I am operating essentially on the graph below after many, many hours of research; it sounds like you are not. Each of us has to make our own call on this.
Another earlier form of this graph was made in the seventies, and it looks like this:
And both of those I think are likely because of our dependence on fossil fuels and how far behind the alternatives are:
"It may not be settled for everyone"
It's only settled for a very small group of people, all of whom appear to be talking to each other.
"I am operating essentially on the graph below "
Yes, I understand, but there's no backup to the graph: it's entirely composed of assumptions, with no evidence. There's a brief reference to the fact that historically there has been "a relationship" between oil and GDP, but no discussion of how strong the relationship was, whether it holds up before and after oil is abundant (it didn't before....), whether oil consumption growth caused GDP growth or vice versa, etc.
The Limits to Growth graph was an important thing, but I would note that it doesn't explicitly include oil at all - it was a general, conceptual model, intended to raise important questions, not answer them. LTG didn't address the linkage between resource consumption and GDP, the possibility of maturing markets (i.e., a logistic/sigmoid function before the depletion point). It also didn't address substitution.
The EIA data is out of date (IIRC, from about 2003, which is ancient history), and based on BTU comparisons which are invalid (it presented wind/solar as 1/3 it's correct size). It was debunked long ago - I'm surprised to see it again. The fact is, wind is already the single largest source of new electrical generation in the US, and wind and solar are already large enough to provide all new electrical generation within 5 years, should we make that choice as a society (which we should).
You might note that this is a liquid fuels problem, and this is true. OTOH, liquid fuels aren't need for anything other than aviation, which is of the magnitude to which liquid fuel substitutes can actually scale (though not cheaply).
Again, let me note that I share many of your ideas - I just think it's an enormous mistake to predict economic collapse due to PO. I don't think that premise is necessary to this article, for instance, and in fact weakens it greatly. You could drop it entirely (just frame it as "very large LTG challenges and risks) and have a much better article.
As far as the psychology of resource consumption goes, I think Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a very good place to start - clearly many people have simply gotten stuck on the first step of the hierarchy.
Nick,
I'm not able to debate point-by-point at the moment due to a disability, but I can throw out some things for you to consider.
1) It helps to number points you've made if you expect a point-by-point counterargument.
2) Are the GDP number's you are quoting real? shadowstats.com and others have pointed out that many of the economic figures from our government are not reliable or measured the same way they used to be.
3) Negawatts, conservation, efficiency, demand destruction, etc. all suffer from the low hanging fruit problem. It will be much easier to achieve the first bit of savings than the last and similar to the easy oil being gone, much of the easy efficiency is also gone.
4) China's GDP growth rate has slowed some, but they are still growing well. The US is at best stagnant.
5) You say "wind and solar are already large enough to provide all new electrical generation within 5 years, should we make that choice as a society (which we should)."
5a) That does not say if wind and solar increases will be enough to replace lost fossil fuel generation now or in the future.
5b) Without recognizing the dire straights we're in, society is not likely to do what they should, but rather what those with the most money believe will be the most profitable. You've identified a logical solution but have not provided the emotional stimulus that most will require to accept your solution.
5c) We also need to find substitutes for oil dependent transportation. Electric transportation is still unrealistic for near term replacement of current transport.
1) Good idea. Sometimes that seems a bit formal...but, good idea.
2) "Are the GDP number's you are quoting real?" They're the same numbers being used by Hirsch, Ayres, etc. They're the same GDP and CPI methodologies used by governments around the world, including the extremely conservative ECB (which is much more oriented towards fighting inflation than is the US Fed). Further, I haven't seen any evidence that using the older statistical methodologies would affect these analyses. For more info, see http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/09/shadowstats_deb.html .
3) "Negawatts, conservation, efficiency, demand destruction, etc. all suffer from the low hanging fruit problem"
I've seen no evidence that's the case. Consider the following: first (from a commuter's perspective), reduce fuel consumption by 50% by buying a Prius (if you don't telecommute, and eliminate it entirely), then put in an order for a Volt or plug-in Prius (which will be available in 2-4 years), which will reduce fuel cosumption by 80-99%, which is all you'll ever need. If fuel becomes much more expensive while you're waiting, carpool with one other person to reduce fuel consumption by another 50%. If the price doubles again, then carpool with four other people to reduce fuel consumption by a further 50%. By then consumption is 12.5% of current, so even if fuel costs $30/gallon, you're ok -I think that will get you through until the Volt is ready. Of course, if it doesn't arrive quickly enough for you, instead of buying a new car you can just put $5-10K into retrofitting your Prius into a plug-in, which can be done right now.
That covers personal light vehicle oil consumption, which is 50% of overall US consumption. Business consumption is a little harder, but not that much so: long-haul truck transport can move to intermodal trains, for instance, which can then be electrified. UPS can go to ErEV's, and hydraulic hybrids which save up to 50%.
4) True, but the point is that Chinese energy consumption (and economy overall) isn't somehow immune to oil prices and the larger world economy, as some have argued. In fact, they're very sensitive to oil prices, and are moving to get off oil-fired electrical generation ASAP, and moving to hybrid, plugin and EV vehicles faster than the US.
5) "That does not say if wind and solar increases will be enough to replace lost fossil fuel generation now or in the future."
a) We're talking primarily about replacing oil, at the moment - the US get's only 3% of it's electricity from oil.
b) yes, it would be, easily. An investment of only 2% of our GDP, over 7 years, could replace coal, gas and oil generation.
5b) It's already happening. Don't confuse the Bush administration with the country. Wind is already the single largest form of new electrical generation.
5c) Vehicles with electric drivetrains are expanding their market share very quickly. The conversion to EV/PHEVs is already taking place, with ample government subsidies ($7.5K per PHEV) already in place. Electric drivetrains are in 3% of new vehicle sales in the US - that is likely to roughly double every 2 years. Toyota expects electric drivetrains in 100% of their models by 2020 - other manufacturers, like GM, are close behind.
Nick- I can understand your concern that you have raised (seemingly!!!) reasonable objections to what we might call the doomer position. I can also understand why André does not want to engage with you in this, as I don't either.
We have a huge amount to get on with discussing and preparing, without constantly having to revisit the basics for potentially millions of the unenlightened (as we see them). Those who are in the psychological state of denial, such as you and so-called Pitt the Elder here, are all too often immune to unwelcome arguments anyway. We don't have an obligation to save you here from your ignorance. We aren't being paid to be teachers. We can't make the horse drink. It's your own life that's at stake more than ours anyway.
Anyway, I'll just answer your point about GDP increasing in the 1978-83 era. There's a ton on info about how GDP is nothing like any indicator of "wealth" or good fortune. GDP increases when people have to put in burglar alarms or are obliged to do something in a less efficient way than before, for instance vandal-proofing.
In the 78-83 case there would have been quite a lot of investment in energy efficiency, car mileage etc. That investment was possible due to the US having a dodgy financial system enabling it to offload its costs into the future. But now that future is here and the reality that energy determines economy is coming home to roost.
Like Andre, I am not interested in further discussing this self-evident point here and will not reply to any reply you (or others) post.
PS- great article Andre.
"We have a huge amount to get on with discussing and preparing, without constantly having to revisit the basics"
This isn't the basics. The basics of PO are that oil is peaking in the near future. That's the "basics". That's something that's hard enough to be sure of - the exact date of peak, the length of a plateau, the shape of the curve. That's hard enough. For instance, the Export Land Model is still in an early, rough draft form, with arbitrary curves for consumption and production. PO analysts would be well served by filling in the details of those curves.
" for potentially millions of the unenlightened (as we see them)."
You do realize you're using the language of religion? That you talking about "us" and "them"? This, sadly, is consistent with the false idea that there is a consensus among a group of believers at TOD, when in fact there isn't. This isn't a social club. where people agree with each other, and certain beliefs and rituals are signs of membership. It hopes to be a scientific journal, where ideas are thrashed out, tested for realism, and periodically tested with skepticism to ensure they're still valid. This doesn't detract from the mission of TOD, it is the mission.
"Those who are in the psychological state of denial"
Again, to reassure you that I"m not in denial, let me assure you that I think Climate Change is a looming disaster - much worse than PO.
"We aren't being paid to be teachers"
"We" aren't being paid at all. On the other hand, the stated purpose of TOD is to teach.
" GDP is nothing like any indicator of "wealth" or good fortune"
I agree. On the other hand, it is the generally accepted measure of the health of an economy, and it's what's used by anyone who's seriously interested in analyzing this question. It's what's used by all of the references given by Andre as evidence for the argument that PO means catastrophic economic decline.
"In the 78-83 case...was possible due to the US having a dodgy financial system enabling it to offload its costs into the future."
You can't borrow diesel fuel from the future, no matter how good your financial system is. What you're talking about is recycling of petrodollars from oil exporting countries in the form of debt. I would agree that there are big current and potential problems with debt recycling of petrodollars (the current financial crisis was created, in part, by a big flaw in the petrodollar recycling system). On the other hand, I suspect that most of the large exporters are recognizing that there is the potential that their golden goose is going to end, and that is giving them an incentive to accumulate just as many t-bills as possible.
"the reality that energy determines economy is coming home to roost"
I agree that energy is necessary. That's a far cry from oil being necessary.
" I am not interested in further discussing this self-evident point "
That's good, given that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing oil.
"and will not reply to any reply you (or others) post."
More's the pity. It would be good to thrash this out.
RobinPC,
"Like Andre, I am not interested in further discussing this self-evident point here "
Reasoned arguments will never convince those who have faith in the "doomer religion", in fact they will not want to be contamined by any opposing views.
Nick has provided good arguments to the points raised. If you don't agree you need to explain why rather than stating the point is self-evident.
BTW: the 10.6% chunk of 13% of World Energy in renewables is biomass and biofuels.
Biomass + Biofuels = Combustible renewables and renewable waste.
Great graphs and article. IMHO the "invisible hand" pushing the economy ever upward on a growth curve has been the invisible force of nearly free fossil fuels. Once they peak, I am convinced that old "business as usual" economic growth is toast and part of history. A new paradigm of sustainable economic activity needs to take its' place where humans act symbiotically with the earth and natural resources. Unfortunately I have seen very few isolated examples of this, hence if we want to survive as a species we need some truly visonary leaders.
FWIW, Paul Stamets work (eg. Mycelium Running) is the best breath of fresh air that I have read in years. There are sparks of hope out there that we need to fan into larger actions.
"the invisible force of nearly free fossil fuels"
How about the invisible force of nearly free wind and solar?
Nick the Cornucopian-
I appreciate the absence of disrespect (at least the open sort) in your posts. But some people are emotionally driven in the wrong way. They use their intellect not to discover the reality but instead to weave themselves into deeper and deeper cocoons of reassuring delusions. Your postings to this site are almost, possibly entirely, a waste of your time and ours, as we already understand the situation whereas no amount of correspondence will enable you to understand. Posts from you and so-called Pitt the Elder just get in the way of a lot of useful material from others here.
So I think it would be much better if you were to spend some time elsewhere, for instance organising the building of all those wind and solar power systems given that you say they are as near as matters free. When you've done that please come back and impress us with your production stats. Most people here already know it's just flying pigs.
" They use their intellect not to discover the reality but instead to weave themselves into deeper and deeper cocoons of reassuring delusions. "
No, not at all. Let me reassure you, I think Climate Change is a looming disaster - much worse than PO.
"we already understand the situation "
Than why can't you explain it? Really, if PO is clearly going to cause TEOTWAWKI, why can't you show us the evidence? I've replied to tag team of correspondents, clearly explaining the flaws in each idea presented. What is there that hasn't been presented? Furthermore, why do some of the core team of TOD contributors, like Stuart, and Engineer-poet, disagree?
Seriously - show us the evidence.
"So I think it would be much better if you were to spend some time elsewhere"
Wow. What happened to the free flow of ideas? As Gail said above : "We need a range of different views, if for no other reason than to start a discussion."
" all those wind and solar power systems given that you say they are as near as matters free. "
No, I just borrowed the language of the previous post - the idea being, that wind is, as a practical matter, as cheap as FF's.
"When you've done that please come back and impress us with your production stats."
WInd is the biggest and fastest growing form of new electrical generation in the US. It's here.
"Most people here already know it's just flying pigs."
Yes, just like a Black president...
Clarification: I disagree that PO necessarily forces the Olduvai Scenario or TEOTWAWKI in any other way. However, insistence upon BAU or other counterproductive reactions could easily wind up losing enough capabilities that there's no way to recover..
At the rate we're going, the USA will have wasted so much time and resources that the only way to get onto a non-collapse track will require the nation to go on a war footing to produce energy equipment, make all economic sectors more efficient, etc.
That's what I thought - the only words I felt confident about putting in your mouth were "I disagree that PO necessarily forces any particular disaster scenario".
The rest is also roughly consistent with my perspective as well.
I actually think we need a WWII-style effort right now to deal with climate change (and electrify transport/HVAC) - we should indeed replace all of our coal in the next 10 years, a la Gore, and that would take some coercion of utilities, states (like W Virginia), local interests for long-distance transmission, etc.
As far as oil goes, I think the US is gradually and inexorably weakening itself with it's current account deficit. It's like the the boiling frog metaphor, except it can go on for a very long time (longer than net exports), and simply reduce our economic strength further and further.
I think our other main oil problem is risk: risk of a Persian gulf war; a KSA insurrection; Russian extortion, etc, etc.
"Collapse" isn't really a helpful concept, in my mind. I think whatever happens we'll get through it - the question is how painful the transition will be.
I'm also more concerned about developing countries than I am for the US: the US has so many surplus resources, especially for energy, and so much energy waste, that it has a relatively good position, despite it's debt. Latin America and Africa, not so much.
This is, obviously, an enormous topic...
I'm also of the opinion that we need to head for a WWII-style mobilization. An executive order terminating production of light trucks for all but essential uses would be one component. Converting all fiberglass boat manufacturing plants to wind-turbine blade production would be another possibility.
If I were energy czar I'd cap sales of cars getting less than 30 MPG and require all luxury vehicles to be PHEVs within 3 years; if anyone can afford a changeover, it's the rich.
