“Any coward can fight a battle when he's sure of winning, but give me the man who has pluck to fight when he's sure of losing. That's my way, sir; and there are many victories worse than a defeat.”
—George Eliot
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.
As far as the mid-east goes, the Iranian people are relatively progressive and Westernized. I heard an interview with an American basketball player on NPR the other day. He didn't make the cut of 360, or so, NBA players so where did he go? Iran. Who even knew they had a league?
The best finance professors I ever had were all from Iran.
I believe Simmons himself has commented on how, pre-1979 revolution, it was Iran that bailed us out of our own oil-peak and subsequent Arab-oil embargo.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-470/OF97-470G/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/ofr-97-470/OF97-470G/iranmap.html#TOP
Best of luck with your raid Oil CEO. I'll be eager for an update.
I think our best option is and always has been to get the Russians sufficiently concerned to wholeheartedly side with us. Once that is achieved, even if it means bribing them, the Chinese might get onboard a little quicker.
Post Iraq, March 2003 - as much as I hate to admit it - We need the global community in on this one. We can't ignore the French anymore.
Yesterday's talk here of using nukes was completely out of control. Any attack at this stage(which there won't be) would have to be conventional. If you don't know why, you need to trade in your engineering degree for a couple courses on political science.
The only thing wrong with Iran is a leadership that uses religion to control its people.
Occupation is about as stupid a plan as anybody could come up with. We already own Iraq and Afghanistan. Notice any patterns?
In fact the more you think about it, the more you realize the best option is to, well - to just be friends.
this also of interest; it was something I dug up when I was wondering how the religious aspect would have a bearing, and shows the relative distribution of shia/sunni compared to where the oil is, but see the first comment in the thread.
January 12, 2006
Norway Sees Dip in 2006 Oil Production
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:04 p.m. ET
OSLO, Norway (AP) -- Oil production from Norway's offshore fields is expected to decline by almost 5 percent this year, although natural gas exports continue to set new records, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate said Thursday.
The government agency's annual resources report projected production of about 2.43 million barrels per day in 2006, down from 2.56 million barrels per day in 2005.
The report said crude oil flows from the world's third largest oil exporter also declined about 9 percent from 2004 to 2005. It said that was due partly to lost production from the Snorre offshore field after it was shut down into early 2005 because of a natural gas blowout in late November 2004.
The Stavanger-based directorate said production was also about 7.5 percent lower than it had projected in its 2004 report, but that oil flows were now expected to remain stable through 2010.
However, it said natural gas exports during 2005 set a new annual record of 35.3 trillion cubic feet, an increase of 8 percent over 2004.
''In the years to come, we also expect production of salable gas to increase,'' the report said.
The directorate said investments in developing offshore finds had increased nearly 23 percent from 2004 to 83 billion kroner ($12.57 billion) in 2005.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Slide14.gif
The drops being reported in the new article seem larger numerically than what I read off this chart, but we still see the claim that next year's drop will be less than this year's. That's pretty interesting in view of how some here have characterized north sea oil as collapsing.
example:
1mb/d peak output in 2005
800kb/d in 2006 = 20% decline (200kb/d change)
take same decline rate
640kb/d in 2007 = 20% decline (160kb/d change)
or same production loss
600kb/d in 2007 = 25% decline (200kb/d change)
So even though it shows 2007's decline lower than 2005 the base from which its declining will be a great deal lower resulting in probably higher % decline.
When people say collapsing, i would guess they mean rapid decline which i would take to be in the region of 8% and above.
What does anyone think about China and India's announcement on energy cooperation?
I've posted my own commentary here, but I would like to know from the folks here is how serious you think China and India are on co-developing biofuel and maybe even sustainable energy resources?
"Sceptics say Chinese companies are unlikely to share their real business plans with Indian rivals, especially as they have mostly been able to outbid them. "Governments like to sign pieces of paper, but it often doesn't amount to much," one analyst said."
I can't argue too much with your commentary, which makes sense. However, the devil is in the details.
A Fast Blast poll found 62% siding with Corsi and 38% with Ruppert.
This is what happens when "our" side is represented by Ruppert instead of one of our TOD hosts, for example. It also explains why people like Smil refer to peakers as a "catastrophist cult"; yes, they're painting with too broad a brush, but when people like Ruppert are at least in part our public face, that's the conclusion many people will draw.
People post here claiming the US blew up the WTC in one post, then ask why nobody listens to them in the next. Let's get Stuart on TV (other TOD hosts would be just as good, but using psuedonyms wouldn't do much on the credibility front)
When did it come to be that "polls" replaced science?
Let's have a poll here among TOD readers so we can get to "truth" on these important questions.
How many of you "feel" that:
I just love the way the media loves to use polls. They poll everything, and they tend to be believe that the weight of the poll somehow establishes the truth.
If a poll showed that 55% of the people polled believed that the sun revolved around the earth, then I guess I damn well better believe that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth.
One useful thing that a poll does do is to illuminate the level of ignorance in the general population on any given topic. So I guess they do serve some purpose.
We tend to follow the crowds.
If everyone else believes the Earth is the center of the Universe, then it must be true. Who am I to second guess the wisdom of the crowds?
The biggest problem with polls is that you fool yourself into believing the question asked is "fair and balanced".
Quite often, though, the question is loaded with emotional trigger words and false choices. The outcome is pre-programmed into the question.
Example: Are those who believe in Peak Oil theory part of a doom & gloom cult?
YES!!!, no, Definitely, Absolutely!
(Randomly click on only one answer please.)
((Remember: we merely report (distort), YOU decide))
So here you have two speakers, one with lots of baggage selling a doom-and-gloom vision, and the other a smooth talker promising endless growth, riches, and "the American Dream"! Guess who is more popular?
This was a point that Hanson made long ago - democracies are popularity contests and the voters select leaders who they think will maximize their future well-being. Ruppert was selling doom-and-gloom so of course his view was rejected. That's the natural first reaction of anyone who has not studied the issue in some detail. This is also why most western governments seem incapable of being proactive about peak oil - doing so gets them defeated at the next election, as it did Jimmy Carter. So the western nations are always going to be stuck in reactive mode until the general public accepts the reality of peak oil, which they may not do til they've exhausted every other option (which will likely include more war).
and they will thank you for it. Tell them
something new, and they will hate you for it."
- george monbiot
Tell them something they want to believe and they'll'll answer your poll question accordingly.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
What policies are best for the economy and GDP growth?
I'm quoting from memory here but I think it was something like 74% siding with Greenspan and 26% went with Jesus.
versus
Sorry, I don't have a link for a transcript.
While not explicitly endorsing the abiotic theory, the citation of the theory, which has not to my knowledge stood up any scientific scrutiny, seems undeserved.
Center for Energy sets out their objectives below...
What I fear is happening here is the infiltration of an alternative narrative that justifies unrestricted pursuit of oil (ANWR?. It also conveniently excuses anyone from doing anything to get over oil dependance. When an apparently reputable and well meaning information service lends this sort of legitimacy to abiotic oil and perhaps even implies that it is an emerging new discovery (did they do that?) I for one can no longer take them seriously. Corsi's involvement with the whole promotion of abiotic oil does it's proponents no favours, his very presence is cause for doubt. I'd suggest that it works similarly here for Center for Energy - citation of the abiotic theory only hurts their credibility and brings their agenda into question.
Ruppert kept asking Corsi to back up his claims with science but really didn't bring anything to the table. I would say that Ruppert definetly won the debate. But then again I think most of the Coast to Coast listeners aren't well educated and tend to lean towards conspiracy theories.
I saw the promo for the CNN program again. The title is "Running out of oil", and the voiceover simply says "How much oil is left, and who is going to get it?".
The background video just had pictures of some oil wells and pipelines and didn't give clues to where they were going with this.
All I know is that this is for an upcoming edition of "CNN Presents" that will run in Feb. It should be a 1-hour program..
