By 2020, there will be inadequate supplies of liquid fuels and electricity taking the nation toward inevitable gas lines, brown-outs, black-outs and extraordinary high prices.

Now just how will a reduced supply (as opposed to no supply) of liquid fuels, cause electricity shortages? The liquid fuel input into electrical generation is miniscule, and we can be sure that fuel for mining coal or drilling for NG will be top of the "essential use" list, if it comes to that.
This guy lost a credibility in my book with this statement - it is just scaremongering.

Neither Shell nor any of the other oil majors are significant energy suppliers to the electricity industry, peak oil will definitely not mean peak electricity - he should have known better.

say, it's certainly odd to be discussing the multiverse under the topic of an Oil Company's Perspective... but why not?

Here's a nice little paper (pdf) by Max Tegmark aimed at a general audience, I think originally written for scientific american:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1283 I'm talking about what Tegmark would call a "level III" multiverse in this paper; that is, a quantum multiverse. There are conceptually and logically a number of other sorts but they would not be as intimately connected to us.

Above, I made the brief and admittedly provocative statement: Actually, that's not the way parallel universes work. Peak oil would be true in all of them in which humans could exist.

Although I'm running a fever today and have had a couple of off weeks, this struck me as a usefully pushy thing to say because in implies that the question of peak oil is a deeper one that most would suppose, for reasons which will be well-understood by most reading TOD.

But surely, among an infinite number of universes, there would be some (perhaps many) where that would not be true. Universes where there would still be lots of oil, and/or not people who had used any of it. They might even have completely different Laws of Thermodynamics, or none at all.

I suppose we can trivially agree that with different laws of thermodynamics, humans could not exist; humans being great apes with what we consider a human genome, etc.

Certainly a universe (or other planet, even) could exist in which not as much oil was yet used up. Indeed, I remember one subset of them clearly. But in the sense I think you mean it, human existence is based on a nearly-impossible sequence of random frozen accidents, which in the case of this universe and all "nearby branched" earth-luna variations which produced humans would have necessarily had the same planetary past. Path-dependency is a big deal. It perhaps isn't generally realized how tightly constrained particular quantum outcomes actually are by self-consistency requirements.

But putting that aside: Certainly, similar creatures could evolve - even evolve the same genome - on a normal-thermodynamic world, and might have oil or something similar. In which case, the distribution of such resources would follow the same basic (power-law) pattern they do on earth, and those humans would likewise probably use the "best" concentrations first. If so, you get peak oil at some point if the humans decide to use it at all.

To the extent these factors might seem to make those universes superior to ours, it would only be in respect to having resources we could use. Our "exceptional' universe would still be the best morally, etc. as stated above and the most entitled to decide how the resources are allocated. If we believe it hard enough it will be true and we will be able to get there.

I don't get what you're saying there, sorry. These "universes" do not communicate except in very restricted ways; and none is more or less real than any other.

What I'm saying in this unlikely spot on the internet is that it is likely that all quantum outcomes are equally real, which would mean that each of us exists in parallel, perhaps infinitely, with minute variationss... such as a class of universes in which I didn't just misspell the word "variations" but in all other ways identical.

And to get it back toward the topic we're posting under, that would mean that the different actual probabilistic outcomes of the current oil spill will all occur in a real universe in proportion to their true probability. Altering the probabilities would thus alter the relative number of "quantum daughter universes" in which given classes of outcomes manifest, providing either a somewhat philosophically-enriched basis for activism or a case for nihilism depending on one's predilections.

cheers. And probably enough of this sort of thing here for now.

An interesting book I've just finished, titled "Biocentrism", has some really interesting insights. The author is
Robert Lanza MD. Recommended for Dr. Lanza's take on the present predicament with String Theory, and what the anomalies of Quantum Mechanics really mean. Best from the Fremont

Agreed. Multiverse might be the simplest explanation for measured dark energy, though IMHO we need to re-re-confirm the measurements first.

Not to divert the thread, but there's a reason some of the smartest people on the planet take a quantum multiverse seriously.

I think these two guys qualify in both those respects. Laurence's is the funnier of the two presentations but his good friend Frank though a bit more sedate is just as, if not more profound.

Anyways these guys make me feel pretty dumb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

And his Good friend Frank Wilczek The winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R2c8FkZYqY

The LHC and Unified Field Theory - Frank Wilczek (1 of 8)

A quantum multiverse is about as real as it gets.

What if it was in their economic self interest to change ?

What if the change lead to a better quality of life ?