How about an executive order reducing the number of non-HOV lanes to one, for all highways? Accompany that with mandatory telecommuting for all employees who can possibly work at home, and a large, rebated gas tax, and you'd get pretty fast reduction in gasoline consumption: perhaps 40% in one year.
In the medium term: raise the CAFE to 50 mpg.
In light of October car sales, I'm not sure a cap on low-MPG light vehicle car sales is necessary... :)
aangel, can you please post the link to the first graph as I would like to read the article.
I have been thinking of producing something like this for a while. Essentially GDP is related in some fundamental way to available energy and the derivative of this fuels the boom/bust in assets. With a fiat money system you can 'disguise' the fact that these assets are not growing by inflating the money supply -so even during periods of slowing GDP it may appear as though some asset classes are increasing in 'value'. Bubbles in asset classes add to the mix.
As we head 'towards the top and over the energy hill' it appears to me that the only method possible to prevent a complete collapse in asset prices will be to increase the injection rate of money into the system. If we look at the increase in money supply we see that this is exactly what is being done...
The only things that will be 'left standing' are hard assets -land, non-discretionary commodities and yes: human skills.
Thoughts?
Nick.
Hi, Nick. Here it is:
http://crude-oil-alerts.blogspot.com/2007/11/crude-oil-production-and-ec...
Yes, I think as oil is removed from the system there is a strong chance that virtual assets (money, stocks, etc.) will lose their value, possibly going very very close to zero. As I mention in another reply, Jeffrey Brown has a good way to point to this: what value do the ten largest banks have without the ten largest oil fields?
I think a total system collapse is more than possible...it's even likely as oil is taken away. As debt is destroyed through business bankruptcies, the virtual systems we have created will stop performing their function, making it hard for the cycle of mining, production and distribution to continue. We are seeing that happen now as companies that normally can get debt financing are having trouble doing so, thus delaying or even forcing the cancellation of many business transactions, including oil projects.
In recognition of this, I am learning skills purposefully in case that happens: food production, I became a registered FEMA disaster volunteer (lots of interesting skills in that), I'm learning welding and am converting a car to electric to learn how to do that. Next up is learning first aid and getting my shortwave radio license.
As for assets, I think that my house will continue to decline in value (it's already roughly $75k under its mortgage value) and I'm starting to study land on the West Coast (climate patterns, soil fertility, etc.).
I think planning for collapse is entirely rational. I don't know for sure it's going to happen (my last crystal ball cracked), but the chance of it happening is, to me, far, far from zero. And if there is any saving grace to the financial collapse, it is that it may show some people that collapse is entirely within the realm of possibility.
Thanks, I like your term 'virtual assets'.
Chris Martenson in his Crash Course series refers to the possibility of most of this stuff (e.g. financials) as being 'Artifacts' of oil exploitation...
I put together a timeline, I have tried to counter the urge to put a complete collapse in there by judging that a response would provide some sort of 'Wily E-Cyote' type momentum to the whole thing -which could push the whole Hyperinflation thing into the 2020s... Mmmm, even mid 2020s is only a bit over 15 years away after all...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8745365@N04/2504887199/sizes/o
Would like to know more about your thoughts on timings...
Nick.
As far as I can determine from the source, the underlying graph is from ASPO 2004 but the thick black curve labeled "World Oil Production" and the thick blue curve labeled "GDP" are simply "theoretical" curves superimposed. The GDP curve does not even show a response to the decline in crude oil consumption in the 1980's. Real historical data for GDP should be used to establish if "Oil Production and Economic Growth are directly related." The source does not discuss the reasoning used to divide different levels of GDP decline into recession, depression and collapse. The thick black curve also predicts a steeper decline rate in world oil production than ASPO predicts and greatly diverges from the historical production curve. The two superimposed curves do not appear to have a sound basis.
The graph is clearly notional. Note the absence of any unit of measure on the y-axis.
questions to settle before we address questions of adaptation. ...
I think aangel has made it very clear that he believes adaptation is necessary and has given his reasons for his belief. He wants to move beyond that discussion and you don't. And I also grant you that you have given your reasons for remaining unconvinced. And aangel is unconvinced by your reasons. Aangel has gathered a group here to discuss what to do in the future that he envisions. I think you will find the details of this discussion pointless and boring, like a narrow minded Christian viewing and ecumenical discussion involving shia and sunni. And yet something worthwhile might be happening.
Yes, I understand Aangel's desire for us to stipulate the premise, and move to a discussion of adaptation.
I consider a discussion of moving beyond materialism extremely valuable. I appreciate the desire to contribute to that. I have contributed to that with my suggestions about the Maslow hierarchy, and in a different setting I would be contributing to that primarily.
But, I think it's wrongheaded to think that poverty is uplifting. It's certainly possible to find inspiration in concentration camps, but that's not what usually happens - most people's thinking is degraded by fear and deprivation.
I think it's a serious mistake to attempt to motivate people towards emotional growth with fear.
It's very important to start with a realistic premise, and work from there. Your planning will be better. For instance, I think it's an astonishing mistake to plan one's life around subsistence farming - it's a difficult, dangerous, unhealthy and painful life, and will not allow most people to make their best contribution to the world. I'm saddened to see people apparently moving in that direction based on information here.
I agree - the idea of a subsistence farming existance is romanticised, with people convientiently forgetting that when you can't call an ambulance, a lot of minor accidents suddenle become critical (never mind things like childbirth). In this post peak world, there is no safety net - the kind of net we in the first world tend to regard as a birthright.
If there are no cops - your posessions are only yours where you have the force to protect them. Traditionally then men are killed with the women and children taken into slavery, if lucky.
When the rains fail - you starve; the elderly and children die in front of you and there is nothing you can do and no one to help.
When disease strikes - you die.
When you want something better than 14-hour days in the fields.. or a holiday(!).. nope. That's IT.
The idea of there being a 'state of nature' that would lead to a more fulfilling existance is wishful thinking. Hunter-gatherer tribes do tend to do better than subsistence farmers in many of the above ways - not least food security - but with a maximumm sustainable population of perhaps 50 million, that gives an awful lot of people to remove.
Perhaps the hardest part to realise is that you won't be looking towards much of a future; because unlike the condition of the few hundred million people in the westernised middle classes (plus those emerging in the developing world), your capacity to shape your future will be drastically reduced. Lets face it, when the rains fail, the raiders arrive, the cholera gets into the water supply, the weevels eat the harvest, your baby is in the breech position, your cut gets infected.. it dosen't matter what sodding role you've decided to play today, you're still dead.
Whatever GDP is (however it's measured), it won't hold up for very long in face of ongoing declines in energy, in metals, in soil fertility, arable land availability, in phosphates, it water availability, in increasing population, etc. Step back, look at the graphs of the last 1000 and 100 years. You're looking at an explosion. Just on the very face of it, there's no way it can avoid implosion, and soon. It's a matter of detail which of these things hits now, hits in 10 years, hits in 20 years. We have pressed right up against the limits of what the earth can supply, and probably gone past many of them. Forget about GDP. The world is ultimately material, not financial. There are material limits to what can happen.
There's no such thing as too pessimistic in the face of the threats we face. Well, ok, one: it's too late to do anything -- which is in effect the same as blind optimism. We should have been pessimistic 30 years ago to start taking action. It has only become that much worse.
"Whatever GDP is (however it's measured), it won't hold up for very long in face of ongoing declines in energy, in metals, in soil fertility, arable land availability, in phosphates, it water availability, in increasing population, etc. "
I agree that these are large problems. I disagree that we face "ongoing declines in energy, in metals". We face specific limits, like oil and copper production, which are eminently solvable, with a lot of work. Will we do so? It's not certain, but I think it's very likely.
"soil fertility, arable land availability, in phosphates, it water availability,"
Food is a real problem. OTOH, obesity is a health problem for more people across the world than starvation - the world as a whole could reduce it's calories by 20% and be better off. Probably 50% of our arable land is used for cash crops like coffee, coca, flowers, etc. We could reduce our land usage by 50% by just going vegetarian (and help AGW as well).
There are certainly material limits, and they are going to present us with a lot of hard problems. Again, though, the technical solutions are very straightforward. Will we, like the Greenland Vikings (from Diamond's work), refuse to eat the fish in front of us? Despite the evidence of mal-adaptation we've seen in the US recently, I seriously doubt it.
"obesity is a health problem for more people across the world than starvation "
What the hell? Good luck finding a source to support these numbers; unless you are indeed comparing obesity with death from starvation, which is apples and lemons.
Shouldn't you be comparing death from obesity with starvation, or better yet comparing obesity with malnutruition?
"probably 50% of our arable land.."
Probably? If you can't be bothered to back your numbers, don't waste our time by posting them.
Lastly, to disagree that we face ongoing declines in [available] metals seems absurd to me. Where are your eminently abundant sources of platinum, tantalum, or indium?
"Good luck finding a source to support these numbers"
923 million people across the world are hungry. http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html
vs: WHO’s latest projections indicate that globally in 2005:
approximately 1.6 billion adults (age 15+) were overweight;
at least 400 million adults were obese. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/index.html
My point is simply that hunger isn't due to inadequate calories: it's due to distribution. The world has more than enough calories, overall.
"If you can't be bothered to back your numbers, don't waste our time by posting them."
My understanding is that the standard approach here is to post arguments - data and sources are nice but not required (especially in the comments - the Original Post, of course, has more demanding requirements). If someone disagrees, they have the same burden of proof. Then, and only then, the first poster needs to provide data and sources, and if the 2nd party wants to disagree further, they have the same burden.
So, do you disagree? Do you have a rough estimate of your own? Or data with sources?
"Where are your eminently abundant sources of platinum, tantalum, or indium?"
First, that's a small sampling, and 2nd, they've always been scarce - are you arguing that these are becoming less available? That's the sustainability question, I should think.
Always been rare doesn't mean that these metals can't become rarer - recall the low hanging fruit argument. The highest grade, most accessible (i.e., shallowest) ore deposits of ANYTHING are always mined first, in order to maximize return on investment. Selective mining of small, high grade deposits was replaced by bulk mining of large, extremely low grade deposits as cheap fossil-fueled machines replaced the expensive labor and skills of human miners, with major contributions from ingenious new technologies. This occurred after the small, high-grade deposits were already largely mined out. Now we're looking at the end of cheap fossil fuels. Will this affect the future availability of cheap metals? I don't know for sure, but most here think so.
"This occurred after the small, high-grade deposits were already largely mined out. "
This varies a great deal between metals and minerals, and needs to be addressed on a case by case basis. There are counter-examples, like aluminum, silicon, and (I believe) iron, which are effectively inexhaustible, and mercury or lead, which suffered from "peak demand". What do we know about these specific metals?
"I don't know for sure, but most here think so."
Sadly, that doesn't tell us much. There are a number of ideas which are commonly voiced which aren't true. Given that the TOD community is commonly skeptical of accepted wisdom, I think we would all agree that specific, detailed examination is needed.
You suddenly switched from rare metals to common metals (and elements), but even there, your "effectively inexhaustible" argument completely ignores energy and investment costs (very much higher for silicon than for aluminum, and very much higher for aluminum than for iron). You cannot reasonably discuss these three elements together - something you accused me of doing for the rare elements. The supply of gold dissolved in the ocean is "effectively inexhaustible" too (as is the suppy of hydrocarbons on Titan), but high costs have rendered gold perpetually "over the horizon" from this source.
I'll note that even for very common, cheap iron, high grade hematite (pure red rust) deposits were essentially mined out when the technology for grinding, roasting, and magnetically concentrating taconite (very low grade, highly siliceous iron ore) was developed, at much higher energy cost. So long as energy was cheap, no problem. Recently, iron and steel costs have exploded, largely as a reflection of increasing energy costs. The "low hanging fruit" phenomenon is not restricted to rare metals.
The question of whether peak oil need imply peak metals has already been much debated on TOD, and the consensus has generally been the same - constrictions can be expected on both the supply and demand sides. If you have concerns about a particular metal or element, ask them, but hopefully on a different thread.
"You suddenly switched from rare metals to common metals "
Actually, I didn't mean to. I just meant to illustrate that there's a great deal of variation, and things need to be looked at individually.
"energy and investment costs (very much higher for silicon"
I think you're thinking of semiconductor/PV-grade polysilicon. I was thinking of silicon in general, which is cheap and abundant for making things like glass. Even with PV-grade polysilicon, it's not the raw material that's expensive, it's the purification for a very demanding niche application, and there's no limit or increasing cost for the raw material.
"energy and investment costs...very much higher for aluminum"
Yes, but these aren't increasing significantly (or due to long-term limits to electricity supply), and they apply mostly to virgin aluminum, not recycled.
" iron and steel costs have exploded, largely as a reflection of increasing energy costs. "
Do you have calculations for that? Amost all commodity costs jumped recently in the same way, and PO enthusiasts have tended to ascribe that, erroneously, to energy costs. In fact, it's mostly a classic commodity boom and bust cycle, due to capex lag. In the case of iron, coking coal prices jumped, but electricity costs, the main energy input into iron smelting, haven't changed very much, and in general we don't have a problem with electricity supply.
"The question of whether peak oil need imply peak metals has already been much debated on TOD, and the consensus has generally been the same - constrictions can be expected on both the supply and demand sides. "
I disagree - I've followed those discussions, and they certainly didn't demonstrate that peak oil would cause "peak metal" - mining can be electrified in the longterm, though certainly rising diesel prices will have some effect in the short-term. As to whether we otherwise face peak metal due to limits to resources, that appeared inconclusive. There was one Post on the topic recently that was filled with incorrect assumptions - for instance, that lead and mercury peaked due to supply problems (that, in fact, is what made me think of them).
"If you have concerns about a particular metal or element, ask them, but hopefully on a different thread."
If you look back a few posts, you'll see that I didn't raise this question, "davebygolly" did, and "Freakwent" pursued it further.
Er, you seem to have confused silica, or the silicon dioxide (quartz) used in glass, with silicon (the reduced and purified element) used in PV applications. And of course it's the purification of the latter that's energy intensive and costly. You may not be aware that most quartz contains too many impurities to be suitable as a raw material for purified silicon - only the purest of the pure quartz is currently worth even starting with, and it's quite rare. Bauxite ore, the raw material preferentially used for making aluminum metal, is similarly rare, although aluminum the element is very common. In this regard, you continue to neglect the major two phenomena of "low-hanging fruit" and "receding horizons" as being of significance in resource-related discussions.