IMO, the key problem that we will face this year is not so much a shortage of total oil capacity, but a shortage of net export capacity. Net export capacity in exporting countries is being squeezed from two directions--by increasing domestic consumption and by falling production. As time goes on, more and more countries that were net exporters are going to become net importers, e.g., Indonesia and the UK.
One other key point regarding percentage changes. Let's assume we have a country producing two mbd, consuming one mbd and thus exporting one mbd. A 10% drop in production (200,000 BOPD) would result in a 20% drop in net exports (200,000 BOPD out of 1,000,000 BOPD net exports).
As the following article points out, the demand for exports worldwide is exploding.
The big three exporters--Saudi Arabia; Russia and Norway--account for more than half of the exports from the top 12 net exporters (all those exporting more than one mbd, net). Saudi Arabia accounts for as much net exports as the bottom six on the list combined.
Of the big three, only Russia did not show a decline in net exports in 2005 versus 2003. As I previously noted, both Saudi Arabia and Norway are on the wrong side of the 50% of (Hubbert Linearization) Qt mark. I don't know about Russia.
http://www.energybulletin.net/12034.html
Find a couple of spare planets or face global oil war
Richard Beeston, The Times
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html
Using the most expansive definition of "oil," the net oil exports from the top 14 exporters in 2004 were 38.32 mbd.
Based on the P/Q versus Q method, at least three of the countries are past 50% of Qt: Saudi Arabia; Norway and Iran.
At least two countries have recently shown reduced production because of political unrest: Venezuela and Iraq.
At least two countries are currently experiencing production declines or they are predicting production declines: Mexico and Kuwait.
So, at least seven of the fourteen (one mbd and larger net exporters)--representing 57% of 2004 net export capacity from the top 14 exporters--are showing evidence of current or imminent production declines.
And another point TOD folks should know: Iran may be past 50% Qt for crude oil but they've got a hell of lot of undeveloped natural gas.
But this is unlikely for several reasons. Oil is fungible and will tend to go to where there is demand (read: money to pay for it). Most of the biggest oil producing countries are autocratic or even dictatorial and will seek out revenue in favor of helping their internal population. Western democracies like Norway are based on free markets which will also send the oil to where it is desired, irrespective of national borders.
It might seem paradoxical for a country to be exporting oil in a time of shortage, but the point is that oil will be very valuable (i.e. expensive) in that environment and therefore by exporting it, countries raise enormous funds. Oil is good for only one thing, burning. But money can be used for anything. Selling oil for money makes sense even when the internal demand for oil is high, if export demand is even higher.
Not in the UK or Norway.
I thought it was odd for Iraq to reduce domestic oil subsidies when their economy is doing so badly, but clearly the decision was meant to be good for the United States, not Iraq. Maybe that's why an American "yes" man got the job he did.
http://www.energybulletin.net/12040.html
Published on Friday, January 13, 2006 by Energy Bulletin
Drivers In For A Shock
By Roger Adair
Roger Adair contrasts a new study showing Irish drivers' unwillingness to change their driving habits to the inevitable changes forced by Peak Oil and the collapse of complex societies.
Ireland in a Jam
"Ireland in a jam - how Irish motorists are coping with rising oil prices" Amarach Consulting, Dublin (www.amarach.com).
Excerpt:
This recent study was based on a sample of 622 Irish motorists who use their car to travel to work. They were asked to indicate their level of support for various measures to reduce oil use as proposed by the International Energy Agency. It is possible that similar results would be obtained in many other countries as well
Not surprisingly, the most popular options were working week compression (4 x 10 hour working days) and free public transport!
64% agreed it was difficult to get to work without a car and 50% indicated that they would definitely not prefer to use public transport, even if the system was improved.
However the most telling response was to the question of how high the price of road fuel would have to rise before they would stop using their car to get to work. A staggering (and touchingly defiant) 29% claimed they would never ever give up their car no matter how expensive road fuel became (lucky, old, well heeled and optimistic them!) and 32% just "didn't know"!
To paraphrase the author of the report " ... the vast majority cannot imagine any price increase that would change their behaviour. i.e. they either don't know or they simply refuse to change. " (my emphasis).
I reckon this is true of drivers in most countries, though clearly there must be some limit - once petroleum costs as much as eau-de-cologne even the valiant Celts will cave in to reality. But the finding confirms my `working hypothesis' that in future most people will continue to drive until it costs more than half what it does to take a taxi today. A taxi costs approx. €2 per kilometer in most European countries (AFAIK).
The scenario: it's the year 2020. Undaunted by peak oil, you own the proverbial gas-guzzling Hummer which you bought second-hand for a song. If you've only got your socks on you can probably get 1000 km out of a full fuel tank (= approx 1 barrel, or 159 liters, I've got it right this time). So even at €1000 per barrel of oil it might still be less expensive to drive a Hummer in 2020 than to take a taxi today.
Though no doubt all you will be able to afford apart from the Hummer is a pair of socks.
Shifts in these prices relative to each other make people shift demand between substitutes (e.g. gasoline prices rise relative to electricity, making electric cars more desirable). Changes in price of groups of substitutes relative to other groups (e.g. all transportation costs rise but clothing prices don't) shift demand between whole groups.
This is why I keep pushing the notion of building as much renewable elctricity generation as we can, as soon as possible. It reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and if you keep the price of electricity (nearly) constant (and therefore ever lower, relatively speaking, in the face of rising oil costs), you make the shift from oil-powered transportation to electricity-powered transportation all the more attractive.
Three times? Four?
I expect most people, when confronted with such a question, first think, "The increasing prices will affect my total budget, but given the distance between where I live and work, I have no option but driving there. Since I have to have a place to live and have to have a job, everything else will have to go first." It never occurs to the responder that food, other goods, and utility prices will be rising as well, so that they may be left with choosing between food, heat, and motor fuel.
Security and stability are the most important human psychological needs on Abraham Maslow's list of human needs. The only things more important are physiological needs. No one should be surprised that people will resist changing such a deeply ingrained status quo. It is human nature to strongly resist such wrenching change.
Until relatively recently (ie the last 10 years), the road system in Ireland was unbelievably bad by the standards of most developed countries. I remember less than 15 years ago having to stop on the main road between Dublin and Cork for a shepherd to get his flock of sheep across what passed for a motorway. It took a ridiculous number of hours to get from New Ross in the east to Limerick in the west along winding, hilly, pot-holed, unlit roads barely wide enough for two cars to pass each other, and with hedges so high (right at the edge of roads with no hard shoulder) that visibility was seriously impaired. Driving was dangerous (so was cycling) as well as time consuming.
EU money has changed the picture drastically. Now there are real motorways in Ireland, although I suspect the public transit is still almost as bad (at least outside of Dublin and perhaps a few other cities). People have had a taste of modernity, but most haven't yet had time to forget what it was like before, as we have in North America or Britain. They remember how it used to be and desperately do not want to go back to it, especially since the EU money has also resulted in the building of car-dependent sprawl. I'm not surprised to hear them say they'd pay almost any amount to keep their cars, however unrealistic it may be.
I suspect that the loss of mobility, convenience and comfort (ie central heating) that the end of cheap energy is likely to bring will be very hard on the Irish, but hopefully enough of them will remember the old ways to be able to go back to them without too much pain. The Irish diaspora may begin again though.
I was just reading this article on EnergyBulletin:
http://www.energybulletin.net/12052.html
... and got to the part where he talks about the great efficiencies of the bicycle, and recommends wearing bright clothing while cycling. I have a bright yellow pullover myself, but I see more and more darkly-dressed guys riding dark, little mountain bikes with no lights and maybe the mandated reflectors. They're like shadows.
Look what happened in the car-loving United States when the price spiked after the hurricanes. We saw an almost unprecedented fall in gasoline demand. Then when the price moderated again demand climbed back up. Stuart did an analysis showing that most of the fall in miles traveled was not in the areas directly hit by the hurricane, but rather in other parts of the country where the main impact was the high prices and not any other impediments to transportation.