Best Hopes,

Alan

"People are not going to drastically reduce their footprint in order so preserve anyone's notion of how the planet ought to be."

Yes they will, although it won't be from their own free will of course, but they will, it is called a major recession (for instance).

Problem is that this is wishful thinking. People are not going to drastically reduce their footprint in order so preserve anyone's notion of how the planet ought to be.

Obviously you have not yet experienced life under a military dictatorship. Things like that are done all the time when the option is either that or you are lined up against the wall and shot.

BTW in case you are wondering I have experienced life under a military dictatorship. In that particular case they weren't interested in preserving the environment either but back then nobody perceived that as being very important. I'm quite sure if they had thought it was important they would have had no qualms about shooting a few recalcitrant individuals who didn't want to reduce their footprints for some reason...wishful thinking isn't even an option.

Until someone levels with the world, how do we know what the world will do. I mean really level with them about what the future is going to look like. Someone in high places. Maybe Obama, Putin, and all the heads of major religions. OK that is wishful thinking too. But it dawns on me of late that the "people" can be influenced and are being influenced with all sorts of propaganda and advertising. The "people" of various countries have sent their young sons to war on the basis of what authorities have told them was true. If people can be influenced to become suicide bombers or holy crusaders for a democracy that doesn't exist why can't they be influenced to give up a lifestyle. If Rush Limbaugh would admit that AGW is real and that we are running out of oil anyway why couldn't he use his magic to sell car pooling? If the pope can convince people that he is infallible then why can't he infallibly require all Catholics to turn their cars in and start riding public transport.

The "people" are sheep perhaps, but sheep can be led so lets put the blame in the right corner.

I know several of our commenters have said bicycles, trains, etc. are partial solutions. In my view, they are only solutions if we can keep up a reasonably robust international trade system without fossil fuels--and it is very hard for me to see that being done.

L'll second Alan in disagreeing with this statement.

In the 2nd half of the nineteenth century (the Victorian era) society was largely one of trains and bicycles. There were horses too, of course, because there always had been, but they were on their way out in cities even before the car came along.
Bikes and trains, and international trade can all be made and operated without fossil fuels. Steelmaking can be done with charcoal. Trains can run on wood, and ships can be powered by wood (steam) and winds, and sun. Not at the same volume of trade as today, to be sure, but it can be done.
City streets can be paved with paving stones instead of asphalt, it worked well for the Romans, and, in fact, segmented block pavers are the preferred pacing for shipping container terminals! They do fine for roads, as long as you don't want to go over 50mph, which means all non highway/freeway urban roads, and a good many rural ones too. Some of the original Telford paved roads still exist, and are i use, in England today.

There are ways to do these things without fossil fuels, they are just not the easiest and cheapest ways. But when FF's are getting expensive, these ways will again be competitive options.

if we eliminate all the really wasteful uses of FF's, particularly oil, then what's left will last a long, long time. Oil used as a manufacturing feedstock (plastics, rubber, etc) accounts for just 5% of US consumption. If oil were restricted to be for this use only, the US would be oil self sufficient for centuries. Add in the reduced rubber requirements from getting rid of all the cars, and the picture gets better still.

I will concede Gail's point that these things cannot save use, if were are trying to preserve BAU. But take all the cars out of the picture (as was the case in 1900), and then see what oil and FF's are and aren't needed for. The world enjoyed a good standard of living in those days, just not unlimited personal transport. If we are prepared to give up unlimited personal transport (cars and air travel) for limited transport (walk, bikes, trains and ships) then we can maintain pretty much all other aspects of modern life.

That's a trade I am willing to make, but the Dick Cheney's ("the American way of life is not negotiable") are not. They may (and people have/are) die defending it, but I'd rather adapt and live - that is how Nature does it, we can too.

Best hopes for a prosperous, car free, future.

One starting point was Switzerland during WW II. *FAR* worse that the USA will face in the next 30 years.

Yes. But the Swiss had a ginormous advantage that we don't. They could blame it on an essentially untouchable external enemy, and get on with the task of getting by. We likely will have a battle between scapecoats and scapecoaters, rather than adaptive coping.

Whenever one brings up points similar to the ones you have made, the rejoinder is typically, "but, but, we cannot solve all our problems with bicycles, walking, conservation, alternative energy, etc." What that rejoinder really means is, "let us continue the way we are and hope that coal, nuclear, oil, and natural gas will last long enough into the future that we won't have to worry about the problem." Not to mention that the same people just don't care about carbon emissions anyway.