You may live near an iron plant (yes, I looked at your blog), but although coking coal and electricity, rather than petroleum, are used in iron smelting (reduction from the oxide), you appear to have neglected all of the larger energy costs involved in mining, concentrating, and transporting the raw oxide ore from a mine in Brazil, Australia, or Minnesota to that plant, wherever it is. Those costs mainly involve petroleum, at present. Increased energy costs made steel from EXISTING plants more expensive. Yes, boom and bust cycles are typical in the resource industries, owing to the large capital expenditures and time delays involved in building NEW plants. Factor in the new wild card of highly variable and unpredictable energy costs, and such swings can be expected to become even more violent in the near future (as similarly pointed out by Ken Deffeyes).
Your statement "mining can be electrified" resembles many similar optimistic statements on your blog, all of which involve the action verbs can, could, or would. It is difficult to fault the logic of such statements, similar to your stating, say, "I can run for President and win, because I have good ideas for energy independence and improving our economy," but are such statements actually realistic? Lots of things can and should be done, and certainly I agree with most that you suggest on your blog. The important point is, are they being done, or likely to be done, and if not, what can we do about it?
I'll have to take a little time to reply on some of this: I don't know as much about metal/minerals as I'd like to.
A couple thoughts.
" confused silica, or the silicon dioxide (quartz) used in glass, with silicon (the reduced and purified element) used in PV applications."
No, I didn't mean to raise the topic of PV polysilicon at all - I thought you meant to. I was just saying: silicon is extremely abundant. We'll never run out of sand.
Similarly, if aluminum is a large % of the earth's crust, I would assume that we're never going to run out, even if we have to go to more expensive ores than bauxite. If you have more specific info, I'd be interested.
"neglected all of the larger energy costs involved in mining, concentrating, and transporting the raw oxide ore from a mine in Brazil, Australia, or Minnesota to that plant, wherever it is. Those costs mainly involve petroleum, at present. "
Could you quantify that? My understanding is that these costs aren't a large % of the final costs, perhaps 2-3%. If they're not a large %, then refiners will be able to compete for scarce petroleum effectively during a transition to an electric economy. Compete with what? oil-based electrical generation; industrial/commercial process heat (these two are about 25% of world oil consumption); single-ocupancy low-MPG commuting (25% of US oil consumption); long-distance vacations (instead of local ones), etc.
"Increased energy costs made steel from EXISTING plants more expensive. "
Are you sure? During a boom-bust cycle, prices can rise dramatically even if average costs don't (marginal costs are what matter). Take a look at oil: KSA's costs to lift oil didn't rise much from 2004 to 2008, but their prices exploded.
" "mining can be electrified" resembles many similar optimistic statements on your blog"
Let me be more specific: mining has been electrified successfully, in many places (for instance, electric mining is much, much safer for coal mining). It's a widely used technology, which can be expanded if needed.
Electricity, electric motors, EVs, batteries, etc, are very old tech. There are ten's of millions of small EVs in the world. They preceded ICE's, and lost out only because oil was dirt cheap. As batteries get cheaper, and oil gets more expensive, the transition from oil will accelerate.
A few comments for this old thread (trying not to get too technical):
"We'll never run out of sand" is not the point. Getting sufficiently pure and sufficient silicon (plus very rare elements) for solar cells is the point.
The aluminum-oxygen bond, like the silicon-oxygen bond, is extremely strong. Breaking it is very energy-intensive, even from pure aluminium oxides and hydroxides like bauxite. If you have to break, at the same time, silicon-oxygen bonds too, in common aluminosilicate minerals such as clays or feldspars, you greatly increase your energy costs. The old Soviet Union had no access to bauxite ores, and made extremely expensive aluminum for jet airplanes from aluminosilicate ores, but this aluminum never reached the consumer economy (and neither did nylon). Once, when I unexpectedly went backpacking to geological sites during an early 1980's official visit to the SU, I was astonished that we had to carry an iron cooking pot in wood-framed canvas backpacks, after hitching rides on a train. The main camping tool for a Soviet geologist then was an axe and the main eating tool was a rifle. See Dimitri Orlov's "collapse gap" posts regarding other contrasts between the two countries.
I can't quantify iron ore shipping costs easily, but recall reading here on TOD that Australia wanted to charge China a huge premium for their iron ores, because it was so much cheaper to ship them from Australia than from Brazil. I'd guess a shipping surcharge closer to 10-15% than to 2-3%, at least at the height of the oil price run-up. And sea shipping of ores is the cheapest method, by a huge factor. The influence energy costs on mining, milling, and land shipping costs was probably greater.
Mining is the most capital-intensive industry, and building new plants takes many, many years and huge bank loans. As implied above, my guess is that the recent boom-bust cycle was caused not so much by the usual (classical) introduction of marginal (high cost) producers, but rather by the relative inflexibility of supply in light of rapidly increasing Asian demand, suddenly "knee-capped" by economic collapse before most marginal mines could reopen or start up. (Compare Canadian tar sands operations.) Because it is so capital-intensive, mining is not really comparable to tradional petroleum, although super deepwater or circumpolar oil is probably getting close in terms of start-up costs and times.
I'm old enough to remember when most underground mining was electrical, with cute little underground trains (and carbide cap lamps being replaced by heavy lead-acid belt batteries for illumination). Those electric trains still run as a tourist attraction at places like Bisbee, Arizona (look up "Queen Mine Tours"). In the USA, they were gradually replaced by "trackless mining" (a euphemism for stinky low-slung rubber-tired diesel vehicles) which were cheaper and, especially, more flexible, even after the oil shocks of the 1970's. The earliest open pit copper mines (e.g., Bingham Canyon, Utah 100 years ago) also used electrical trains, long ago replaced by giant diesel-electric trucks (electric drive with on-board diesel generators). You are probably correct that this fossil fuel technology could be replaced by all-electric systems, setting the clock back 40-100 years, but who would pay for it? Probably not the mining companies, currently dealing with halved metal prices, delayed projects, mines barely breaking even, and suddenly cheaper fossil fuels.
This may sound too elementary, but "peak metals" doesn't mean that we'll be running short of common metals (partly because, unlike petroleum, metals can be recycled). It just means that total new production will be less than it was in the past, because the world will be too poor to afford to buy as great a quantity as they used to, given the increasing scarcity of high-grade ores and the increasing energy costs of recovering them from low-grade ores. As I said in a much earlier post, if the supply side doesn't bite you, the demand side surely will. They can even take turns biting you, as we've seen during the past year. Peak metals is not what "could happen" (e.g., your posts), but it's what probably will happen, given current trends.
I do agree with you, BTW, that conservation will be the cheapest, most effective energy strategy for the immediate future. And I encourage you to do more reading about mining and minerals.
""We'll never run out of sand" is not the point."
But that was my point, when I raised silicon. I wasn't talking about PV, I was just making the simple point that some things are very abundant: elemental nitrogen, silicon (in the form of silica), aluminum, etc. In theory, their costs might go up a bit (for instance, doubling the energy cost of smelting aluminum would increase it's cost by about 1/3), but we can't really run out (and, bauxite doesn't seem near it's limits any time soon). I don't think the USSR is a helpful reference - for consumer needs, it was a very, very poor country.
I'm not surprised that shipping from brazil was more expensive - 12.5% at the peak of oil prices doesn't seem that much for Brazil to China. Given that most ore was shipped much shorter distances (the Australian premium was, after all a theoretical thing - the ore actually came from Australia), the average energy premium was much less.
I agree on the commodity boom-bust cycle. On electric mining, my understanding is that much coal mining is currently electric. I agree that there's little reason for the conversion now, with lower oil and metal prices.
""peak metals" doesn't mean that we'll be running short of common metals "
Someone should tell that to LTG enthusiasts, including people on TOD. It would be nice to achieve a consensus on this.
"the world will be too poor to afford to buy as great a quantity as they used to"
Well, then, we get back to the energy question. In the longterm, is there any question in your mind that we have enough reasonably priced energy, from wind, solar and nuclear (if necessary)?
"I encourage you to do more reading about mining and minerals."
Yes, it's interesting.
Is it so certain that we need e.g. ultrapure quartz to make PV-grade silicon?
I ask this because I covered a talk on a process to make PV silicon from sodium fluorosilicate (discarded as waste from the refining of pure phosphate from phosphate rock). It appears that if the silicon in e.g. an aluminosilicate clay could be converted to SiF4 and driven off as a gas, both the silicon and aluminum might be recovered with relative ease.
I'm not a chemist so I'm putting this forth as a question.
Some food for thought.
Just because there are 1.6 billion people in the world who are obese and are not actually feeling the physical pangs of hunger, it doesn't follow that they have access to a well balanced healthy diet. In fact they may actually be starved of essential nutrients necessary for good health.
There are plenty of studies available showing that there is a direct correlation with poverty, obesity and malnutrition, and that doesn't even take into account the myriad deleterious negative affects on the overall health of the obese.
http://www.bio-medicine.org/medicine-news/Malnutrition-And-Obesity-Goes-...
It seems that this, like many of your points,(GDP?!) may hold a lot of weight but not a whole lot of substance ;-)
Cheers!
If you look closely at the source you provided, you'll note that it's main point was that a shift to overconsumption of food was causing new forms of illness:
"While nutritional status has improved worldwide over the past fifty years, new nutrition-related problems have also emerged A global nutrition transition has and is occurring on a continuum. While problems of under-consumption and // poor nutritional status continue to exist, increasingly problems of diet/chronic diseases are emerging as significant public health issues globally. A demographic shift has resulted in increased life expectancy in many countries, and in some countries, this means an older population.
Closely tied with this change in age structure is an epidemiological shift, which has decreased communicable diseases and increased chronic diseases, such as diabetes and hypertension.
With the increase in availability of more high-fat and sugar-laden foods there is a surge of nutrition-related chronic diseases around the world. At the same time that diets have changed, physical activity has decreased. The highest rates of overweight and obesity are now often found in low-income groups. Many populations have been left in the midst of an obesity crisis that exists with food insecurity and under-nutrition. Chronic diseases can no longer be labeled as 'diseases of affluence.' "
This is entirely consistent with my point about overall world calory intake being more than adequate, in total.
A secondary point was that micronutrients were often lacking in people's diets. This is true - people often make bad food choices (cola instead of milk, for instance), and there is some question about soil loss of nutrients. If you have good information about that, I'd be curious to see it - in all of the discussion of soil depletion I've seen, I've seen little hard data.
Remember, we're talking about whether food supplies are hitting limits, or will do so, so the question is not whether micronutrients are present in diets the way they should be (they never have been), it's whether their presence is changing because of limits to supply.
No, they are *NOT* adequate, they are *EMPTY* calories!
So then we have the double whammy of obesity and under-nutrition coupled with the lack of good choices due to low-income. So in reality your 1.6 billion obese poor are in actuality lacking in food with adequate nutritional value.
They sure as hell are, at least on my planet. Which corner of the galaxay are you living in?
"No, they are *NOT* adequate, they are *EMPTY* calories!"
Hmmm. I haven't seen evidence that average micro-nutrient levels have fallen - have you? What I see is additional calories, some of which are empty. For instance, hamburgers and cola - the meat in the burger has some real nutrition toether with excess fat, and the fortified bread has some vitamins and folic acid, while the cola is empty. High calory, medium nutrition.
"we have the double whammy of obesity and under-nutrition coupled with the lack of good choices due to low-income. "
Yes, low-income is a problem - that's an income distribution problem, not a food production problem. Also, lack of education. It's easy to eat well at Mcdonald's - order the milk and grilled chicken, without sauce. It's easy to get complete protein for pennies a day at home, with rice and beans.
"They sure as hell are, at least on my planet."
Sigh. Could you give be more specific? I see a world where until recently local food production in developing countries was suppressed by excessively cheap imports, where many developing countries have given over more than half their land to cash crops like coffee, tobacco, coca, flowers, palm oil, etc. I see a world where 9 calories of cereals are used to create 1 calory of meat.
I don't see an overall shortage of food production capability.
Obese malnourished people live longer and have psychologically and emotionally better quality of life than "pangs of hunger" malnourished people.
That poverty is correlated with obesity in the West simply shows how incredibly wealthy we are. We're so wealthy than even our poor people are fat.
This is not the case for the other 80% of the world population.
"Obese malnourished people live longer and have psychologically and emotionally better quality of life than "pangs of hunger" malnourished people. "
Well, if you eat a larger volume of low quality food, you can manage to get enough micro-nutrients despite the low quality.
"That poverty is correlated with obesity in the West simply shows how incredibly wealthy we are. "
Obesity used to correlate with wealth, and was fashionable. Now, essentially everyone in the US has enough food, but obesity is unfashionable, especially among the wealthy. Obesity is still fashionable among some poor, and those whose lives aren't well organized (the poor) have less ability to control their weight, so for both reasons they tend to be more obese than the wealthy.
"This is not the case for the other 80% of the world population."
Obesity is becoming much more common in developing countries.
Just because all the things you discuss are technically plausible doesn't mean they will happen. Choices need to be made to implement them, and that in turn presupposes a broadly prevailing moral and spiritual ethos that I, for one, see to be generally absent.
As I asked earlier on the thread: What makes you believe that the choices that will get made that truly have civilization-level ramifications will be good and productive ones? History certainly doesn't suggest such a conclusion.
I wouldn't hold my breathe, for example, waiting for the U.S. elites to take the $700 billion a year that currently goes into military spending and diverting that into crash-programs to develop a wind-based electricity infrastructure and a world-class rail and canal network. Beating swords into plowshares in that fashion could make a real difference in the long run, but it will never happen.
"Just because all the things you discuss are technically plausible doesn't mean they will happen. "
True. But it will be very helpful to come to a consensus that they are indeed technically plausible.