Yet I have many times seen "studies" and "experts" which claimed that Americans would not significantly cut back on driving until we saw a much bigger increase in gas prices. These opinions were presumably based on what people SAID since there was no way to see what people would actually DO in those circumstances.
Well, now we know. Regardless of what people say, what they actually do when something gets more expensive is exactly what economists would predict: they economize. Experts often say, people can't cut back on gas usage because they have to drive to work. But the truth is that Americans do a heck of a lot of driving beyond just driving to work. And those trips can often be eliminated or combined. Many Americans even have two cars and can switch to the more economical car rather than the fancier one. All these kinds of economies are possible even without major changes in the way people get to work.
I suspect the Irish would not be so different. They may love their cars and make bold statements about not giving them up, but if the price goes up they will find ways to use them more economically exactly as Americans did post-Katrina (and for that matter, as Europeans do every day).
This situation reminds me of something I keep trying to point out to people. Ever notice how the Apocalypticons keep telling us that 1) in peak oil we're facing an event unprecedented in human experience, and that 2) they know exactly how it will turn out? How the heck do they know???
It's easy to make fun of economists (and heaven knows I've been on both ends of plenty of such jabs), but when we're talking about the most basic stuff, like demand response to a price increase for various goods or services, economists have it pretty well scoped out. Just don't ever, under circumstances, ask us how to invest money. We know less than zip about that.
Doesn't matter or justly simply wrong. Transportation fuel usage in the US in highly inelastic. Combined? Eliminated? Are you smoking some weed, Halfin? People drive to different places, with different distances, don't even know who their neighbors are, etc.
What are they going to do, say "gas is too expensive, I'm not going to do my 70 mile commute to work today--fuck it. I'd rather lose my job instead?"
Probably what will happen, however, is that their job will disappear before they stop the driving to it...
When gas goes up again, maybe a third person will join. Now, we are down to 560 miles...down 20% from the original 700.
Maybe pretty soon, carpooling becomes "acceptable" behavior...and maybe half of the people will carpool.
Rick
In my office, a couple of people switched jobs in order to work closer to home. They expressly cited the high gas costs. (Of course, they lived an hour's drive from my office.) Others began to carpool, or bought smaller cars. Not a lot, but even two people in a car saves a lot of money when you commute an hour each way.
You're right that no one knows their neighbors, but in large workplaces like mine, there's bound to be several people in the office who live in your neighborhood, or along the way.
Obviously, the low-hanging fruit is plucked first - it further cutbacks will be harder and harder. But I think Halfin is right - what people say they will do isn't necessarily what they actually will do.
There is no indication that the First Law of Economics (Price goes up => Consumption goes down) or the Second Law of Economics (Price goes up => Consumers will consume more substitutes i.s.o the original product) does not hold for the Irish.
Even if the Irish say that they won't.
;-)
Capitalism these days is not about finding a need, and filling it. It's about creating a need, and filling it. Many of us buy things we would never miss if it were for ads telling us we have to have them. Yes, having a car is great. Having two is better. But is there really a need to have more cars than drivers?
Having more "stuff," more choices, does not make people happier. Indeed, there's evidence that it makes people less happy.
But there will never be a real push to get people to cut back, even though they may well be happier for it. And the reason is the nature of money.
Stuart, I had no idea we were so close in our opinions about this! Gratuitous Photo Opportunity.
The Prince of Darkness
I think you've got it reversed. The reason the population keeps growing is because of debt-based money. It's grow or die, and the government has every reason to try and keep the growth going. And the best way to do that is to keep the population growing. That's why despite all the talk of security on the right and worker protection on the left, our borders are still wide open. Greenspan likes to point out that immigration is responsible for all the economic growth we've enjoyed for the past 20 years.
We've seen what happens when the economy stops growing. Recession, depression. The looming oil crisis is likely to result in a depression that makes the Great Depression look like nothing. I don't have much faith in our ability to create a new economic system to replace our current one, but eventually, something is going to have to change. I think it will be more difficult and painful than anyone can imagine.
I hope the liberal optimists succeed, but I suspect what will result will instead be reactionary, and look an awful lot like feudalism.
The key here being, we need to find a way, by hook or crook, to trick/force people into getting their evolutionary chemicals (primarily dopamine) in a sustainable fashion. "I grow the biggest sweet potatoes on the block and get the chicks" would be a better way to go than trying to be Donald Trump. That way competition is fought in ways that are sustainable - "I love you Stuart - you are WAY more sustainable than that Mr. Jones!!..;)"
Capitalism is a great way to extract resources as quickly as possible. Hence its ascendence as we began exploiting the resources "discovered" in the New World. It's not so great at dealing with steady-state or shrinking resources.
Haven't you ever wondered why usury - charging interest on a loan - was considered such a terrible crime in the ancient world? Now usury is a way of life. What changed? IMO, it's the difference between a steady-state and a growing economy.
The world is not a particularly rational place where people predictably maximize utility. It is not comparable to a machine where the outputs can be related to the inputs by a simple function. One might be able to calculate the theoretical rate of depletion for a group of oil fields, or maybe for a whole world of oil fields, neatly and mathematically, but that by itself tells you very little about how a depletion scenario might play out in practice (ie in the context of human societies). To have any chance of being able to predict that, the range of factors considered must be far, far wider.
History, social psychology and finance, and their various feedback loops, tell us that there is a great upheaval coming in response to a rapid invalidation of the assumptions upon which our lives are structurally dependent. Its effects will be economic, social and ultimately political, and are likely to occur rapidly enough to cause severe dislocation. These factors are real, and are at least as important as how much oil is left in the ground or what rate we could hope to extract it at in a perfect world. The perfect world figures are useful to know, but they represent only the ideal scenario. Given the upheaval to come, reality is almost certain to fall well short of the ideal production rate, which will further increase upheaval.
Peak oil (and gas) will be an important part of the way the future plays out, but it is not the whole story. Energy trumps everything in the long-term in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, but financial imbalance and the impact of its unwinding is at least as important on a time-scale more comensurate with the human lifespan - the short to medium term if you like. The interplay of the two is more complex than either considered separately, but there are relatively few people who consider both at all, and even fewer who also take the historical record into account as well.
Bravo.
Part of our inability, as humans, to cope with resource depletion is our innate belief that we are not animals,
that we are somehow different;
that animals are irrational
whereas we humans operate on an emotionless and purely "rational" and "intelligent" basis.
Therefore, even though we observe overshoot and die-off phenomena in many an animal population (i.e., lemmings, St. Matthews reindeer, etc.) we humans believe we are "above" all that, we are different. It's going to be "different" for us. Science will save us. The markets will save us.
Studies show that animals engage in economic decision making, in market dynamics, in social dynamics, and they are not as "irrational" as we humans irrationally believe.
We are much more like the animals than different from them. We are animals --mammals more particularly-- and ones that have a herd mentality.
By studying animal populations and how they react to resource depletion (i.e. lemming migrations; with some running off cliffs or drowning in water as they make their maddened stampede for survival's sake) we may better understand how the human stampede is going to unfold.
The point is to prevent the human herds from following their herd instinct, from "staying course", from going into blind stampede mode, and from marching straight for, and over the cliffs.
Anyone been to Hong Kong, Shanghai or Bombay (Mumbai) lately? I can't walk down the street of the Asian city I live in without having to dodge more Mercedes and BMWs than any western city. I know the party line is that the west caused this materialism in Asia, but I don't buy it.
I would ammend that to read: "It is the human desire for ever more wealth that is at the root of growth."
No problem, good point, Jack. I guess people in the West mostly just got there first....
By the way, this reminds me of Larry and Sergei for some reason ...
have a good one and remember-- Don't Be Evil!
Dave
Now, I do not think it is feasible to go back to a tribal culture. But I do think it's extremely important to recognize that this is a cultural trait, not a biological one, because it suggests the potential for change in it over time. Not easily or quickly, of course, but it is not obviously hopeless (short of massive genetic reengineering of the race, which I suppose will also be a possibility before too long).