Let us change business as usual. Let us do all the things we can possibly do that address the amount of oil and other energy we use. Let us build cities as compactly as possible which will be easier if they are car free. Let us encourage zoning that will bring required goods and services as possible to people as possible. Let us do all those things and hundred other things there is not space for here.

All those things will clearly reduce our requirement for oil, coal, and natural gas, especially oil. At the end of the day, we can then assess our need for some additional coal, for example. We can then see how absolutely necessary it is to use those fossil fuels for a decent quality of life. Regardless, we will be in a much better position to stretch out domestic availability of those resources.

But we have not even tried. Nor do we seem to really want to do anything that would in any way disrupt our current trajectory.

Don't tell me how bicycles and walking are not the answer. Does it then follow that automobiles are the answer?

For those of us who have lived in cities where we got around quite well without a car, we know what a blessing it is, both to the livability of the city and our own health. Even with great public transportation, we ended up walking more and bicycling. Coming home for work, maybe we decided to skip the last bus leg to our homes. Or maybe we just decided to get on a metro to a new part of the city and just walk around for a day at our new destination.

As a people, we have lived so long with poison that we think it is a necessity for existence. We cannot seem to imagine any other way of living. Regardless of the oil problems or the carbon problems, even if those things didn't exist, our lives would be enriched if we slowed things down and quit being slaves of the machine.

Aren't we yet sicked and tired of burning money? That is what we might as well we do as a society that is so overwhelmingly dependent upon stuff you have to burn to keep things going. Stop the burning. Stop the insanity.

When I hear either a politician or businessman talk about "hard choices" they usually mean hard on the poor and powerless. The rich rarely if ever offer up the hard choice of higher taxes on the filthy rich or accepting lower profits on big business in order to pay their employees better, make workplaces safer, or reduce pollution.

Well, yes, that part is certainly true too. I was just talking about them even being available in sufficient numbers to begin with. I did not have the privilege of learning to work with draft animals but I was around dairy cows a lot. They are strong -- even the "little," week-old calves! Not to mention their mothers, especially when they deliver a well-aimed kick.

Putting a Mule or a Horse in harness is a tricky business...runaway, dead or badly injured animals

I learned from a book with a very calm and gentle Percheron mare who patiently waited while I spent nearly three hours figuring it out. Granted I knew this mare well, and she me; I had plenty of non-draft experience with horses; and I knew for a fact that the mare herself was already fully trained.

The glass is nedlessly big.

I'd have to disagree on this point.

People can be trained into new skills much faster than we could have one generation of new draft animals.

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Robert Heinlein

As one of the few idiots that do frequent this site, let me add one of my typically arbitrary and non-sequitur random observations that you may or may not find interesting.

The word 'idiot' is from a Greek root 'idio-' that means 'individual' (compare 'idiosyncrasy').

For the Greeks and for most other traditional societies, the individualist, rugged or otherwise, was beyond foolish.

A colleague of mine regularly gives talks about how one person cannot make a difference (in spite of the usual tripe preached at graduations and other inspirational fora). A person only makes a difference by working with others consistently over a long period toward common, well articulated goals.

Please add the defense budget. Use freed up capital to reduce need for foreign oil, a win win which frees up additional resources currently devoted to defending the oil empire. Hardly anyone ever mentions the pointlessness of most of our so called defense budget.

Begin by taking our troops out of almost everywhere.

Oh. And quit building any additional roads. Do not permit any additional urban sprawl, which reduces need for roads and other expensive infrastructure.

Or continue bau and have no freed up capital.

How much energy did we produce as a result of the Iraqi and Afghani wars?

Shrink the realm.

Oh, and if our buddy from Arizona was still posting, he would advocate turning our golf courses into community farms and gardens. Where is he,anyway, because I really miss his always original and insightful commentary.

Consumption is one of the things holding this whole house of cards together. We have to spend our way outta this.

I agree with Alan. Several points:

- Some people, faced with the truth (which will become apparent to all within 5 years), will cut their consumption and invest more. They might invest in insulating their home or in gardening equipment or in the IPO of an electric bike company or in electrically powered farming equipment or in a condo next to a train station.

- Many societies have experienced far worse cut-backs without collapse. I think of WWII combatants and neighboring nations. The UK didn't collapse and neither did Switzerland. What is impressive is the extremes to which societies could be pushed without collapsing. In fact, total collapse into anarchy is rare in human societies.

- We had industrial civilization in the late 19th century before cars. So why can't we have it again?

- We had international trade before oil-powered ships.