"I wouldn't hold my breathe, for example, waiting for...a wind-based electricity infrastructure and a world-class rail and canal network. "
Wind is doubling in size every 2 years - it's already here, as a practical matter. The US already has a much better freight rail system than Europe. Already, 3% of new light vehicles in the US have electric drive-trains, and they're also growing quickly.
These things are already happening, though I agree that faster speed would be much better.
The thing is, that enough Wind to replace oil wouldn't be very hard: it would only require an expansion of electrical production of about 15%, over about 15-20 years. That's very little. Replacing coal of course, would be a bigger task, but still small compared to the size of the economy - perhaps 2% per year over 10 years.
I believe very much that post-peak real GDP will decline. This is a link to the presentation I gave at the Sacramento ASPO conference, related to that subject.
I discuss both Robert Hirsch and Robert Ayres work in that presentation. In my view, in Robert Ayres work, you need to adjust increased resources needed to extract energy in the future (lower EROI).
Also, the indications of these men really only apply on a worldwide basis, assuming a continuation of our current world trade system, since they are looking at world peak oil. Also, these models don't consider the role debt has played in the current growth, and what lack of growth will do to the current debt system. When you consider all of these things, and where we are now, it seems clear to me that we are very likely to have declining real GDP.
"I discuss both Robert Hirsch and Robert Ayres work in that presentation. "
I've dealt with Hirsch's contribution: again, Hirsch gives one source that supports the idea of oil not being all that important, and for the crash proposition only makes one simplistic, hand-waving argument (the idea that a historical 10:1 ratio of GDP growth to oil consumption (during years of abundant oil) supports the reverse - IOW, that a 1% reduction of oil consumption predicts a 10% reduction of GDP, an argument that's absurd on the face of it). Then he splits the difference between a 1:10 source, and his unrealistic 10:1 source, and comes up with 1:1. This really is unrealistic.
"Robert Ayres work, you need to adjust increased resources needed to extract energy in the future (lower EROI). "
Well, Ayre's comes up with a 14% contribution of raw energy sources to GDP. That's not much. Regarding E-ROI, I think it's pretty well settled that wind and solar have high E-ROI. I think you're being distracted by bio-fuels and tar-sands, which I agree are purely niche sources of fuel.
" the indications of these men really only apply on a worldwide basis, assuming a continuation of our current world trade system"
Sure, but there's no indication that world trade will end: water shipping doesn't require liquid fuels.
"these models don't consider the role debt has played in the current growth"
Debt has allowed the US to import excessively. That's likely to end sometime reasonably soon, at which point oil exporters will live off those debts. I think they understand that, and are trying to accumulate as much as possible before their gravy train ends - that's why they're willing to apparently accept endless numbers of t-bills.
"what lack of growth will do to the current debt system"
First, that's circular - it assumes the question at hand. Second, it confuses resource consumption with economic activity. We could certainly keep growing with stable or falling resource consumption (here are examples: compare an iPod to a 70's stereo; US vehicle production has been stable for decades; US vehicles use much less material than they did 50 years ago - they're now 95% recycled). 3rd, I haven't seen a convincing demonstration that economic growth is necessary to our system - look at 90's Japan, which didn't have economic growth for 10 years. How did they repay loan? Well, interest rates were zero or very close to that. In a steady-state economy, nominal interest rates would simply be the cost of maintaining a (much smaller) financial sector, and consist of a modest and consistent income to the financial sector, which it would recycle to other sectors when it paid for it's cost of living.
Gail,
You are correct: Real GDP will decline for a long time after net exports of oil begin to decline. In my opinion, the big problem is the rapid rate we can expect to see oil exports decline at. We could probably adjust fairly well to a permanent decline rate of 2% per year. But if westexas is right--and I think he is--we will face net exports of oil declining much much more rapidly than 2% per year over the next fifteen years.
I think we have the real natural resources, physical capital, labor and technology to make a successful transition away from fossil fuels to other sources of energy. But will we have the financial capital? Will we have the necessary political will? Will society agree to discard BAU and follow some of the good ideas we see so often on TOD? I have no answers for these questions, and I don't think anybody else does either.
If current trends continue, then I think we're in for a Greater Depression--one that could last fifteen to twenty years before the decline in real GDP per capita stops and finally stabilizes into a kind of steady-state economics. I expect unemployment to rise above 25%, and I advocate a negative income tax to help deal with the poverty that this mass unemployment will create. If we don't do anything about redistribution of income as economic growth turns into decline, we're just lighting the fuse to the powder keg.
"In my opinion, the big problem is the rapid rate we can expect to see oil exports decline at. We could probably adjust fairly well to a permanent decline rate of 2% per year. "
Don, US consumption fell 18% in just 5 years from 78-83, while GDP grew slightly. This was in the face of Volcker's decision to reset inflation expectations with 18% interest rates.
"I have no answers for these questions"
But then why the fairly specific predictions?
"I think we're in for a Greater Depression--one that could last fifteen to twenty years "
But why would you expect no one to do anything in the face of this?? For instance, I would expect us to declare single occupant commuting and highway travel illegal (which would alone reduce oil consumption by 25% at minimum, and in a matter of months), and to convert to PHEVs in less than 10 years, under such conditions.
Unfortunately, I expect efforts to combat the Greater Depression to be dominated by ideas from mainstream economists--such as Paul Krugman and other post-Keynesians. Thus I expect the main policies to be expansionary fiscal policy (tax cuts and government spending increases) + expansionary monetary policy. These policies will not work, but they will be used because that is what the mainstream economists recommend.
For political reasons, I do not expect good ideas, such as the ones you suggest, to be implemented. Politics is the art of the possible, and in our system legislators dare not gore the oxen of the special interest groups. Special interest groups have a vested interest in Business as Usual.
Eventually I think we will go to de-facto dictatorship out of frustration with the inability of our democratic institutions to deal with the gravest economic crises since the Great Depression.
"These policies will not work"
Could you expand on that? What do you mean? I would refer you to http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2008/10/deflation_risk.html for an apparently contrary opinion.
So you think we'll go from complete inaction to dictatorship? What about the example of Jimmy Carter, who developed effective responses to oil crises?
Market forces alone will get us there faster than 15-20 years: Toyota is currently planning for 100% of their vehicles to include electric drive-trains in only 12 years.
Monetary and fiscal policies can help when the problem is a lack of total spending. In other words, if aggregate demand is too low, monetary and fiscal policy (working together) can bump it up.
The problem we will face is not lack of demand. Rather the problem is that the SUPPLY curve of oil is going to shift downward and to the left as production declines. Neither monetary nor fiscal policy will work. What would work is a World War II type of mobilization with high tax rates, forced saving, and a mobilization of national resources of land, labor, and capital to help us make the transition away from oil and gas. Such a mobilization could take place, but probably not before many years of a Greater Depression and the assumption of power by one person or by a ruling hierarchy of oligarchs. U.S. governmental institutions insist on Business as Usual, and the special interest groups act as veto groups to block needed changes.
We have not yet begun to see fascism in the U.S. It will probably be our next form of government. It may or may not be effective in stabilizing the economy, depending on whose economic advice is followed. For example, Hitler had a brilliant economics minister, Hjalmer Schaact, who backed policies that quickly pulled Germany out of the Great Depression even before large-scale re-armament.
Market forces are too weak and work too slowly for us to rely on them. Of course the market can help, but it can't do the job alone.
"Rather the problem is that the SUPPLY curve of oil is going to shift downward and to the left as production declines."
Yes, that's good economic-speak for PO, but it doesn't tell us much. When do you expect peak, and what depletion rates do you expect? More importantly, what do you think short and long-term demand elasticity is? What prices do you expect?
Given that about 40% of US oil consumption could be eliminated by simple carpooling and local vacations, why do you think the US couldn't handle the loss of most imports?
"U.S. governmental institutions insist on Business as Usual, and the special interest groups act as veto groups to block needed changes."
True, but the conversion to EV/PHEVs is already taking place, with ample government subsidies ($7.5K per PHEV) already in place: Why do you think we wouldn't electrify all vehicles in the next 12 years, as Toyota has promised to do?
Peak net oil exports were in 2005. Since then we have been on a bumpy plateau. My thinking is based largely on westexas's Export Land Model.
We cannot handle the rapid decline in imports that will occur over the next fifteen years because of institutional inertia. Our big corporations and our government are slow to react. Bureaucracies do well in times of stability or growth. They do not function properly in a declining economy, and IMO rates of real GDP growth are linked to rates of growth in oil and natural gas production. In the U.S., it seems likely that natural gas production will fall off a cliff in very few years. Domestic oil production continues to decline, despite massive investment, drilling everywhere, and tertiary recovery techniques.
Toyota is talking about hybrids, not pure electric cars. In any case, our electrical grid is old and needs a huge amount of investment just to keep it from deteriorating further.
Implementation is the key. We have plenty of good ideas, plenty of labor, adequate natural resources (including imports for the next few years) and plenty of physical capital in tools, equipment, vehicles, and buildings . . . But we don't have enough engineers. We're going to have to import huge numbers of engineers, because U.S. universities are not producing nearly enough. Nuclear engineers are in especially short supply, but we need large numbers of petroleum engineers to replace the flood of retirees that will happen over the next seven or eight years.
Ah, this helps - I can see where you went off track. I was especially curious to see if you had seen something I had missed, because of your economics background.
OK, here are some thoughts.
First, and most importantly, you said: " IMO rates of real GDP growth are linked to rates of growth in oil and natural gas production"
Where's the evidence for this? The US's oil and natural gas consumption have been stagnant for the last 5 years, while GDP has gone up 15%. There's no link there at all. World O&G consumption has been almost flat for the last 5 years, while GDP grew 40%!! US O&G consumption fell 18% from 78-83, while GDP grew slightly. Again, while O&G shortages clearly hurt GDP, there was nothing like a 1:1 link.
"In the U.S., it seems likely that natural gas production will fall off a cliff in very few years. "
There's no evidence for this. There was some speculation about this several years ago, but on the contrary, NG production has been rising, and there's no geological evidence that rise won't continue (though the current credit crisis clearly poses a risk of getting in the way to some extent). Such a cliff was predicted in the 70's (by everyone, including Hubbert), and was completely wrong. If you read Gail's latest about N Gas, I'll think you'll see a different picture.
"Domestic oil production continues to decline, despite massive investment, drilling everywhere, and tertiary recovery techniques."
No, domestic oil production is pretty stable lately, due to increasing NGL's (which are normally included, as they should be).
"we don't have enough engineers...Nuclear engineers are in especially short supply, but we need large numbers of petroleum engineers"
While more are certainly good, the current number seem to be doing ok. The US can do just fine with the limited nuclear rollout that's planned - wind can expand much faster. Toyota, GM and Chrysler are certainly managing to engineer new electric drivetrains (although it should be noted that EVs are an old and pretty well understood tech). As noted above, O&G production is at least stable. I'd be curious for more info on the engineering situation, if you have it.
"My thinking is based largely on westexas's Export Land Model."
Well, I would note that the ELM is a first-order approximation. It's a very rough, preliminary estimate. For instance, take a look at KSA - both the trajectory of production and internal consumption (which is already at US levels - more would require substantial petrochemical exports, which themselves would substitute for oil consumption elsewhere) are arbitrary.
"Toyota is talking about hybrids, not pure electric cars."
True, but they include electric drivetrains, which reduce consumption greatly, and require only trivial engineering changes (a plug, and a bigger battery) to turn into plug-in's. Right now Toyota isn't promising that all of their vehicles will plug in, but it would be trivial to do so in 5 years, should markets call for it (which we know they will).
"our electrical grid is old and needs a huge amount of investment just to keep it from deteriorating further."
"huge" overstates it - there's no reason to believe that there's any likelyhood that needed changes won't be made to handle what's needed. Gail has been outspoken on the problems with the grid. At first it was with little evidence - I and others have had this discussion with Gail, and she's softened her remarks.
Nick, you seem like a pretty decent guy.
If I post another article here on TOD, would you mind please honoring the author's request to take your off-topic conversation somewhere else?
Currently you have 21 comments on my article and I don't think one of them discusses the content of the article itself.
And please: spare me your opinion that you believe what you are discussing is on-topic. It isn't and I've heard it already. Show some respect for the author.
I understand how you feel (though, really I did post one comment that went directly to psychology...), and I'm torn as to how to respond.
I understand you feel this is off-topic, and that you've heard it already. I regret that I'm getting in the way of what you're trying to do, though I would note that I really do think that taking my suggestions would help you greatly: I think it's a serious mistake to attempt to motivate people towards emotional growth with fear.
On the other hand, I'm not writing just for you: I'm writing for the many people who read TOD, and who are trying to understand the implications of PO. As I noted before, there appear to be many people who are making life decisions based on what they read here. For instance, going back to the land. I think it's an astonishing mistake to plan one's life around subsistence farming - it's a difficult, dangerous, unhealthy and painful life, and will not allow most people to make their best contribution to the world. I'm saddened to see people apparently moving in that direction based on information here.
This article starts with a full page about PO dramatically changing people's lives for the worse ("diseases and conditions that are easily treated now will once again claim lives" is not a dramatic change for the worse??). Even though I would argue that it's not necessary to a discussion of leadership and materialism, it's there - I don't see how we can ignore it.
TOD is a kind of wiki, a peer review process by which the commenters, hopefully, improve the Original Post - I don't believe we're expected to ignore major shortcomings, even at the request of the author. I regret to say that this OP needs dramatic improvement - if this was submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for which I was a reviewer, I would recommend it be sent back for basic revision.
Nick, just please honor the author's request. You would want the same for you. It's really that simple.
Well, I understand how you feel. Perhaps we've beaten this to death, for the moment. I'll try to confine myself to answering people in any dialogues that are ongoing.
So, on the psychology side, what do you think about Maslow's hierarchy?
It seems like a lot of people over-consume. The latest research suggests that about $5K per capita income is enough for happiness, which suggests that a lot of people in the US are stuck on the first level of Maslow's hierarchy, and need to move higher to look for happiness beyond the material.
Nick:
Two points: (1) You might want to look at total US energy consumption over this time period (I don't know what it looks like); (2) I believe that a significant amount of the reduction in oil consumption was due to oil fired power plants being shut down.