Sure, right. But the spoon is in the cultural pudding, isn't it?
No more hunter/gatherer stuff gonna happen here. It can be argued (and would be by me) that due to natural human tendencies toward acculturation and the social construction of reality--which are biologically determined and malleable with respect to context--then the cultural behaviour is also deterministic for future outcomes in our Western culture. Human cultural assimilation, as a fundamental behaviour, is analogous to language learning--I'm a former piled-high-deeper theoretical linquist but never completed the program. In other words, if you're presented with a world of ipods and cellphones, that's your world. On the other hand, if it's wood stoves and backbreaking work in the vegetable garden, that's your world too.
These are fundamental points that can't be overlooked. Some people believe we will muddle through the crisis period ahead--assuming that the changes will be gradual enough to allow an adjustment given the already culturally determined behaviour. I myself don't believe that. I think catastrophism is the most likely model--which simply switches out one set of living circumstances for another very quickly. Sort of like abrupt climate change or big rocks hitting the Earth that kill off the dinosaurs. When the big change comes, humans will adapt to the new arrangement since they are almost infinitely malleable culturally--up to the point of extinction if things get bad enough which, of course, will not occur. But that will take time and it won't be pretty. The gradualism of geologist Charles Lyell, which held sway for a century, has been shown to be wrong. Shit happens.
best, Dave
To anthropomorphize for a moment, the world doesn't care that there are people whose wellbeing is predicated on the complex web of interdependencies we have constructed over this century in particular. Those arrangements can be swept away by momentous events and individual people will have to adapt (or suffer the unpleasant consequences), even if their prevailing cultures cannot. The survivors will build new cultures suited to different sets of circumstances.
Without oil, or without a certain minimumn of oil, global culture morphs into hundreds and thousands of loosely linked (if at all) local cultures, with their own (or none, in some cases) policing rules. If the dark side of Peak Oil comes to fruition, there will be different 'cultures' in Houston, Burlington, Anchorage, Big Falls, WI, Beijing, Kona HI, etc. Someone playing by Bostons rules and walking to Burlington will probably face completely different 'rules' of culture. Energy has allowed our rules over the past century to gradually be pretty identical. Depletion at first will cause friction and economic change - eventually, our biological needs to create tribal culture will manifest, but do so locally all over the planet.
New Orleans was a small, brief example.
The benefits of working communications are huge, they will probably
be the first priority after food, water and shelter and they are even important to fix that.
This will limit the cultural spread since no area exept North Korea and other areas ruled by such paranoid leaders will be truly isolated, it will only be slow and expensive to travel physically.
Global culture will have areas with TWh of electricity available. Those areas will be the backbone of the global culture that remains since they will benefit from trade and can syntehtisize the needed fuels.
Communications satellites, undersea cables, the Internet...I don't think they'll die overnight, but I do think it will become harder and harder to maintain them, until we don't bother any more.
Stuart,
Your CV: "PhD Physics, MS CS. 10 years as an innovator in computer security ..."
I understand where you are coming from, believing that somehow the human brain might be like a Von Neumann machine. I work in similar overlapping fields. However, as to this idea of thinking that certain aspects of human behavior are not "hard wired" biologically into us, I must respectfully disagree.
First, the human brain is not an electrically driven Von Neumann machine. It has a chemical soup floating in there.
Think of us as having many parallel machines (each with a different local architecture!) running in our heads. The machines debate stuff with each other. If they can't reach a consensus, they submit their votes to biggest dummy in the pool; the reptilian brain, for making a final decision. (People in sales know that the reptile has the final say so in a purchasing decision. "Org want big powerful plasma display with many pretty lights and football games and control, remote control. Org want. Org get.")
Our brain structure is the result of freak or random evolutionary development. It was not "intelligently designed". If you believe otherwise, you do not truly understand the science of evolution.
The tribal people in the jungle were never presented with cognition of a choice. They did not know that various means exist for greater power and control like: guns, cars, remote control plasma TV. Time after time, when aboriginals are exposed to such choices from our "modern" society, they quickly abandon their old ways and grab for the beer can and remote.
Why? Because our brains are pre-architectured biologically in that way.
Our brains are structured to seek power, control and pleasure while avoiding pain, imprisonment, loss of control. That is how we "survive". Evolution rewarded the mutations whose brains were architected for that kind of survival. We are the offspring. We are hardwired (to a limited degree) to be like that.
Mr Hyde likes the lifestyle that oil has brought him.
Well not exactly as simple as Dr.Jekyll/Mr.Hyde.
But if we (meaning all of us) were more educated in how the human brain works and what its shortcomings are, we would be less susceptible to falling into the traps of our self-proclaimed superiority.
We would be less sure that "the markets" will provide. We would be less sure that we have "free choice". We would be less secure and more questioning about the sustainability of our entire way of living.
In my mind, oil is just the tip of the iceberg. Our "advancing civilization" is like a great herd of lemmings charging headstrong for the cliffs. We have Global Warming and melting ice caps. We have exponential population growth. We have farm land depletion, deforestation, aquifer depletion, religious fanticism, etc., etc.
And amazingly, hardly any members of the great lemming herd know about it or care. They just keep marching forward. Having more babies. Buying more homes. Buying more cars. Getting on that slave labor tread mill and starting to run faster and harder just to keep up with accumulating debt.
Something is very wrong.
And yet, when you try to tell them, ... their eyes glaze over.
we are evolutionarily programmed to value the present over the future, and dramatically so. A potential ancestor, Bob, that spent time worrying about a noticeable rise in temperature was outproduced by Igor who took Helga to the cave while Bob was ciphering. Bob and his few descendants ultimately died out.
We are biological animals with a developed neo-cortex and therefore language and culture. But all animals value the present over the future. Why has global warming not been heeded ? Because all of the scientific warnings are of the sort '2050 the temperature will be such and such' - the human discount rate is so steep in ONE WEEK from the present let alone 50 years. (see David Laibson at Harvard's research)
Each environmental success story in our culture needed a smoking gun - DDT, ozone, leaded gas, etc - we saw a serious problem that was immediate and addressed it. We need to cross the discount rate threshold in order to act. How could it be otherwise?
Only chance of averting/ameleorating whats coming is to get oil prices very high very quickly, (even artificially), so we feel the pain and act. Even at todays prices they are not high enough to cause massive reallocations of resources.
p.s. the stories of the polar bears drowning FINALLY got my mothers attention regarding global warming. We need emotional triggers..Katrina/Rita could have beens such a boon, but alas, 55 degrees in Vermont in january does not provide the follow through...
"Breed the best, cull the rest." -- Matt Nuenke
The others...well, sometimes I think they will always be as shadows in Plato's cave. And what they grasp will be as air...as it has always been.
We are all products of what has occurred to this country of the past 25 years and that's CONSUMERISM!! We have all(most) been caught up with the keeping up with jones in our own little ways. Mine has been by getting a better paying job and making more money then I realized I could. It's afforded me a way of life I couldn't have imagined just ten years ago.
But now we arrive at peak oil and its making me look around and smell the roses so to speak and wonder, can I really change?? Can we change or will it take the downside of peak to make us change?? Lets wonder..
reno,
You betray your youth with that 25 year number.
Actually, advertising; suggesting to people that they buy our product versus the other guy's product has been around for 100's of years.
Look.
Only $750. And for $850 it will burn coal to boot!
But back to your point about changing our way of life.
When that big storm came through California recently, the electricity went out --ALL DAY LONG-- oh my. No TV. No Internet. The electrically controlled heater shut off. The refrigerator shut off.
That was just one short day.
I shudder to think how primitive life will get when the real stuff hits the fan.
"It is odd to watch with what feverish ardor the Americans pursue prosperity. Millions of men are all marching together toward the same point on the horizon; their languages, religions, and mores are different, but they have one common aim. They have been told that fortune is to be found somewhere toward the west, and they hasten to seek it... For them desire for well-being has become a restless, burning passion which increases with satisfaction... they enjoy the sensations as much as the profit...In Europe we habitually regard a restless spirit, a moderate desire for wealth, and an extreme love of independence as great social dangers, but precisely these things assure a long and peaceful future in the American republics."