- North Dakota farmers can produce enough diesel fuel from Canola to operate all the farm tractors in America. So why won't they?

- We can electrify the rails. So why won't we?

I'm not saying the next 20 years are going to be pleasant or low stress. I expect many of us to lose jobs for extended periods of time. But I do not see the inevitability of collapse.

I lived in Santa Barbara and I did elect politicians that prohibitted offshore drilling. It isn't the oil companies and their PR budget I worry about. It's Bubba and his 1984 Chevy truck who believes he has a god given right to $2.50 cent gasoline and the hell with my beaches. And my response is the hell with your driving a 13 mpg beast.

NC - Again, a easy solution. The oil companies can't buy influence from politicians who won't sell it. It's not our fault if the public elects these politicians. Put a pile of food in front of a hungry man and don't expect him to eat? Accept a political system where companies can put a pile of contributions in front of a money hungry politician and not expect he to help himself?

As I said, the companies don't make the rules. If the American people wouldn't collectively vote for politicians who accept corporate contributions then the companies would have zero influence. We aren't the enablers...the American public are.

One of the fundamental things that has to change is the basic structure of corporations. A change I've heard proposed might be that the purpose is to OPTIMIZE profits to shareholders rather than to MAXIMIZE them. An appropriate compensation for the risk that the capital investment is worth would be established--maybe 3-4%--would be established, and corporations would be judged on how close to that they got, not how much they exceeded it by.

The whole 'super-personhood' thing needs to be re-evaluated, too, though recent Supreme Court decisions seem to be moving us in the opposite direction.

The enormous influence corps have on all parts of the political system have made any move in this direction pretty much impossible so far.

.would it not be in the interest of BP shareholders for BP not to have to compensate those harmed by their recent oil release?

There is more to this question than merely not paying compensation. Were BP to take that stance, it is a fair bet that, in addition the the lawsuits, they would be barred from doing any business in the US ever again. That may well cost the shareholders much more than paying compensation.

I am in agreement with Rockman here. The oil companies are doing their business - oil. It's that simple. Like any other business, they engage in marketing, even lobbying, to encourage use of their product, and access to the resources to get it. As long as they are operating within the laws of the land, then, by the standards of that land, they are doing nothing wrong. And in the case of the US, where the laws of the land are (nominally) made by the people, they are getting what they voted for.

Norway has an oil industry that is a far larger % of their GDP than the US industry, yet it does not dominate the people or government, and pays huge royalties to the government, which is then invested for the good of the people. It is following the rules as set by the people, government (and possibly the King) of Norway. America (and Canada) could choose to go that way too, but we haven't.

We cannot expect companies to put the country's interests ahead of their own, and anyone who thinks they will/should is kidding themselves. if we want to change the system such that they have to (e.g. environmental regulations) then that's fine and we should make said changes. We should also be prepared for the companies to decide not to do business and take their operation elsewhere (e.g. offshore).

If we want these companies to out the country's interests first, then we can nationalise them, and we will have service and efficiency levels as good as we get from the postal service, social security, courts and other such govt organisations.

The body that is meant to act in the country's interest is government - we get what we elect. WE don;t get to have a say on Exxon, unless we are a shareholder, but we all get to have say in government. If governments in places like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand, Hong Kong have done a better job of looking after their people it is because that is what the people have wanted. There may have been some other tradeoffs to go with it (e.g. higher taxes, gov't health care, stricter env regulations etc), but that is what people, gradually, voted for.

We cannot fault the companies for gaming the system, no matter how well they do it, as that is the nature of companies and people alike. We need to change the system so they game it in a direction that is of benefit to both them and the country. This has been done in the past (e.g. the car companies turning their plants to war production in WW2), and when done, properly, the results are spectacular.

It needs government setting clear goals and rules, and enforcing them. Even the oil industry will agree with that. As Rockman commented previously about offshore drilling, make a decision, one way or the other, and then let's get on with it, or not. It;s the endless debating, non-decisions and vague rules that are the real problem. And that is government and, by extension, voter's fault, not companies.

One very simple rule that exists in Australia that I think the US should adopt, is mandatory voting. The fact that you must vote, or you get fined, means that everyone is involved in the process, and takes it more seriously. the election is this a true picture of the opinion of the people, on that day, and there is no disputing that the new government has a mandate from the people. And there is no escaping the fact that they have to face all the people, at the next election, not just the ardent supporters and detractors. Democracy works best when the people are engaged in it. Indifference leads to corruption, as we have seen.