Edit: Here is primary US energy consumption from 1980 forward (EIA) showing a 6.5% decline from 1980 to 1983, before rebounding in 1984. Note that the early Eighties corresponded to a recession.
An interesting note. If I got the conversion factor correct, it appears that the US uses the equivalent of 17 Gb of oil every year. This is equivalent to Prudhoe Bay + the East Texas Field in one year.
In any case, as Don noted, our expectation is for a long term accelerating decline in net oil exports, a continuation of what we saw in 2006 (worldwide net exports down at -1.1%/year) and 2007 (down -2.2%/year, EIA). Andre posted five specific examples of what we are talking about--Venezuela; Mexico; UK; Indonesia and Norway. Five vastly different countries, all showing an accelerating net export decline rate. As time goes on, more and more exporters will showing higher and higher net export decline rates, contributing to a global accelerating net export decline rate.
You earlier noted that liquid fuels are not necessary for water borne shipping. I assume that you are talking about coal fired steam plants, and perhaps wind for bulk cargoes. The problem of course is the time required to retrofit ships, while we are facing an accelerating net export decline rate.
I suspect that a more likely scenario is that more and more world trade will consist of net food and net energy exporters trading with each other.
"You might want to look at total US energy consumption over this time period (I don't know what it looks like); "
First, Aangel's argument is that oil depletion will cause economic catastrophe, so that's what I'm addressing. Second, the US has no shortage of electricity, which is the main alternative form of energy, and will continue to (we have plentiful coal, if needed as a bridge to wind/solar).
"I believe that a significant amount of the reduction in oil consumption was due to oil fired power plants being shut down. "
That's true, and there's only very roughly 450,000 BPD in oil fired electrical generation left (there's another 4-5M BPD in the rest of the world, though, which can be expected to convert fairly quickly to something else, and there may be as much as 15M BPD of industrial/commercial process heat which will also convert relatively quickly - these will buffer oil depletion somewhat).
We'll have to find something else. Just as electricity almost put oil out business in the late 1800's when it took over the illumination market, we'll have to electrify transportation.
That won't be hard: the total cost of ownership of ErEVs/PHEV/EVs is about that of the average US ICE at $2.00 gasoline. ErEVs/PHEV/EVs are ramping up very quickly. As many never tire of saying, few people understand the exponential function: one of the features of the exponential function is that it's growth looks deceptively slow at first, and surprises later. Electric drivetrains are in 3% of new vehicle sales in the US - that is likely to roughly double every 2 years. For instance, Toyota expects electric drivetrains in 100% of their models by 2020.
I agree that we had a recession in the early 80's - we only had about 2% GDP growth in the 1st 3 years of the decade. I would measure from 1978, which is when the 2nd oil shock hit, and I would note that we also had Volcker raising interest rates to 18% to reset inflation expectations (most of which predated both oil shocks): we reduced oil consumption by 18% with a small amount of GDP growth - that's very different from what Aangel has predicted.
I agree that net exports will decline (though I think the degree of acceleration is debatable: KSA won't allow net exports to disappear, for instance) - I'm discussing what the effect of that will be.
"liquid fuels are not necessary for water borne shipping....the problem is the time required to retrofit ships"
Well, ships can reduce fuel consumption by up to 50% just by slowing down by 30%. That, of course, reduces net capacity or raises overhead costs, but it's still a very effective mitigation. Also, it's likely that the kite-based forms of wind can be fairly easily retrofitted. Newer ships like the Emma Maersk, which have electric motors, can make use of PV (mostly towed), which could be retrofitted fairly easily. Batteries and fuel cells are very likely tech - they would work here much more easily than for light surface vehicles. Coal would be much more difficult, and I don't anticipate a major return to it. For more see here .
" If I got the conversion factor correct, it appears that the US uses the equivalent of 17 Gb of oil every year. "
That's not a good conversion - EVs are about 6-10x as efficient per BTU as ICE vehicles, and heat pumps are 3-5x more efficient for heating. A better perspective: replacing oil for light vehicles (50% of US consumption) would only require increasing electrical generation by 15%.
That comparison is misleading in a 2nd way: it frames energy in terms of oil, which is the only area where the US has serious problems. Better to frame it in terms of electricity.
Short of some energy source with better EROI that's irrefutable. If we could get more value now for the energy we burn, we'd be doing it. iPods and congestion are highly valued in our system. [I'm serious - no sarcanol added. Yes, "value" as in GDP.] And I'm assuming "real GDP" means no flim-flam hedge funds buying VW stock - how about that? Not enough stock for all the naked shorts? Go figure. That's another $20-$30B from the bailout fund to add to GDP, but not to the "real GDP".
It's really simple. Less energy, less work.
No, we are not going to get "more efficient" because our level of technology will have to drop back to stay in sync. Instead of Just-In-Time we're going to need boatloads of redundancy and we won't have it. For example, all these dreams of a HVDC global grid - no - we need to drop the grid. One pissed off citizen cold and in the dark will do it; all she needs is a chain saw and moral outrage.
cfm in Gray, ME
Here is a great example of Drama Queen. I thought it was quite funny. (Note: I don't advocate calling people morons or stupid.)
Mind-numbing oil
Hello TODers,
The future I push for is O-NPK recycling + SpiderWebRiding as I believe it will be the civilizational remnant of our 'Web of Life'. IMO, it best expresses our societal connectedness to Nature. Sure, we might die by the billions, but those after us can use and even improve upon whatever Spiderwebs we leave behind.
Sure beats head-balancing a heavy load as you try to traverse non-existent roads. Think of a Spiderweb as something very light, but very strong, that barely impacts upon its environment, but is very efficient at harvesting what is available in a optimal and focused method.
As long as they understand the productive advantages of ball-bearings, gears & chains, steel wheels on steel rails/pipelines, wheelbarrows & bicycles, to move the bare essentials, then fully recycle the residue-->there is much to make us look forward. My hope is that this understanding creates such a yearning for more Spiderwebs that most will not be interested in extended machete' moshpit dancing.
This can biosolar harness and extend our instinctive territoriality to the watershed boundaries [and possibly much beyond postPeak], much like a wolf pack or a lion pride cruises its boundaries [defecating and urinating] to mark by efficient O-NPK recycling. Just as a wild animal's territory is endurance limited, the limits of our Spiderwebs will be constrained by our clever application of both muscles and brains.
Ideally, it may be possible to refine the Spiderwebs to the point that we can then just admire horses for their sheer beauty and for pure joy-riding; not to seek to just make them beasts for heavy burdens.
"I know we're needing something worth believing in.."--Harry Chapin: Remember When the Music
...came from silver wire that would set our minds afire."
http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/enlarge/spiderweb-...
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Free horses in a big pasture in the Big Sky of Montana--enjoy the sights and music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCdbf6Oxi2w&feature=related
Watching the horses have fun is particularly great. Thank you for posting this.
Huge number of the exploration dry wells is a root of oil shortage.
Today, as it was decade years before, oil companies have drilled mostly dry exploration wells. Drilling success rate doesn’t overcome 25% on average. It means that three dry wells go to waste from four drilled. It means also that discovery occurs much slowly then if success rate significantly rise. Let us assume, for now just hypothetically, that there is a highly productive Х-technology for detection of hydrocarbon deposits that provides a success rate of 75%. In other words, 3 productive wells for each dry well. Obviously with the technology world oil industry will discover every year in three times more oil fields then with conventional technology if other conditions being equal. It will mitigate world oil shortage significantly.
Conventional exploration technology can not to provide required success.
However there is a technology, which has 75% success rate.
www.binaryseismoem.weebly.com
Regarding Jason's escaping resouce-import dependent locales, let's not forget that plenty of one resource can conceivably compensate for scarcity of another--I'm thinking concentrating solar and splendid insolation for lack of water in the Southwest. My main question is, since places like LV and LA take such hits from Kunstler, should people not waste their time attempting to form effective post-peak communities in, say, Southern Cal (with its huge, proven and expanding CSP sites in the desert)?
.
Absolutely stunning logic! Drill 3X as many successful wells and you'll triple our oil production? Are you serious?
When was the last time a single supergiant field was discovered? Nineteen-seventy-what?
All the infill drilling in the world won't increase the size of the fields.
You belive that 75% failure during drilling is normal?
About 3x successful wells please see www.binaryseismoem.weebly.com
About size of accumulations. For example, 20 billion barrels field was discovered recently on Cuba's shelf and so on.
I think this would lead to less dry wells drilled, while successful drills remained constant, eg:
100 wells, 25 hits becomes
33 wells, 25 hits.
It's better, but it doesn't get more oil.
I've got a different approach I think. To me its a marketing and quality of goods problem. People probably would live sustainable lifestyles if it was easy to do.
You have to cater to the couch potato if your selling something that does not allow people to be lazy then its not going to go over well.
I don't see that it requires a lot of great insight or leaders or anything else if people feel like they can be lazy pigs with a given approach then they will follow.
The key is to reduce the amount of energy needed to allow lazy pigs to live.
The reason I think this is true is I've noticed that the lifestyles of the wealthy and the typical welfare mom are quite similar. One drinks beer and smokes crack and neglects the people around them and focuses on themselves the other drinks wine and snorts cocaine and neglects the people around them and focuses on themselves.
I recognize that these are extremes but the extremes tend to expose our inner nature.
The key is that from the extremes inward we figure out how to live our sordid or angelic lives with less energy. Not try and change the actual distribution with is impossible. Changing people is fruitless changing the amount of energy they use doing primarily stupid things however is a reasonable challenge.
We need books like
Crack addicts guide to energy conservation.
Flaunting your wealth on 500 watts a day.
You're sounding rather harsh today memmel. Not that I disagree with your general premise though. Maybe you’re just feeling frustrated…I know that mood well.
But your point brings me back to the trap the US has developed for itself. Obviously we're very wasteful when it comes to energy. But such a large portion of the work force depends upon that gluttony for its economic survival. We’ve collectively done this before: list all the stuff we don’t really need to have a truly satisfying life and then add the stuff we waste just to show off. And then add the stuff we waste just because we could afford to be sloppy. There are many millions of folks depending on these expenditures. Yes…we could wean ourselves off of the waste and retrain/reallocate all that manpower. But not in a decade or even two IMHO. Maybe, if the gov’t enacted true structural change to our society perhaps in a couple of generations we might hit something closer to a sustainable collective life style.
It really does seem like an inescapable trap to me. Damn…now you got me feeling frustrated again.
LOL
I did not mean to come of harsh. You can look at older societies like India an China that recognize the differences in people and yes they can be harsh like India's caste system but the point is they allow a society to evolve under constrained energy.
A noble or prince or high caste person retains his title regardless of his economic circumstances these virtual or social wealth concepts replaces physical wealth to a large extent. The rigid societies codify concentration of wealth in a constrained environment.
I certainly hope we can deal with declining energy in a more enlighten manner but history teaches us people don't change they simply increase the importance of social wealth vs physical wealth and generally enslave the poor as the bounds of energy are reached.
The social milieu or spectrum remains surprisingly constant distributions of wealth and status fall back to the historical norm. Even with coal and oil we can see that it took about 200 years for society to go from a rigid structure to a open one and concentrate wealth back to a rigid structure of elite and the masses.
Looking at history the grand social experiment of a large middles class and abundant energy was such a fleeting arrangement it will probably be viewed as and abberation in time. And I suspect history will not be kind to us.
Jesus made statement like:
Give onto Cesar what belongs to Cesar and give onto God what belongs to God
You will always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me with you.
I'll not go into the religious aspects but the point is we don't change or if we do it will be a very very slow evolution over millions of years if our species is still around. For some reason Western society fights this truth and because of this it will fail.
What you can do is introduce compassion and caring and sensitivity and recognition of peoples humanity. We intelligence you can ease the suffering and even though you cannot change the pyramid you can ensure that the lowest rungs are not living like dogs.
You don't need huge amounts of energy to accomplish this.
Memmel: Not to forget "Growing Old for Sissies".
No doubt !
Given my own personal circumstances my plan is to move to Oregon this summer rent of a bit and checkout the area. I have enough cash to buy a decent trailer or cheap house although my wife would be very unhappy living in a trailer. However I hope that prices from homes will continue to fall to the point I can afford to lose 30-50% of a investment in a house to drop my living expenses to zero. Understand that I expect housing to get much cheaper but on the same hand further losses are not the end of the world and holding fiat currency for to long is not a good bet either. So at some point the losses are acceptable.
Then I use my current skill set to stay employed as best as I can and grow it on more practical trades. Once housing costs are taken care of you really don't need huge amounts of money to live and ok life.
And then as you mention "Growing Old for Sissies" all I really want is to grow some nice tomatoes and watch my kids grow up. At the end of the day its really there problem to clean up not ours even though we caused it. So getting out of the way and reducing my resource usage and giving them a chance so I can grow old seems like the best move you can make.
I wish of course I knew ten years ago what I know now but I don't so not much I can do about it. I'm thankful I have to cash to actually buy even a nice trailer out right few people do. Soon I should be able to get cheap houses with good bones and restoring will be fun.
So yeah getting out of the game is amazingly probably the best thing many can do.
M-
You still in OC? I was in Laguna Beach last weekend, and my friends are blissfully ignorant of any impending doom. The place terrifies me, and I grew up there.
I was also at ground zero LA (Melrose Ave- Venice) with some movie industry friends of mine, and it would make Philip K Dick blush. Kind of surreal in a pleasant way, so far beyond reality that one is disconnected in a psychological time warp.
But humans are not prepared to face reality in any way, if it means lifestyle changes that they cannot accept or comprehend.
Yeah still here. I had to wrap up some stuff before I could leave.
Oh no, not Oregon! Don't do it! It's TERRIBLE here! Always raining, cold, raccoon-infested, dismal, remote, ....
;-)
I'm originally from Arkansas Raccoons are quite tasty yum.
Actually it rains less in Oregon then it does in Arkansas and the summers are nicer.
Remote hmm I'm from Arkansas remember :)
Your going to have to try harder than that :)
"Actually it rains less in Oregon then it does in Arkansas..."
Depends on what part of Oregon you're talking about. The Coast Range blows Arkansas away precipitation-wise.