This was written, about Americans, over 170 years ago!
Spot on, but probably an unachievable goal. Charles Galton Darwin explained why way back in the Fifties of the last century: in the long run homo contracipiens is always beaten by homo progenitivus -- since natural selection ultimately favours the latter.
CGD's essay "Can man control his numbers?" can be found here:
http://www.globalidiot.net/CGDarwinEssay.html
(http://deconsumption.typepad.com/deconsumption/2006/01/breaking_the_ch.html)
I think the bottom line though is that our economy is base on compounding interest. You have to make more money with what was loaned to you in order to pay back the principle AND the interest. Growth is necessary because you're gambling that things will be better (bigger) in the future.
I do not agree.
Economic growth can happen without population growth.
Let's say I run a shop that sells Pet Rocks and Personal Computers (PR's and PC's are Us).
One day I get an order from Inattentive Ivan for 1,000,000 PC's. He meant to check off Pet Rocks, but his pen slipped. Ooops.
Now that is a lot of PC's. I need to hire a handful to technicians to help me make sure all 1,000,000 PC's are in good operating condition before we ship. I need to hire shipping clerks, etc.
When I give my new workers their first pay check, they all go out and spend ... wherever ... the sandwich shop, the clothing store, etc. The "economy" is picking up for everyone because a positive feedabck signal has entered the system. If the positive pulse is big enough, things really start humming.
Just as I'm about to start shipping out those 1,000,000 PC's, Ivan calls me. Made a big mistake he says. It was PR's not PC's. I immediately fire my new techs to cut my losses. They immediately stop visiting the local sandwich shop, the clothing store, etc.
Now the "economy" is going down. If the negative pulse is big enough, things really start collapsing quickly. It's a mindless, run-away system. It has little to do with population. It has to do with getting "demand" signals from customers. When the customer says go, the system goes into pedal to metal mode. When the customer says stop, the emergancy brakes are applied. That is why we constantly see these up and down cycles. It is a mindless machine. We are on it just for the ride.
FIFTY PERCENT!!.....these are studies that dont know about the lack of energy and food we believe to accurate...
EUROPEAN EXTINCTION?
Of course the muslim and 3rd world catholic countries would have multipied many fold by then....
demographics are going to be VERY different.
.....Gosh.... I hope Richard Rainwater and I will be able to find someone we can sell these last few barrels to.
All this requires that more fuels and electricity needs to be available which means more wind, solar, biomass, and new ways of using nuclear energy. Any talk about ending economic growth is just an insulting way of telling 90% of the world's population to drop dead.
BTW, I live near a pretty typical little town in the USA, and almost all of my friends are like me; we don't give a hoot what the other people are driving and living in. Most of our happinesses come from doing simple things and being friends with each other. And I have seen the same things all over the world, among people who have not one tenth of what we here think is poverty.
I just went to a big city. The waste of everything I saw there made me even sicker than what I had that caused me to go there.
That's about to change, and it's going to be painful.
But I don't think we'll protect the poor from the effects of runaway inflation.
If you have an interest in the evolution of money and the "trust" it depends on for value, a fun (but long) series is Neal Stephenson's "Baroque Trilogy". A lot of unrelated stuff in there too of couse...
Growth is certainly related to capital: it's the increase in an economy's capital goods that enables growth (i.e. manufacture and distribution of more goods and wealth). Physical manufacture may be limited by energy resource constraints, but growth in information goods is likely to continue at present or even accelerated rates, unless we have some real disaster that completely disrupts modern civilization. But "capitalism" as a system isn't the only place capital goods increase - the Soviet Union experienced periods of very rapid growth with a decidedly non-capitalist system of production.
The system of money we use now is only an arbitrary but mutually agreed measure of value; interest rates are a measure of its price in a marketplace of supply and demand, and completely unrelated to economic growth rates - except insofar as a growing economy tends to have a higher demand for money. Governments which issue monetary instruments can regulate the supply, at least to some extent, which does have an impact directly on interest rates (lowering supply raises rates, obviously) and indirectly on economic growth (higher interest rates tend to slow growth). But that relationship alone indicates an INVERSE relationship between interest rates and growth rates; in fact, the difference between the two rates in historical experience (not even counting inflation, which is a measure of the decline in accepted market value of money) can be very large in either direction, which should cause anybody to doubt that charging interest bears any direct relationship to economic growth.
And our present capitalist system seems to handle recessions (real declines in economic activity) just fine, so I'm not sure where all this fuss is coming from these days...
...same place it was coming from in the old days. Communism rebranded as anticapitalism, antiindustrialism and doom mongering. It's no coincidence that a whole set of these iseas is being recycled.
My opinion is that the many of the commenters here start with the assumption that the modern world is fated to doom, then try to build a model that explains why.
Name one recession that has not be overcome with government help (being proinflationary in all cases). The argument is that just like growth feeds growth, recession feeds recession - this until the economy reaches a state where new opportunities for growth are available usually with the help of increased government spending and/or low IR. The responsible PO scenarios are claiming that without an alternative energy source the economy will enter a period of ever-widening recessions, followed by ever-shortening periods of growth until we will be hitting the resource limits over and over again. At some point everything will start to fall apart because we will not be able to maintain the infrastructure we have and basicly everybody will start losing faith in the future, including investors who will stop investing and the economy will bring to a halt. If this is not a collapse I don't know how to call it... It may not happen overnight (as maybe some people are imagining) but will happen exactly because we are lacking a mechanism to keep our economic activity in steady state relative to the environment.
Of course this picture is isolated from the likely political and social cataclysms that are likely to happen in the meantime... Basicly the doomsday scenarious are primarily in this area, and for the time being I'm not ruling out any of them completely.
Primary concerns this time centre around the magnitude of global financial imbalances and the scale of the highly leveraged casino called the derivatives market (perhaps $150 trillion?). There are some things too large for any lender of last resort to bail out.
What is the relationship between money-as-debt, economic growth, and net-present-value?
In the current economic system, if I bury $10 for ten years, it will be worth a lot less when I dig it up. The net present value of $10-in-ten-years is small. So I invest the money instead of burying it. Likewise, if I have a resource that I can sell for $10 today or $10 in ten years, I will certainly sell it today.
What happens if $10 will be worth more in 10 years than it is today? The first-level answer seems to be that no one will invest, and there'll be a big sucking sound as everyone's money is buried in the backyard and the stock market collapses.
What is it that controls the future value of $10? There's the interest rate, the inflation rate, the rate of resource creation (not GDP, much of which is simply money shuffling), the rate of resource depletion. And probably a few other things. It's easy to see how people can start to think that it's debt/interest that makes it worthwhile to invest the $10.
If investment is no longer a good idea, but inflation threatens the value of $10 of a particular currency, people will just stop at the gold store on their way from the stock market to the backyard.
If investment falls off, then resources lose some of their value. A widget is worth less when half the widget-users have just gone out of business. Then the widget-makers will start to fail, and the gadgets they use will be worth less. Not only will fewer new widgets and gadgets be created, but half the ones that were created last year can no longer be counted toward propping up the value of the $10.
So it looks like resource creation is not a reliable source of support. Threat of inflation is not a reliable source of support. What's left, other than the debt system, to say that investment is a good idea?
Chris
* your argument mainly refers to inflation vs. deflation, though confused with investment terms - "net present value" of $10 in ten years is somewhat different from the value of a $10 bill when you dig it up after 10 years. The value of the $10 bill after you dig it up is determined precisely by the inflation rate in the intervening period. Net present value of an investment that returns "$10 in ten years", on the other hand, is determined by risks and opportunity costs.
I.e. if there is some chance the investment will return zero instead of $10 (even backyard burial has a risk the money will disappear...), then the net present value of "$10 in ten years" is lowered by a risk premium. You may be thinking of the "$10 in ten years" from a particular investment, but that investment is competing with every other investment that could return "$10 in ten years" (including backyard burial), and the real "net present value" theoretically corresponds to the least expensive of those competing investments that provides the same return.