And south of Portland, Willamette Valley winters tend to be gray, gray, gray... If it isn't raining, it's usually foggy, until the sun angle is high enough to burn it away (around late Feb).
Then there's the volcano hazard. And, there's quite a bit of old chemical weapons in the vicinity of Umatilla...
And Oregon has huge sasquatch... I mean BIG... ;o)
-best,
Wolf
Memmel, if you owned a house w/good bones in Irvine or SoCal would you stay?
That really depends.
Long run if this place reverted back to low density farmland it was once a rich agricultural valley. I know they destroy the soil putting the homes in but eventually it will probably be a orange growing region again. In the interim I assume the houses can be mined for stuff like copper.
The current population density is a long way from sustainable and the path for the region from its current situation to a sustainable population level looks pretty grim to me.
I rent so I'm not tied to the place but if I did own a home here or had a lot of equity I'd sell in a heartbeat and move to a more sustainable region. Assuming of course I could get a job etc.
All it takes is a little bit of civil disorder and damage to the water transportation system and SoCal is in super deep fast. This could even be say a earthquake causing damage then follow on social problems.
http://www.monolake.org/waterpolicy/outsidebox.htm
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20071031-1805-californiaearthqu...
Also you a potential for social unrest in LA and closer at home Santa Anna.
On the plus side a lot of wealthy people live in the area so if problems do start one could expect a heavy military presence not sure thats a plus.
So overall SoCal has a number of failure points that if triggered while the country was having tough times could easily explode into real anarchy.
So overall SoCal ranks right at the top of my list of regions that could readily collapse as times get hard.
At the top for me are regions with large populations and limited and extends water supplies after this are hurricane/earthquake prone regions with dense populations.
Although Alan is correct that we probably will always have a fair sized city at the mouth of the Mississippi it may not be New Orleans or if New Orleans remains the population could drop substantially.
You can stay in these regions but they are as far as I can tell the places where we have a high chance for systematic failure.
The problem with systematic failure esp regional failure is nothing you do really helps the situation in fact the better prepared your are the more likely you are to be a target.
Its just not a problem I'm willing to try and beat. Alan is happy to fight for his city but I'd argue that New Orleans has far more worth fighting for vs SoCal so I understand his view point but I'd say he recognizes that the citizens of the city know they have to be vigilant and work hard to survive. I'd say most of the residents of SoCal don't have a clue how precarious their situation is.
lew welch
Only the fast disappearing middle and upper classes even have a chance at taking action, mainly victory gardens (most urban dwellers don't have any yards at all, or tiny, shaded, subsoil), and the age-old stockpiling of food and consumer goods as Dmitry Orlov so brilliantly explains in his latest book and the "Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century" series http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060105_soviet_lessons.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/062805_soviet_lessons_part2.shtml
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071805_soviet_lessons_part3.shtml
The working poor are too busy trying to keep a roof over their heads, buy food, and pay for health care. It's been that way for a long time, even during the dot.com boom.
Government action at all levels will be essential, but how can the government afford a "new deal" when they've shot their wad bailing out the super rich? Society is now so complex that whatever is done will probably have unintended consequences (read Tainter for details). And the most politically connected will suck up the most (energy) resources and money being dished out by politicians to give to their cronies (the essence of politics since Big Men first arose).
Malthus, Mrs. Ecological Overshoot, and Mr. Social Disorder are now clearly visible, walking arm in arm down the street. It is only a matter of time before they're at the front door. To the extent the middle class stockpiles and grows their own food, and energy resources are allocated correctly, their knock might be delayed. But the vast majority of the public are a lot like the people in the movie Wall-E, fat, spoiled, helpless, lacking in useful skills, and likely to steal and eventually kill anyone who did take action and prepare.
The public is scientifically illiterate and believes whatever they feel like -- it's too late to educate them now. Population control and immigration control weren't enacted in time to avert a dieoff, and as the USA continues to grow exponentially, the magnitude, social disorder, and resulting chaos continue to grow.
In the great depression, there were 100 million people, 25% farmers, much tougher, independent, local industry and goods, and still about 7 million people died. No way can more than about 150 million be supported by agriculture in this country. In the end, the question political leaders will answer is who lives and who dies.
In the longer run, across several generations, the population can be managed simply by controlling who reproduces. Everyone dies and nobody takes all that long to get around to it. If no more children are born, the population drops to zero after 120 years or so. Sooner, actually, without younger people around to farm for the very old.
Put most people in sexually segregrated cloisters, and control who gets to procreate, or at least how many. Controlling the population size is not so difficult or nasty. People die all by themselves with no intervention required.
the leadership roles will go up by order of magnitudes when we get significant discontinuities. we will become so local.
recently for example in the midwest IKE 's remnants combined with a cold front & knocked out power in a swath from western ky to ohio. roads blocked, the works. up front local utilities said up to 2 wks. for electric to return.schools canceled etc.
u could see all kinds of working together - locally- & leadership happening to get some of the solutions operative. people sometimes had power & right across the street none; dropcords appeared & u can bet that communication had to happen since the load , cost, etc. had to be worked out. generators were shared, etc.
given that most other systems[water, sewer, some grocery stores, etc.] were ok & with some power in places all kinds of interesting possibilities existed like calling a radio station to find a gas station [live] to try to get to daycare & home the first day.in my location we got power back quickly, 1 1/2 days later.
here i can shout & be heard at about 6 houses, with another shout from one of those, 3 or 4 more. in fact this area had a school, blacksmith, 2 stores, phone exchange, feed mill at the creek. all tiny by today's standards. BTW there is no sign of any businesses/structures or the old ones today.
these places will be coming back, eventually. lack of cheap FF will make it happen with lots & lots of roles & holes to fill. it will be after lots of serious pain, but joys as well. i look forward to the closer neighborhood part.
BTW i think that power outage was a godsend.
good post aangel & u'r email prep series
[couldn't find the link]was very good & i sent it on.
thanks
Thanks, creg.
Andre,
Thank you for the article and its view of reality. I disagree but then again we each have an opinion of future reality. I call your attention to Watts and other occurrences where Mad Max was not too far away for much less perceived hardship than real shortages. One aspect I believe will be important in our transition to the new reality is the psychology to defend what you have. Most people don’t have any concept of the psychology involved. If there is a period of worldwide chaos and four and a half billion people don’t want to dieoff as easily as has been assumed on TOD, then defense of self and family may be a real possibility.
Hi, Lynford. I'm not clear on where our views differ...can you say what you mean in a different way?
One more thing:)
Changing our world is trivial actually all you have to do is quit paying interest.
This means pay cash for everything including housing. If people quit paying interest everything we talk about that need to happen to change the world will happen.
This post is unnecessary (though welcome)IMO.
Technically there are NO PROBLEMS.
The solutions are there.
It's almost entirely a sociological problem.
Our whole society needs reprogramming as our habitual responses are all dysfunctional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000-watt_society
"A higher standard of living for less energy."
http://gabe.web.psi.ch/pdfs/Energiespiegel_18e.pdf
Europe is at least 20 years ahead of the USA.
This, again is the regular dismissal of anything social or psychological as being 'real'. Pitt the Elder was also saying it up above.
Reprogramming all of society is not a Technical Problem?
I disagree that ALL habitual responses are dysfunctional.. we do a lot of things pretty well, and lose too much ground with just a few famously bad habits.
..which is to say, if I wasn't clear (and often I'm not) -
Yes. We need to reprogram, redesign and reprioritise our various societies. This is the quintessential challenge, while it need not be a monolithic program. It IS a physical problem as well as a Psychological one. Some places may solve it.. as I can envision the Swiss or maybe Iceland deciding to implement the 2000w society long before the US would. and Some places may stubbornly stick with traditional carving of their bigger and bigger bigheads. There will be a lot of detaching, and our settlements won't all sink or float the same.
It's a big world, after all.
Best,
Bob
You must admit it is RIDICULOUS that the country with the largest coal reserves and second largest coal production in the world, the second largest natural gas producer and the third largest producer of oil in the world(USA) is seen as facing an insurmountable energy crisis compared to the rest of the world.
It is strange that a country without any fossil fuels, Switzerland, is actively moving toward a 2KW society but for America it's not practical; the population density of Switzerland at 176 people/ km2 versus 157 people/km2 for the state of New York.
We don't even have to do a lot of conceptual planning, we only need to follow European models and adapt them locally.
It is won't be appealing to the corporate interests who are tied to inappropriate technologies, but neither were the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and we 'survived' those 'horrors'.
Really, there's too much gloom and anxiety here at TOD and not enough discussion of how to move ahead.
I have a sincere question: why are so many people on this site convinced that we're facing such doom? Why are scenarios that feature dieoff so popular as compared with ones where we develop alternatives? It seems like many possible options for our energy future are simply dismissed as impractical, or impossible. But it's pretty clear -- to me at least -- that it is perfectly possible to run a modern industrialized society on nuclear power and electric transportation (rail). France and Sweden are examples of this, and they achieved the transition in about 10 years.
We're facing a climate crisis and a liquid fuels crisis - but there are technologies that have worked just fine for decades that will essentially solve these problems. Nuclear power is the most obvious option. Why then are discussions on this site so often about the best way to stockpile SPAM, and so seldom about the best way to encourage licensing of new plants, or how we might handle the waste?
Hi, salonlizard.
Actually, all that has been discussed in depth. The conclusion many of us have come to is that we started too late and a hard landing is now unavoidable.
For a sense of exactly how much everything you say has been discussed, I recommend you set aside several weekends and start working your way through this index:
http://www.postpeakliving.com/blog/aangel/best-oil-drum-index
"Actually, all that has been discussed in depth."
If you read the Original Posts carefully, you'll see that they don't support your pessimism. The comments go on at great length, but in a scattershot fashion, with a great deal more heat than light.
"The conclusion many of us have come to is that we started too late"
There's no question that we've wasted a great deal of time, and that our course is now harder than it had to be.
"and a hard landing is now unavoidable."
Ah, but how hard? Most people would consider stagnating GDP for 5 years a hard landing. Actually, that's unlikely: GDP just measures activity, not welfare, and we're likely to be pretty busy.
I agree that we're going to face some serious headwinds in the next decades - how well we do does depend on our choices.
As for happiness and welfare, I agree that is also a matter of social and personal choices, at least in the US. I would note, however, that people are rather less likely to travel up the Maslow hierarchy towards self-realization, etc under conditions of stress and deprivation, so resource poverty really isn't something to hope for.
Salonlizard,
I believe that you are more correct than you are incorrect. You reveal an aspect of psychology that is common to most of us. That is the focus, sometimes to the exclusive of all else, on the SENSATIONAL or the dramatic. If this weren't a deep characteristic of humanity then newspapers would probably not be in business and politicians would tell fewer (sensational) lies.
I have fallen into this trap many times. For example, I believed that Y2K was going to crush the economy. Of course, I feel that Peak Oil is different this time!! Perhaps not. I also believe that the solutions are clear. I agree with Nick about the food crisis. If Americans (and other rich country citizens) weren't such meat (and dairy) lovers we could feed many more people. Ghandi's statement about the earth being able to meet our NEEDS but not our GREED, is very true. So the question is: "Would a true (peak oil, liquid fuels) energy crisis lead to modifications of individual and national behavior sufficient to overcome the worst of the disaster?".
The answer to that question is the 64 trillion dollar question. I suspect that many of the respondents on this web-site would probably say: "NO, we are not going to change quickly enough." I suspect that we don't really know for sure what people will do when they get desperate enough. I do agree that there is plenty of precedent in history for humanity having made the WRONG choices (e.g. 1933 Smoot-Hawley Tariff act). Let's hope and pray we don't do that this time. In the meantime, I think that many of Aangel's suggestions are good ones. I think I am going to imitate my Grand-parents and taking up gardening.....
Good luck to us all,
Ian
The doomers appear to be more vocal than the non-doomers. I come here for sensible updates on oil depletion and try ignore the more hysterical posts.
Hi Salonlizard,
One explanation is that people are confusing "peak oil" with peak energy, and because most of our transportation uses oil, the assumption is that ALL transportation is going to collapse and thus civilization will collapse and thus there will be a massive population "die off".
As far as I can see none of the interconnections of this argument hold up to critical scrutiny.
1) Some are forgetting peak oil is when oil production begins to decline, not when oil runs out.
2)The are no immediate limits to developing wind, solar and nuclear energy. The straw man argument is "but these are not liquid fuels" true but we can use electricity, CNG, coal slurry as replacements for liquid fuels. Its being done in many places now.
3)Most transportation in developed world is non-essential, we have sufficient oil for essential agriculture, truck transport even IF we are unable to replace by CNG,electricity,coal.
4)The social fabric of society ( industry, agriculture,essential services, government) would not collapse if we had severe fuel rationing.
The US and Europe produce a vast surplus of food, much is fed to animals, its unrealistic to think that 600 million people will starve, while 500 million tonnes of wheat and maize is being produced. Oil inputs for agriculture are only a small fraction of the oil produced, tractors can run on electricity/CNG, ammonia produced by wind powered electricity.
5)GDP is rising about 1.3% faster than energy use(not oil use). A 5-10% decline in oil will not cause a 5-10% decline in GDP. The post-peak power-down hypothesis does not seem credible. We are not going to replace oil with hand labor, or horses, electricity is just too abundant, and so easy to use, if we had never had oil, we would be doing similar things. In 100 years we have replaced kerosene by electric lights, oil furnaces and stoves by heat pumps and electric ranges, are replacing diesel rail and are beginning to replace ICE vehicles with PHEV's or going back to EV's.
Certainly there are many other sources of energy that CAN be developed, but the market forces necessary to make it happen in time appear to be slumbering. I am pretty hopeful that humanity will work wonders to save itself when the time is short, but I am more certain that they'll fail to act until it's too late to save everybody.
1) But at the point the decline begins, everything done to mitigate it gets harder and more expensive, and time will be running out.
2) Except politics and market motivation, and time to scale sufficiently. Time is the nemesis again.
3) Unfortunately it sucks not to be in a developed country. They're just SOL, aren't they?
4) Social fabric in some places falls apart from a bad jury decision or a single person's inopportune death. As the fabric increasingly stretches due to economic pressure, it will tear more deeply and more quickly. Some cities will not be safe, most likely, though others will be fine.