So if I can invest $1 now that provides "$10 in ten years" with the same risk profile as your investment, the net present value of your investment is in fact $1, or less if there's an even better investment opportunity out there. This investment opportunity cost (and risk premium) has almost no relation to inflation or interest rates - except that interest rates are banks' (and lendees) way of competing for that investment money.
* What does "bury the money in the ground" mean anyway? You have really two choices with money: save it, or spend it. Savings add to the pool of money you have for investment, spending takes away from it. By your same logic, under inflation, people would spend all their money on physical goods now, since they'll only cost more later. By putting off consumptive purchases, deflation therefore leaves more money for investment/savings now.
The situation you describe could be real if no investment provided a positive return; that seems a very unrealistic scenario though, and is quite different from the issue of resource depletion or deflation. At its simplest an investment does two things:
1 - purchase some capital good
2 - use that capital good to produce other goods for sale
To provide no positive return, the monetary value (no net present value discounting etc) of the capital good itself plus revenue from all the goods produced by it, after 10 years, say, would have to be less than the original purchase value of the capital good. There are certainly some investments with such problems, but to have a situation where every potential investment results in an expected loss like that? That would certainly lead people to "bury their money", but I find it hard to see how, even in a resource depleted and/or deflationary world, every such alternate investment opportunity would have a negative return!
http://dnr.louisiana.gov/sec/execdiv/pubinfo/daily-onshore-prod.ssi
on policypete.com.
This report shows the amount of restored production for oil (61%) and natural gas (72.5%) and for pipeline facilities for Louisianna, onshore and continuing out 3 miles offshore (state jurisdiction). This information is separate from that reported by the Minerals Management Service for offshore production.
EIA also released global refining data illustrating a full 86-mbd will be available in 2006, mainly thanx to progress in China. Their table shows all countries and is back dates to 1970. I expect this year's global all liquids extraction to be about 86-mbd. This would seem to indicate 100% capacity but i am confident that someone could enlighten us as to how much of the 86-mbd does not require refining ... e.g. processing gains, etc that are incl in the definition of all liquid production. Stuart, i'm not sure if this is the same table that u used for in part for your awesome recent utilization graph.
Yes but the report also noted that the warmer than normal temperatures contributed to a reduced drawdown of natural gas ( 20 bcf in the week rather than 97 bcf last year). The weather was noted to be more than 30% warmer than normal. Do I gather that you are promising that this will continue for the rest of this winter, and for the winters of the future?
And each time they cry wolf on a coming crisis, be it gas or oil, their credibility flounders. That is why mainstream media discounts the Peakists. Few of the latter do their homework and the media doesn't want to be associated with their perpetual wrong calls...
Because NG trough will be what you predicted is partially based on your diligence (and I do agree that many Peak Oilers probably dont do their homework) but partly based on the luck of a warm winter.
However, what do you say to the fact that even as Jan/Feb?March contracts are dropping like stones, 2008 contracts are making all time highs? Seems to me no one is predicting the weather 2 years out, but they are predicting a structural problem in nat gas market. What are your predictions for nat gas prices from 2008-2012? A broad range would be fine. I think we are permanently above $20 mcf by 2010, at least in North America. My opinion is based on the depletion rates of new wells, and the lack of fast switching ability for nat gas users, and partially due to peaking in oil before then.
Poll results after show re "who won":
Corsi 62%
Ruppert 38%
Corsi just talked bullshit all night.
By the way, I read Ruppert's book and think he is pretty much right on the money about everything, including 9/11.
The egg here is not on Simmons face.
Why this visceral dislike for Mike Ruppert by some people on this board? Why does Matt Simmons have credibility by Ruppert doesn't? Because of 911? That's still a real hot button issue isn't it? Can't deal with it rationally. Must be in our genes.
http://lobg2.blogspot.com/2005_10_01_lobg2_archive.html
scroll down to October 24th entry on this blog.
http://tinyurl.com/9bsap
==AC
The question is timely because it seems unlikely that the US would want a war with Iran without first topping off these energy reserves. War with Iran is sure to cause a spike in the price of crude and probably shortages in some places (Europe?) due to overall tightness in the market. It is not like the Saudis can simply fill a gap in production to compensate for Iran going off line.
http://www.fe.doe.gov/news/techlines/2005/tl_spr_drawdown2005_1.html
So how long does it take to put 11.6 million (or so) barrels back?
So 30 million US plus 30 million IEA plus 12.5 million US = 72.5 million barrels.
China is following in the deflationary footsteps of Japan 15 years earlier. Japanese buyers needed intergenerational mortgages to buy homes in Tokyo before their bubble burst. The collapse of their real estate market caused huge difficulties for their banking system (which have yet to be fully resolved). In 15 years, Japan went from being the world's largest creditor to being the world's second largest debtor after the US.
China is at the beginning of the same process of unwinding the excesses of a huge credit boom. I would expect their surplus to be sacrificed to unsuccessful attempts to reflate the bubble, just as Japan's was.
I have seen much higher estimates.
Does this population growth result in increased economic growth?
At what rate of largely unskilled immigration will our health care, educational, and other social structures be overwhelmed such that needs become greater every year?
As I mentioned above, Greenspan claims we owe all the economic growth of the past 20 years to immigration. Not only do immigrants increase our population by moving here, they increase it for 2-3 generations, because they tend to have larger families, until fully assimilated.
"Maryland lawmakers yesterday approved legislation that would effectively require Wal-Mart to boost spending on health care, a direct legislative thrust against a corporate giant that is already on the defensive on many fronts nationwide."
Considering the age structure of the vast majority of the immigrants I would rather say it the other way around:
"At how much lower rate of immigration the getting older work force will not be abble to support our healthcare and retirement systems?"
It's a difficult issue. If the resources of the world were evenly distributed among all the people on earth, it would mean a massive drop in our standard of living, even without peak oil. Clearly, we have the farthest to fall. It may be reasonable to expect us to give up more than others. But realistically...no one's going to want to do that.
Do you have any links to the unexplained population collapse in the Roman Empire?
Thanks.
Interesting.
Maybe, one dark night, the slaves slit the necks of their masters? Then, the next morning, the slaves did not know how to keep the Empire they had inherited running? So they walked away. The wealth distribution hockey stick had come to its logical end.
I think there was ample evidence that Rome was under economic stress. Namely the debasement of their currency.
The debasement of the currency and increased taxation were responses to the dramatic rise of Perisan power in the mid-third century. (The emperor Valerian was captured in battle in 259.) The economy responded to the demands for more resources for the army and had stabilized by the end of the third century. The first Gothic invasion into Thrace did not occur until 377, and Gaul was not invaded until 405.
The final crisis in the West did not really begin until the Vandals captured the wealthy North African provinces (the granary of Rome) beginning in 435. This took a massive bite out of imperial tax revenues making it impossible, after Rome's failure to retake North Africa, for it to maintain sufficient military forces to retain control of Gaul and Spain.
The "collapse" of Roman civilization happened after the end of Roman political authority in the Western Empire in 476. Indeed, the worst crisis did not come until much later with the triple invasions of the Saracens, the Magyars and the Northmen into the Germanic successor kingdoms.
Thank you.
So to summarize: It was just a series of external poundings, each one making the Empire weaker (i.e. loss of North African graineries) until the last few jabs knocked the heavy weight champ down for good?
Europe was in her Dark Ages between the fall of Rome and the invention by James Watt around 1769 of the steam engine.
With coal and steam at hand, the Age of Enlightenment and Fossil Power had begun. Industrialization had begun.
We've never quite looked back and worried about a new Dark Age ... until now.
"External poundings" are not something unusual. They are part of the job description for complex societies. Indeed, dealing with "external poundings" is what complex societies are for.
I don't agree that Roman Empire would still be around today, were it not for those pesky barbarians. They were facing diminishing returns, which made it only a matter of time.
Greer also has an explanation for why the eastern Empire survived for so much longer than the Western:
The Roman collapse has an instructive feature which offers further support to the model presented here. In 297 the emperor Diocletian divided the empire into western and eastern halves. Coordination between them waned, and by the death of Theodosius I in 395, the two halves of the empire were effectively independent states. Since the western empire produced 1/3 the revenues of the eastern empire, but had more than twice as much northern frontier to defend against barbarian encroachments, this placed most of the original empire's vulnerabilities in one half and most of its remaining resources in the other. In terms of the catabolic collapse model, the eastern Empire allowed massive quantities of relatively unproductive, high-maintenance capital to be converted to waste, bringing its M(p) below its remaining C(p) and breaking out of the catabolic cycle. The eastern empire's territory decreased further with the Muslim conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries CE; while this was involuntary the effects were the same. Successfully shifting to a level of organization that could be supported sustainably by trade and agriculture within a more manageable territory, the eastern Empire survived for nearly a millennium longer than its western twin (Bury 1923).
IMO, crediting the barbarians for the fall of Rome is like crediting Reagan with the fall of the Soviet Union. The events he set in motion as president may have affected the timing, but they had structural problems long before Reagan was elected. No matter who was elected, they would have collapsed eventually.
I'll stick with real historians.
The facts are that the Empire, after Constantine, was divided in two for administrative purposes but it was always one Empire. Greer is wrong to see East and West as two separate entities. Throughout the crises of the 5th century, the East responded with significant military force to the West's problems. Eastern forces were decisive in driving Attila the Hun from northern Italy, and Constantinople bankrupted itself launching an ill-fated joint naval expedition with the goal of retaking North Africa for Rome.
I confess, I don't give a lot of credence to historians. Tainter covers this to some extent; what survives, especially when you're talking about ancient civilizations, is not complete, and is not necessarily a random sampling of information. That is why he concentrated on things like the debasement of the currency and tax laws when he analyzed Rome's collapse. There is complete information about those.
Tainter is an archaeologist, and his book is widely used as an anthropology textbook. That is the direction I think is most useful when you're studying collapse - a scientific one. The proximate cause of Rome's collapse may well be military or political conflict, but that was not the ultimate cause. They handled the Germanic tribes just fine earlier in their history, after all.
And I think this is very relevant to the topic of peak oil. Peak oil will cause the collapse of the United States. But not overnight. Possibly not for centuries. We'll struggle on for decades, perhaps centuries. Likely converting all our resources and capital to waste, as Greer describes. When future historians write the history of the American Empire, they'll blame the collapse on wars, or plagues, or our shortsighted disregard for the environment. Few will recognize 1970 - peak oil USA - as being significant.
I think it comes down to a different way of thinking. History is liberal arts in most colleges, while archaeology/anthropolgy is science. It's an entirely different approach.
I vote for number 2 --the germs won.
Many people believe that we humans are at the top of the "food chain".
To throw them off their tall pedestals, I sometimes remind them that the germs always eat us, that is, after we have tenderized a bit from our short stay 6 feet under. ;-)
In my opinion, large portions of the Southern states need to IMMEDIATELY ban outdoor watering of lawns and implement water conservation measures similar to Santa Fe's. The current weather patterns may be with us for a long time.
http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=5548&fcategory_desc=Environment
Climate Collapse: The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare
By: David Stipp
Fortune
Excerpt:
Though triggered by warming, such change would probably cause cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, leading to longer, harsher winters in much of the U.S. and Europe. Worse, it would cause massive droughts, turning farmland to dust bowls and forests to ashes. Picture last fall's California wildfires as a regular thing.
From Drudge:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-01-12-arizona-drought_x.htm
State could have its driest winter season in centuries
PHOENIX (AP) -- As much of Arizona enters an 11th year of drought conditions, the state could experience its driest winter season in centuries.
And that has officials worried about agriculture, water supplies and the threat of wildfires.
Arizona's mountains are virtually bare, with snowpack conditions worse than they were at the same time in 2002 -- a year that set records as one of the driest in five centuries.
Rural areas are bracing for water shortages by early summer if rains don't come.
January and February typically bring much of the snow needed to refill reservoirs and keep rivers and forests healthy.
But a stubborn weather pattern has been steering every storm north of Arizona so far this winter.
The Salt and Verde rivers' watersheds received just 0.14 of an inch of rain in November and December, and none has fallen in Phoenix since Oct. 18.
"I've never seen anything like this," said Larry Martinez, water supply specialist for the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service. "It's quite shocking to a lot of folks who depend on the snow. There could still be a miracle turnaround; don't underestimate Mother Nature. But the trend doesn't look good for us right now."
Farmers who draw on smaller rivers and reservoirs could run short this year. The lack of rain will increase the demand for water early in growing seasons, which will further weaken supplies.
Poor range conditions could tighten grazing allotments, squeezing ranchers who have yet to recover from earlier dry years.
Meanwhile, some experts are already predicting one of the worst wildfire seasons in years around Arizona with a lethal combination of drying trees and dried-out grass and shrubs.
The state Department of Water Resources had begun meeting with local leaders under a drought plan produced two years ago by a governor's task force.
That process, led in part by a newly appointed statewide drought coordinator, is expected to take on added importance as rural communities seek guidance in creating drought and conservation blueprints.
The main effect of the dry winter in the Phoenix metropolitan area is an increase in water consumption, say city water departments.
Mesa increased its use of Central Arizona Project water by 17% in November and 26% in December.
Whether cities will be forced to dip into other reserves depends on the weather for the next two or three months. Forecasters are predicting warm, dry conditions.
Source: IPCC 2001 report
We in Australia are getting hotter days and more droughts.
Sydney on New Years day was 113F (45C) at 9pm that night it was 104. Next day the temperature was 77. This was the hottest day on record.
Our political masters don't get it. Clean Coal and desalination of water are the answer we are told. The band plays on!! If you saw what happened at the climate summit held this week you would wring your hands. Bodman told everyone that Nuclear is a renewable form of energy.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/greenhouse-battle-handed-to-industry/2006/01/12/1136956303520.ht ml
Meanwhile some people are making not waiting for govt to fix it they are now installing rainwater tanks to water their gardens and flush their toilets. In Sydney we already have Category 3 water restrictions. We can only water our gardens 3 days a week and cannot wash our cars with a hose. Car wash businesses are exempt. Funny that.
http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SavingWater/WaterRestrictions/
Many want light rail to replace buses in the city but again politics intervenes to keep the status quo. Peak oil and Greenhouse are certainly two horseman riding together.
http://phuket-post.com/article.php?id=110
From Publishers Weekly
Egan tells an extraordinary tale in this visceral account of how America's great, grassy plains turned to dust, and how the ferocious plains winds stirred up an endless series of "black blizzards" that were like a biblical plague: "Dust clouds boiled up, ten thousand feet or more in the sky, and rolled like moving mountains" in what became known as the Dust Bowl. But the plague was man-made, as Egan shows: the plains weren't suited to farming, and plowing up the grass to plant wheat, along with a confluence of economic disaster--the Depression--and natural disaster--eight years of drought--resulted in an ecological and human catastrophe that Egan details with stunning specificity. He grounds his tale in portraits of the people who settled the plains: hardy Americans and immigrants desperate for a piece of land to call their own and lured by the lies of promoters who said the ground was arable. Egan's interviews with survivors produce tales of courage and suffering: Hazel Lucas, for instance, dared to give birth in the midst of the blight only to see her baby die of "dust pneumonia" when her lungs clogged with the airborne dirt. With characters who seem to have sprung from a novel by Sinclair Lewis or Steinbeck, and Egan's powerful writing, this account will long remain in readers' minds. (Dec. 14)
http://www.platts.com/Oil/Resources/News%20Features/opec/3.xml
Country......Dec .... Nov .... Oct .... Sep .... Aug .. Quota
Algeria......1.370... 1.370... 1.360... 1.350... 1.350.. 0.894
Indonesia... 0.930 ...0.930... 0.930... 0.930....0.940.. 1.451
Iran........ 3.930... 3.950....3.950... 3.950....4.000.. 4.110
Iraq........ 1.550... 1.700....1.800....1.990....1.890... N/A
Kuwait ......2.540... 2.550... 2.550... 2.550... 2.550.. 2.247
Libya....... 1.660... 1.660....1.650....1.650....1.650.. 1.500
Nigeria..... 2.420... 2.450....2.450....2.450....2.450...2.306
Qatar .......0.800....0.800....0.800 ...0.790....0.790.. 0.726
Saudi Arabia 9.500 ...9.550....9.500....9.560....9.550.. 9.099
UAE......... 2.500... 2.490... 2.480....2.480....2.470...2.444
Venezuela....2.600....2.600....2.600....2.610....2.620.. 3.223
Total...... 29.800... 30.050. 30.070...30.310...30.260... N/A
One of the things I think he was wrong about was how capitalism would come to an end. He thought industry and science would develop to the point where it became possible to give everyone a decent life materially---and that crises of overproduction (relative to demand) would eventually lead to revolution and bring it down. But no---it turns out that that impossibility of continuing growth is going to bring it down.