5) What if it turns out that GDP included the finance bubble, and now it's dropping faster than energy decline?
The critical question will be what happens to the 7 billion people. I imagine that many not necessarily evil-intending Americans will happily drive to McDonalds for a burger while for each Big Mac a child in Darfur starves to death, and they'll willingly spend $5 for a gallon of gas while a family freezes somewhere in an Asian village. I think the four horsemen have grooms named apathy, intolerance, ignorance, and unintended consequences that help them on their way.
Ground Control to Major Tom? There's something wrong... We'd have to double or quadruple or maybe order-of-magnitudize the economy to do that. Where will the polar bears go? And when they are gone and the glaciers that supply the cities and the spiney things in the sea? No. No immediate limits. I remember frogs - frogs that came in through the living room slider all over the floor while my friend Gary from Bangor sat watching the boob tube sucking down a case of Geary's. They aren't there any more.
You make the assertion that there are "no immediate limits". Maybe we don't need frogs. Maybe we don't need frogs that carpet the living room. Me? I can only make an equally unfounded assertion: that what we are seeing now is a global margin call on planetary resources - and they do not exist. The mother of all naked shorts.
cfm in Gray, ME
"We'd have to double or quadruple or maybe order-of-magnitudize the economy to do that"
Not really. The FF component of electrical generation in the US is about 315GW, on average. To replace that would require about 1,050GW of wind, assuming 30% capacity factor. At $2/watt, that gives us about $2.1 trillion dollars.
That's only about 1/7 of the US GDP, or 14%. Do it over 7 years, and it's only 2% per year. And...a large portion of that $300B is already being spend on new coal and nat gas plants. Add in the cost of fuel that we'd save, and we're there.
Easy. :)
Nick,
You have illustrated that the US could afford to replace all electricity generated with FF with wind generated electricity.
What I meant was that the world has no shortage of high wind resources, high solar resources and there are adequate uranium and thorium resources. If any TOD visitors can't accept that there is no point discussing any further.
What a lot of TOD visitors may have an argument with is can the world replace FF faster than the decline in FF availability. The only immediate issue is replacing oil used for liquid transport with electricity/NG/coal used for transport. The limitation is replacing the vehicles not generating the electricity. Fortunately, passenger vehicles have a high replacement rate and trains can trucks can be converted to electricity/CNG.
The only reason we would not be able to do this is if the world economy completely collapsed. Its a popular "doomer" but circular argument to say that; "the world economy will collapse because of peak oil, and we will not be able to adapt because the economy has collapsed".
Your attitude is refreshingly positive.
Thanks! I liked your original outline as well.
"What I meant was that the world has no shortage of high wind resources, high solar resources and there are adequate uranium and thorium resources. If any TOD visitors can't accept that there is no point discussing any further."
Wouldn't it be nice if we could even get a general consensus on that??
It seems to me that we get an occasional glimpse of the all-too common pessimism around here when we see the following train of thought:
"Wind/solar can't provide the energy we need."
"They can? Ok, then they won't be in time."
Would anyone care to address the Ken Deffeyes argument (also included in the EROEI concept) that an increasing proportion of GDP will necessarily be given over to the search for and production of energy itself? This proportion, although counted in GDP, will clearly be contributing to nothing other than the dog chasing its own tail, rather pulling a sled. Therefore we should perhaps be suspicious of recent GDP numbers, in terms of what they might indicate about the national welfare.
The 1960's were "Star Wars"
The last 30 years have been "The Empire Strikes Back"
And now we enter "Return of the Jedi".
The hippies are about to make a lot of money, even if money constitutes real good and services of value rather than pieces of paper.
Wood is money.
Cigs are money.
Alcohol is money.
Are you money?
I'm just lazy, back in the last recession, I was young with a family. I came to realize that the whole setup was about making money. To do that I had to give my labor, or my thought to someone else, then they would pay me. Somehow that didn't seem right especially when I had no say in the exchange rate, how much money for how much labor, or what kind of labor for more money. I really don't like working for some idiot, or taking someones order on the way they think things should be done, and besides I'm basically just lazy.
I discovered an amazing fact, the more I do for myself the less money I need. Therefore less "work".
I built a tiny house, 24' X 24', for the same reasons. First taxes here are based on square footage. Not much to pay for each year. I had purchased enough property to be able to heat with wood, but I'm lazy so I had to build a small tight, efficient house, means I don't have to cut and split much wood. < 4 chords max for a solid Maine winter>. Better than "working" on the $ drive to pay the oilman. Now I'm of the school that most people really can actually do anything they put their minds to, books are a good thing, they can teach you plumbing, electrical, construction. Sure you may make a few mistakes but you are learning. You are not working at your "job" making money to hire someone to do these things. I don't have a mortgage, I also do not < and have not for the last 25 years> have house insurance. Why? the well will be here, the foundation isn't going to burn,the land would be fine. I can pop a house back up pretty fast if I had to. The bank requires you to have and pay for insurance. Someone calculate how much money I saved over 25 years. I've got enough cash to buy all the lumber again if needed. A lot less than I would have payed out.
This get a job, make money thing is kind of insidious, it robs you of you, your ability to provide for yourself. If you cut out the middleman, there is a lot of time in a day. I never did define myself by my job, I'm not the job I have, it does not have anything to do with my self-esteem, or self respect. I think I'm quite spectacular actually. Grin ! The traps have been layed out all around you, and I watch people here go on and on day after day debating which trap is better, or who or what set the traps. Never, Christ you idiot you just stepped in a trap.
When I need money I find a job, when I don't, I work on projects that enable me to use less money. Needing less money also means you use less energy, lets see who catches that. Nice to see some of the folks in this thread chucking the $ drive and getting to know their kids. Gee you know I could pay a ton of money for health insurance, or I could get out side and get plenty of vitamin D, and exercise. Might actually do that in the garden working on growing healthy food. Splitting wood, kind of like eating peanuts, just keep splitting. I think that might do more for me than health insurance. Who convinced you, you have to have it?
But then again, I'm never going to amount to much, and I'm really just lazy.
Chuckle
Don in Maine
Thanks Gail and aandre for this post, and a chance to rise above the gory details for a time.
FWIW, from my experience, both as a leader and as an observer of those around me in so-called leadership roles, I'm convinced that the only effective leaders do their leading mostly or totally by example. And you really need to be walking the walk before you start talking the talk - everybody knows a bs artist on sight. In fact, if you're good at what you're trying to do, you won't need to talk much. People learn so much better by example than by instruction.
But here we are on a Web site, where all we can do is talk - and that mostly preaching to a choir, despite the cornucopists and neo-cornucopists you find here and elsewhere. Add to that the constant, relentless turnover of topics - this one will be dead in 48 hours or sooner - and it seems pretty pointless. Still, it's heartening to hear from other people who are trying, in their daily lives, to make the necessary changes, and having some success. It is, indeed, from amongst these people that future leaders will come (even if not in our own lifetime), not from the armchair theorists or number-jugglers. Take a look around to see where their "leadership" has brought us.
(BTW, I've been wondering for a while why you don't list "The Archdruid Report" http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/ , John Michael Greer's blog, somewhere in your links. Oversight, or is there something going on I don't know about?)
What about the role of the Good Follower. Only a small percentage of people can be our leaders. It requires a giftedness in interpersonal relationships to truly lead. Most folks aren't that gifted. Also 50% are below average. Some folks like me are downright stupid and by nature have very gloomy outlooks. But once in a while even the village idiot says something profound but most of the time is content to do what he is told. A Good Follower knows he doesn't have what it takes to be the boss but from time to time has to point out where the boss may be wrong.
Your post showed up on my computer when I committed my post, below.
Yes, good followers are another role that should be put into the mix.
When I started reading aangel's work, I was struck by the fact that there were only four personality types or roles. I think that there really need to be a few more in order to scope out a reasonable realistic human society. I would like to get back to what I thought aangel was trying to address.
I think there needs to be more different positive role types. I think some people need to be involved in investigation and experimentation on new modes of production that are more in keeping with a world with very little petroleum. Some of the investigation can be reading the record. There is much more known by humanity than can be carried in the minds of a small community. And there is too much emphasis in aangel's presentation on the role of leader. Leaders can be people like GWB, who is really only a 'leader wanabe'. But even real leaders, e.g. FDR, need advisors who know stuff that most people don't know. So, IMHO, aangel has produced a reasonable start, but more work is needed. It would be nice if we could get beyond the doomer-cornucopian wars.
Picking up on some of aangel's statements at http://www.postpeakliving.com/blog/aangel/best-oil-drum-index
I think celulosic(wood) biofuels will be very important. I think innovation will happen on a much smaller scale than most envision. To me, it seems likely that the largest organized social units will be to small to support nuclear power (it takes a lot of social infrastructure).
In general, there are a lot of issues to discuss. I hope the discussion can get back on track.
A role I didn't include but think would have made the article more complete is that of 'participant.' This is someone who is taking action but may not have a leadership role, something like what thomas deplume is suggesting.
citizen
I attended a meeting tonight full of community organizers. Get a room full of 100+ community organizers together and see what happens.
What I learned, or at least feel after leaving the meeting:
There needs to be at least 3 in-person meetings of the same group of people to establish leadership, and even then, Alpha personalities get their egos bruised - so they need clear directions from a group of leaders, with the flexibility to be creative on their own.
Nature forms the social order. There is no leader here in this forum, only those that get to start the posts.
"There is no leader in this forum" Well, I'm not quite sure what you expect. I think we would all follow Leanan to the ends of the earth if she asked us to, she reminds me of Grace Slick, and meant as a compliment for sure. I saw her in concert a number of times, and if Grace had suggested we take the local police station apart I would have had mortar under my fingernails.
That said you want leaders, Alan, westexas, Don Sailorman, Todd, jump to mind. What you are in the middle of is them's that's doing and thinking. No easy clear cut, the comments about how TOD has a doomerish slant, sorry but I see that as people who think, I prefer that. A larger number of people who have found their way here ( no mean feat ) are feeling less and less comfortable with the way things are, not how they could be but how they are as reflected in the facts they see in the lives everyday. Many are planning for the future. After 8 years of Bush does anyone here actually trust the government? Silly thought. Sorry. Palin will save us all. We are left on our own, brings Katrina to mind, we sink or swim on our own merits. This is a self-selected group. Deal with it.
I'm older, along with airdale and todd, a different time. I remember values, I remember a mans word meaning something. I remember a time when you didn't have to a 10 page disertation to have someone understand you. They took your word for it. I remember when a handshake actually meant something.
Leaders are our worst choice, let someone else choose the way we go, say what? We need people who live their lives and create what they can for their kids.
The stars are still there at night, the winds still blow through the trees, they will while we are here and after we are gone.
Don in Maine
Thanks Don for the honorable mention along with Todd and some of the rest of us who have been 'crying in the wilderness' for a long time.
I recall many many months ago when TOD seems to have thought that the best way to save the day (and the world) was through our politicians.
I think that now that has been severely put to rest.
I remember then,,,that facing reality I issued the statement:
"Knowing what is coming..just EXACTLY what are YOU going to do about it?"
This was early enough on that I was dismissed out of hand and was told to go start my own website. I didn't at first because Durandal volunteered to do that. I did later also but never really opened it up publicly. I instead use it more as a personal diary and for my granddaughter if she happens to survive.
Howsomeever you are right on with your beliefs(from Crash Course) and now many Key Posts on TOD are beginning to step into the area of sustainability more and more. Mostly as a result of the total crashing of our financial systems.
More and more are starting to accept this as future reality but on the other hand is seems more and more are coming to TOD to bash this reality and deny it.
The many I recall from the past are no longer here and active and hopefully they got the message and are now busy as beavers hacking out their own means of survival instead of wasting their time posting and trying to defend their beliefs of sustainability.
Personally I am very busy getting in my wood for this winter. I have moved to a much smaller and more comfortable lodging,still on my farm, but its far more sustainable and I can easily heat it with wood.
My plans continue. I think its useless to try to convert others. I speak on it here but am almsot always dismissed except for a few. I just tell them to view Crash Course.
Yes the old values. Handshakes, honesty in dealings. Today they try to schmooze you on so they can insert the knife. This is exactly how modern ag is going.
A oil pressure sensor yesterday I needed for my farmer buddies Mack was priced at $117!!!!! They got really really pissed that I was replacing a sensor instead of them getting the work. They wanted us to drive the semi there and swallow their $100plus labor per hour charges.
Modern Ag then IMO is on the ropes. It will soon start to implode. Its totally propped up with the government and huge conglomerate corporations. It can't do aught but crash and burn. We have zero in place to take over EXCEPT the individual and his competence and ability. Food will be all that matters.
I will be doing more for myself and begin to take a far more insular view so my postings on TOD will diminish. Hopefully we can scale back on a far more different level so that some meaningful life can continue. I really doubt it though.
Best to yours,
Airdale
airdale, please don't stop posting. I've learned much from your writing and would love the opportunity to continue to learn more.
People will come around. It's inevitable. And I'm sure there are many people who see what's happening and don't post; or they come here and don't yet know what to think and your post moves them along some.
It's not easy to speak in the face of no or little agreement, but to alter the prevalent conversation will require that we do exactly that.
Thanks AAngel..but I am a conserative(not a neocon) and I am a Christian and lastly I am a rural bumpkin, so I have three big strikes against me here on TOD. And I also forgot ..and oldtimer...since Class of '57 is now about in their late 60s or early 70s and as such are sometimes dismissed out of hand as to their values and beliefs.
I take the flak but being called stupid,sad,pathetic and other names does take its toll.
Yet I will not remove it from my History List and do read some but dismiss many whose posts I already know the content of without reading it.
I guess I could churn up my ole Greasemonkey and script but my bandwidth is slow enough as it is.
I think your thesis is right on. Thanks for putting it up.
Best,
Airdale
BTW Pilgrims Pride(chicken business,confinement feeding etc) is apparently fallen on hard times. This could be the first visible of many to follow that are in the Ag Industry. Seems their credit had reached its limit. Some farmers are griping that their checks at delayed quite a bit. Someone said it was 6 weeks.