Yeah, most people want more stuff. But hunter gatherers didn't, they had to carry it. Agriculture led to acquisitiveness in the ruling classes. I'm with the hunter-gatherers, except I don't hunt and don't gather. My wife is still gathering, unfortunately.
Anyway, this century is going to force us to bring the whole thing under control one way or another. Doesn't matter what we want. Cuba has been forced to deal with some of these issues ahead of others. There's an article by Pat Murphy some place out there on just these issues.
Anyway, I'm an old Marxist who's had to do a lot of rethinking about stuff. I couldn't find "peak oil" in the index to any of the three volumes of Capital.
No, you were not the last one up thinking. I was never a Marxist or any other "ist." But like you, an old dreamer who has come to the same conclusion. I used to think that the 21st century had such promise. Now, within 20 or 30 years, we must pass through the eye of the needle. We will have to grow up. We will have to start again, differently this time.
We must change the way we think about living, its purpose and direction. Consumption cannot be an end in itself. Business cannot be an end in itself. Endless growth is not a possibility. The time is coming when only the dreamers will be the realists.
The others...well, sometimes I think they will always be as shadows in Plato's cave. And what they grasp will be as air...as it has always been.
In the long run the post carbon economy will come. If there is no fusion power it will be like the pre-carbon economy. In the very long run, if there will be no fusion power - and may be, even if there will be (because of the depletion of the raw materials), the result we be like the Olduvai theory says - back to the beginning. It would not be possible to keep up the very complex industrial structure to produce solar panels or windmills or keep up scientific knowledge. And the humanity will never have a change to climb up again. We are on the very top now! Enjoy it and consume, if you can. Later on, you will have no need to rant about consumerism.
But in the shorter run, capitalism will survive. Capitalism is not really about capital, it is about energy. Without energy capital is useless. Workers do not make it work, capital without energy makes feudalism or slavery, systems where the only source of surplus value is labor and land ownership. But this means that capitalism doesn't need economic growth, only external energy. We know this for sure. Capitalism did not collapse as such during severe depressions and negative growth or stagnation.
The market economy, as we know it, is more vulnerable. Those anti-capitalists who dislike capitalism but accept market economy will be surprised: capitalism will survive the energy crisis better than the markets. Despite much talk about neoliberalism the regulation network will only tighten and rigidity will increase.
It was a tad more complicated than that. Pre-carbon economies were indeed largely based on elite landowners dominating a vast class of agricultural laborers who were slaves in the ancient world and serfs in the medieval world. Nonetheless, there was as well a merchant class living in cities who engaged in many of the activities we would call capitalistic. Don't forget that, e.g., international merchant banking, intenational trade fairs and double entry bookeeping were medieval inventions.
I don't see any reason why some features of a capitalist economic system won't endure in a post-carbon world. Rather, it's the Industrial Revolution which will likely be reversed absent a revolutionary new development in energy (dilithium crystals, anyone?). While the Industrial Revolution of the 19th Century, fueled first by coal then by oil, gave an enormous boost to capitalism -- indeed the vast pools of capital that 19th century industrialists amassed is what first comes to mind when we think of "capitalism" -- the basic mechanics of a capitalist economic system are, I would argue, independent of a carbon-based economy.
However, I suspect the workability of capitalism depends on resources. In a world where most resources and capital have been converted to waste, capitalism may seem as unworkable and obsolete as communism seems now.
It's true that capitalism survived the Great Depression, but that was what, 4 years of negative growth? What happens if there's 40 years of negative growth?
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060114/BUSINESS04/601140314/1001/NEWS
I guess that $1 a gallon government subsidy is what's really driving this madness..
COUNTDOWN TO ENERGY WAR
by Jim Willie CB
January 13, 2006
Excerpt:
THE GLOBAL PICTURE OF CONFLICT
A global energy war has begun, which will involve oil as its center and conflict over it both regionally and globally. The war will forge two-way and three-way partnerships. In the course of securing relationships built upon sales & supply contracts, large construction, production, and exploration contracts will guarantee and lock up the sale of output as a reward. Enormous capital requirements are outlined. Furthermore, risks abound, as some new prospective energy properties might contain large risks on cost assessment and time estimations. The extreme risk is for the USA to be locked out of all new marginal supply from East Asia to West Asia as far as to West Africa, and even to lose some of the current supply reaching the market. Over the course of the next two years, a global battle will surely erupt to secure the energy deposits, and to control shipping lanes. It will be a miracle if military conflict is averted in the battle for progressively more scarce energy supplies. In 2006, the severity and seriousness of the conflict will come front & center to the geopolitical stage.
By the way, Pakistan is not pleased with the recent missile attacks on terrorist suspects. It would be analogous to Mexico blowing up a building in San Antonio in an attempt to kill terrorist suspects that Mexico believed to be hiding out in Texas.
http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10479
Aljazeera: Referring Iran to the UNSC will send oil prices to $100 a barrel
Excerpt:
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
Madison's words should be taken seriously by the American people and world community. The deteriorating situation on the ground in IRAQ portends an even direr situation for American soldiers and the People of the world community - should the U.S. pursue a similar strategy regarding Iran.
The Qatar-based Aljazeera is at: aljazeera.net
http://rss.openomy.com/download/get/416
http://rss.openomy.com/download/get/417
http://rss.openomy.com/download/get/418
http://rss.openomy.com/download/get/419
"Given the relatively small variations in the shut-in statistics, beginning Wednesday, January 11, 2006, MMS will issue Hurricane Katrina/Hurricane Rita Evacuation and Production Shut-in Statistics every 2 weeks. The report will be posted on the www.mms.gov website at 2:00 p.m. EST on Wednesdays. In the last few days there has been minimal improvement in the production numbers and this appears to be a trend that will continue with incremental movement over the next several months.
These evacuations are equivalent to 12.21% of 819 manned platforms and 0.00% of 134 rigs currently operating in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM).
Today's shut-in oil production is 396,786 BOPD. This shut-in oil production is equivalent to 26.45 % of the daily oil production in the GOM, which is currently approximately 1.5 million BOPD.
Today's shut-in gas production is 1.805 BCFPD. This shut-in gas production is equivalent to 18.05% of the daily gas production in the GOM, which is currently approximately 10 BCFPD.
The cumulative shut-in oil production for the period 8/26/05-1/11/06 is 114,042,425 bbls, which is equivalent to 20.83% of the yearly production of oil in the GOM (approximately 547.5 million barrels).
The cumulative shut-in gas production 8/26/05-1/11/06 is 585.308 BCF, which is equivalent to 16.036 % of the yearly production of gas in the GOM (approximately 3.65 TCF)."
In other words, these values are no longer changing much. How long before MMS stops reporting these and abandons that roughly 400kbpd oil production as permanently lost?