If these areas do shutdown as the financial shipwreck continues then it will get bloody out here. The confinement farmers are way way into debt on their chicken houses. PP has a very big footprint in my area.
What a stupid, sad, pathetic excuse. I read your comments, and I've missed you when you were gone (you have no idea how much I miss the insights of OilManBob, RIP). If you get trolls, mock them.
I understand.
People generally have a low tolerance for hearing points of view that they don't currently hold and that gets them emotional. I'm afraid I'm guilty of that from time to time, too.
But I think that your view and the next person's view and the person's after that are all valid because no one point of view can possibly provide the whole picture.
Still, it would be nice if everyone could hold their views lightly, perhaps by recognizing that they are just views, not the truth. What a different world we would live in were that so...
"It's not easy to speak in the face of no or little agreement"
The answer is even more dialogue, with careful listening and reflection on what others say. Eventually a consensus/synthesis comes (until the next new info/antithesis arrives, at least). For example, I remember a point in my high school when the debate team spent the year arguing a question on nuclear power. Debate teams have to flip and argue both sides repeatedly - by the end of the year there was a pretty good consensus, which is surprising, given the issue.
I have the sense that you're well-motivated, and I appreciate your patience with my impatience earlier. I'm glad we've been able to dialogue, and I hope we've made a bit of progress.
It was leaders who got us into this mess. I, for one, am not going to be lead by anyone, anywhere, other than where I want to go. I will however delegate and allow others to do what I want, I'll work in cooperation with others doing as I am, but I'll undermine anyone who tries to lead me.
As I see it, avoiding being lead is one of the challenges of surviving our future. This of course entails undoing all attempts to tie us into any system with a control structure, especially political or quasi-political (ie. community groups, etc.). Being invisible to whatever systems end up vying for power will enhance survival IMO.
Bravo Andre.....a thought provoking post and thought provoking responses....thanks to Gail for setting it up. I believe we live in a bubble and that bubble is changing at an ever increasing rate. Over the past couple of years there have been numerous well written posts on TOD and other forward looking websites proposing changes in attitudes about a growth based economy/society in a peak everything world. Our future will be defined by our capacity to shift to a more sustainable, environmentally compatible and less energy and material intensive life style. I love the comment by Albert Bates on Nate Hagens's ASPO6 presentation “A Supply and Demand Framework for a Full Planet” which reads, "One of Nate’s great throwaway lines will probably not make the DVD, but came in the panel discussion, when he was asked to comment on how to bring about a response to peak oil and climate change by the mainstream (I forget the question now) and he said it will take young women selecting men for traits that favor sustainability rather than competition, speed, brawn, or whatever traits they select on now." Now, how to facilitate that shift in feminine psychology :<)
"(I forget the question now) and he said it will take young women selecting men for traits that favor sustainability rather than competition, speed, brawn, or whatever traits they select on now."
It will take the real emergency to display the new male "feathers" of sustainability. If you have a Porsche or Ferrari, right now your the bad ass cause you can get gas.
But if you can't get gas, you can't move, paralysis, which is not sexy. But if I have an electric car charged by a photovoltaic array, and I can move, even if only a few short trips every few days at 50 miles per hour tops, I have you beat all to hell on mobility...in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king! :-)
RC
The fuel that drives humans: PRIDE
What always amazes me about the “peak oil” community is that they seem to completely misunderstand why many if not most people refuse to accept “peak” in the catastrophic collapse way in which they describe it.
They say it is because people are in “denial” and refuse to accept bad news. But really, people love to visualize bad news. Apocalyptic views of the future are always popular.
Or, say the catastrophists, people just don’t understand scale. But really, the math is pretty simple.
What is it that makes “peak” unacceptable to most normal humans? And I am not talking about “peak” in the geological sense, which is perfectly explainable and acceptable…you use a finite resource, you use it up, it’s inevitable really. No, what is unacceptable to most people is that there is no way forward, that once you use the fossil fuels down to a certain level, you can never go forward, you must go backward, down, into the mud with the rest of the animals…what makes that unacceptable?
Simply this: It puts forth the catastrophist theory of “peak” is essentially just another method of calling the human race STUPID.
And humans are proud. All the ancient religions and philosophies warn humans about their pride. They have angered the gods with their pride, refusing to obey even the immortals. The Greeks warned of hubris, and the Christians taught humility, but humans are NOT humble. It’s just not how we climbed out of the slop and it’s not how we ended centuries of walking in horse and ox dung.
The thing that infuriates, ENRAGES humans about the whole idea that we will allow “peak” to defeat us is simply this: We are in a bath of carbon and hydrogen, being soaked daily by amounts of energy from the sun so great that it is for all practical purposes impossible to use it all, and when you do, MORE COMES STREAMING DOWN! And yet we are told by some people that there is no solution, no choice, but to descend back into the dung it took us centuries to fight our way out of. It is essentially saying to the human species, “yes, the energy is there, but your just too STUPID to be able to use it.” This most humans find unacceptable as a conclusion. It is a slap in the face, a spit in the face. Throughout most of human history, if an individual man were called so stupid, so ignorant, as to be unable to work out a solution given the resources we KNOW exist, he would have gladly put his life on the line and fought a duel of honor with anyone who dared to call him so ignorant.
When we speak of a future worth living into, we must leave room for one thing that humans will NOT find life worth living without: HUMAN PRIDE. Damn the toys, damn the luxuries, they are not the point! We are being told WE CAN’T DO IT. We are being told that we cannot solve this puzzle. Humans are COMPULSIVE puzzle and problem solvers. From Chess to Rubick’s Cube, from philosophy to particle physics, from architecture to symphonic music to literature, humans create problems just to get to solve them, to resolve them, to engage in the one great pursuit of human beings that is almost better than sex: MASTERY.
To call humans TOO STUPID, TOO IGNORANT, to be able to solve our energy problem is about the greatest insult that the “catastrophists” can slap us across the face with. We will never, NEVER accept such a surrender willingly. Life, the future, really would not be worth living into if we had to.
RC
You had me going there for a moment but then I had to go and ruin it all by reading this... ROFLMAO!!
Now there's a bunch of people engaged in a fulfilling role.
You just can't make this stuff up!
Where's Charlton Heston when you need him?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/wheres_charlton_heston_when_y...
Note that by "and that you will need to take charge" I mean create a new role for oneself, not necessarily choose the leadership role.
sorry. i don't buy it. the future does not exist, so i have no idea how it can influence the present. the past doesn't exist either. however, our ideas about the future and the past do exist...in the present...but only in our heads.
to allow oneself to be controlled by things that don't exist...the past and future...hmmm, sounds like madness to me (albeit a madness i engage in daily, as i'm not strong enough to allow the present moment to be enough).
"Many jobs that have never existed before will once again no longer exist."
ummm, so? many jobs that didn't exist before also exist now. yes, the future will be different from the present, but hasn't that always been the case?
"The future most people are living into is beginning to disappear."
i find that curious. how can something that doesn't exist disappear? does he mean to say that the future people (and what people, by the way? who is he talking about?) have imagined will be different than they had hoped? i suppose that is what he means...but is he excluding himself? his own future will not be different than the one he has been "living into"?
sorry, but he gets a 2/10 for logic, though his sentiment seems on target. yes, people have and will continue to deceive themselves into thinking the world will continue in the same way they have grown accustomed to...isn't that why old people are crabby?
lalala...
oolalapj, your ideas of the future caused you to write your response. You read what I read, you had some sort of response, then you had a thought that you wanted to see the response posted, and that got your fingers typing. In other words, your actions are correlated with how you see the future.
As far as I can tell, unless we're asleep, humans always respond to the future they conjure up, which as you point out, doesn't exist yet and is merely a thought in your mind.
Andre:
I would like to extend your remarks wrt "leadership" by introducing two concepts: Servant Leadership, and Leadership by Example.
For those not familiar with Servant Leadership, I refer you to these two sites for an introduction:
Wikipedia: Servant Leadership
Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership
Servant Leadership is very different from the authoritarian model that most people (including most commentators on this thread, apparently) seem to think of in reference to "leadership". Instead of ruling from above, servant leaders support from below. Servant Leadership is thus particularly well adapted and effective in local, "grass roots" contexts, which is exactly where we anticipate the real need to be.
An important tool of servant leaders, but not one which need be theirs to use exclusively, is leadership by example. In fact, I would go so far to say that this is one type of "leadership" opportunity which truly is available to everyone. All of us, as we pioneer new downsized lifestyles and new ways of coping with our changing circumstances, can be a model and example for others in our community. Cultivating a positive and serene attitude in the midst of everything can also serve as a model and example for others.
Thanks Observer. Servant leadership...I get it but the term sounds a little awkward but that's not too important. In another life time I observed such a model. In the military there are officers and non-commissioned officers. The noncoms were not just folks lower on the totem pole. They had a separate and unique role well described in the links you provided. They are the teachers but also much more. The best took direct responsibility for the well being of their "subjects". Not every now and then but often for every minute of the day in almost every aspect.
Needless to say, there are few up to the task and, sadly, even fewer willing to take on the responsibility.
WNC Observer, thanks for posting this. One area in particular that I think a leader must lead by example is in the area of integrity. The leader's integrity sets the tone for everything, in my view. Once people lose respect for the integrity of the leader, everything falls apart.
Hi Folks,
Really interesting debate on BBC radio on steady state economics vs BAU - actually gets quite heated at times! (run time approx 30mins)
If you are interested in hearing the programme, it airs (Thursday 30th) at 10:30,
16:30, and 20:30 GMT. It will also be available online (after
tomorrow) for about a week at the following URL:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/oneplanet/
If you are interested in finding out more about steady state
economics, or signing a petition to policy makers for a transition to
a steady state economy (highly encouraged!), please check out the
CASSE website:
http://www.steadystate.org
(from another list, 30.10.08)
L,
Sid.
FACT: No one knows what a post-peak oil future will look like. For one thing, it'll be different in any part of the world. This makes it impossible for any one to make any accurate predictions (especially if timing is involved - a dead clock is right twice a day).
FACT: Peak Oilers tend to be a negative bunch. This is not true for everyone, but the majority of Peak Oilers are negative by nature. A bunch of them are filled with hatred and anger towards the current system, and they embrace Peak Oil as a way to funnel that. This is why most people want nothing to do with Peak Oil - it is really too negative.
Then a guy comes in here with a positive note saying Peak Oil is good news and whatnot. Well, guess what? He's going to get a lot of flak, starting with the first post. I sure hope he knew what he was getting himself into (dealing with a bunch of negative people who can only see a gloomy future and who are only capable of having negative thoughts) and hope he does not get discouraged by the amount of negativity he'll encounter.
Yes, future is pure possibility! Way to go Andre. I congratulate you on your courage.
@aangel:
Enjoyed your well written article, and many of the replies by you and others. Problem with "Peak Oil" is were dealing with incomplete data, marginal assumptions, uncertain non-linear relationships and complex cause effect. Interested in your web site statement we have "12-24 months before prices skyrocket" (my perspective...when your say that...my view is stuff really hits the fan and things go deep into a toilet). Wrestling with your supporting data and rationales leading you to this. Seems your primer page uses straightforward cause and effect relationships which in decision making is questionable without thorough analysis of the phenomena and weighting all input variables (which for me seems incomplete and marginally understood).
Three questions....
1.) How did come up with this sobering time line assessment?
2.) Isn't this a subjective exercise of your article above?
3.) What confidence in...and do you have strong recorded track record of your input variables (in science...we often describe as correlation coefficients or other statistic measures to support this time line?
Don't get me wrong...I've been heavily researching Peak Oil subject for well over 5 years. I do agree we are in for extremely challenging times but hard to diagnose how things will play out. Yet, as a scientist and decision maker...we must adhere to proper science and decision protocols...hard yes but critical. This is why I ask the 3 questions above. Without it, we lose perspective which were all struggling with (which I infer is part of your article). Over 30 years experiences taught me to continually strive for balanced perspective. Hence my questions. Hope you can provide more insight to me to your time line. Never seen good decisions made when emotions and ignorance are in play (tend to find the two are inter related--the scientist in me).
Again, thanks for the article and your thoughts...
--Nichoman
Hi, Nichoman. I'm glad you liked the article.
For the timeline, I'm going on two basic assumptions. First, net exports are going to continue to decline, and their decline rate is within that time period going to exceed the drop in demand.
See the following graph for decline rates of various oil producing countries around the world:
Mexico's production loss alone in the next 24 months will take a lot of oil off the export market.
Second, we are in a period of high price volatility. Small changes in world supply have big impacts on the price. The price might stay where it is now for that period, but during periods of volatility it's better to bet that the price is going to jump around a great deal.
I should point out that discussing when exactly the price is going back up might be fun but accuracy isn't required for most people: the larger point in my view is that people and businesses and governments should be preparing for the long descent on the other side of the oil production curve now.
Part of that preparation is people examining the role they will play in a post-peak future. That there is going to be a dramatically different post-peak future is, to me, now inevitable and probably was inevitable by 1990, since that is when a world-wide crash program to get off of oil needed to start (see the 2005 Hirsch Report for details on that).
aangel...
Thanks for the response and information to my questions. Reviewing your information above, plus other articles on TOD and other sources...if IEA depletion rate of ~9.1 per FT article...is close to being correct. Then applying information such as Export Model. Some rudimentary calculations suggest we are in significant supply/demand imbalance within 12 months.
Any thoughts to this rationale?
--Nichoman
Sorry to interrupt, but the IEA says:
"The Financial Times carried a cover page article this morning and a second article on page 4 allegedly reporting on the findings of the forthcoming WEO 2008. This article was drafted without any consultation with the IEA. It appears to be based on an early version of a draft from several months ago that was subsequently revised and updated. The numbers in the article can be misleading and should not be quoted or considered to be official IEA results. We are dismayed that such a comprehensive and important IEA report was made public without our input and verification."
http://www.iea.org/journalists/arch_pop.asp?MED_ARCH_ID=477
Hi, Nichoman. It's really hard making predictions....especially about the future. What I can say is that net exports seem to have peaked in 2005 and the decline should accelerate as time goes on.
Have you considered the role you will play in the near future?