The best thing about Peak Oil and the coming financial apocalypse is...

[Peak_Oil]

1. No more Wal*Mart
2. No more Chinese imported crap
3. No more 3,000 mile Caesar Salad
4. Our Canadian neighbors will move down here in droves, bringing a kinder and gentler culture.
5. No more interstate highways = no more Mickey D's! Local business again! YAY!
6. Communities will MEAN SOMETHING again.
7. Less US violence overseas to steal resources
8. We may indeed shore up our border to the south
9. More locally produced food grown organically... healthier?
10. Lifespans decline, with less meaningless suffering into 80's and 90's
11. Black helicopters permanently grounded
12. You'll ride horses again!
13. Gap between rich and poor will close up again!

There's a better world emerging! Bike to work! Solar power! Less garbage and shit everywhere! Less smog!

[taxidriver]

1. other: anarchic civil war.

[The Zanti Regent]

106. ...but when Jesus comes back, he'll make ALL THE OIL WE NEED...

...that is what my idiot family believes; they're all brainwashed by the ASSemblies of GOD...

[iconoclastic cat]

2. No, we'll become Brazil.

[Swamp Rat]

99. That would be a GOOD thing!

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Or we go back to the Gilded era with its robber barons

The haves are still going to have piles of $$ and 12 houses. They'll just need alternative transportation to get around from one to the other. :P

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Let me just say, with all respect,

BULLSHIT

A post-petroleum collapse will mean that millions of people -- perhaps most of the people alive -- will die of hunger, cold, disease, and war.

Wal-Mart is nothing compared to living through a period of famine, massive civil unrest, and homelessness.

I hope you were posting tongue-in-cheek. There's a lot of people with a romantic, rosy picture of Life After The End, but it won't be like that at all. No organic communes, no Manly Men living on Guts, Honor and Firearms, no libertarian utopia without Big Gummint, and what few horses there will be, will be gaunt and sickly.

If we fumble the next twenty years or so, we can realistically expect to die in misery as our world sinks into a centuries-long dark age.

--bkl

[Deja Q]

6. You BOTH are correct, but to varying degrees...

Short term will be the death of billions. BILLIONS.

And that's just the start.

People used to music and TV won't have it anymore.

Used to heating up your home? Not anymore. People will migrate to the southern states. But those with a low tolerance to heat are more likely to die.

How much land can still be used for farming? The more topsoil we destroy in the name of 'more housing' will starve us of FOOD, fuck this shit about MONEY (and everybody knows I love to rant about how money is evil, and this scenario epitomizes the concept superlatively.)

Eventually, and assuming we maintain leaders of ethical ability, the next civilization may be a better one. But I doubt it. So, BKL, you are the one who's more correct overall... it's not going to be pretty.

It could be peak oil (when collecting the oil takes more energy to do than the amount of energy oil provides) or when we can no longer gt at any oil.

Makes me wish Reagan was never voted in...

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Put your double-layer tinfoil hat on for these

http://www.spiritnexus.org/earth-changes/atlas-maps/world.htm

[Peak_Oil]

12. Get the f*** outta here.

What the hell was that for? I'm still trying to get my head around peak oil and you gotta throw THAT into the mix?

[taxidriver]

49. i dont understand the signifigance of the map.

help, please.

[GreenPartyVoter]

87. Oh, there's a bunch of psychics out there that predict

the Earth will flip its poles magnetically, rotate on its axis, and experience sea level flooding and new ice ages. That particular map I linked to is one of the more extreme ones.

Not that it has anything to do with peak oil. *lol*

[Peak_Oil]

11. Maybe, maybe not.

I know the lurches and horrors ahead of us are going to suck big time. No question about it. It will be inconceivable how our world will change.

My fears have moderated a bit lately, though. My worst fears have kept me from sleeping lately, and I just don't think it's going to be as bad as I thought.

People will die. People will lose everything. People will riot and revolt. There will be slaughter in the streets. Yes, that is completely horrible.

In the countryside, armed bandits will swoop in on unsuspecting survivors and kill them for the smallest morsel of food.

Actually, there go my greatest fears again. Dammmit!

Maybe it'll be more like Haiti.

I also think a lot of the dieoff will happen in places other than the USA. I think we will be most fortunate, relatively speaking. India though... very serious trouble.

[Gman]

8. I gotta agree with you

I don't see any list of good things. I see only bad things due to our shortsightedness.

[indigobusiness]

15. You are correct, sir.

We are too pampered and divorced from the "real" world to cope with a melt-down.

We would be toast.

[StandUpGuy]

64. I think you made a mistake ...

"A post-petroleum collapse will mean that millions of people -- perhaps most of the people alive -- will die of hunger, cold, disease, and war."


How about...


PRE-petroleum collapse HAS meant that millions of people -- perhaps most of the people alive -- will die of hunger, cold, disease, and war.

[Dogmudgeon]

68. Great point!

My point was simply one of velocity. Imagining a series of breakdowns over the 21st century -- a slow scenario at that -- it is very likely that the world population will peak at 8 billion around 2010-2015, and die back to 500 million by 2100.

A fast-breakdown scenario would put us at the 500 million mark around 2040.

Fast breakdown with world-wide warfare? We could lose four billion in the course of a year with nuclear and biochemical warfare. This scenario becomes more likely every year, since it's only a matter of time before hard-case radicals of any stripe get access to a large number of nuclear weapons. If Pakistan falls to radicals, that's somewhere between 20 and 100 atomic bombs with yields around 50kT that become instant Wild Cards.

China will also have an increased incentive to wage war for energy.

Remember, too, that nearly all terrestrial food production is now based on petrochemical-derived fertilizers. The "Green Revolution" is only possible with high soil nitrogen densities. Those densities just aren't possible with recycled sewage and compost.

Then, the ongoing climate change is another factor that can't be ignored. Harsh heat waves without air conditioning will mean more deaths -- and a climatic snap-back to an ice age (little or major) would make most of Europe, half of Asia, and almost all of Canada uninhabitable. That's a total of some 700-900 million people who would be turned into refugees.

This is why I hope some kind of Manhattan Project for energy usage is established -- internationally. We are nearly at the Zero Hour, and every minute we waste now will be reckoned in lives later. And some of them will be our lives.

Sorry to sound so morbid about it. I see it as an avoidable problem, but I have no faith in our "leaders" to avoid it at all. A die-of would be great for the dreams of political power of the little men who currently run the human abbatoir.

--bkl

[StandUpGuy]

73. Great post

Again I'd like to argue one point though.

"Remember, too, that nearly all terrestrial food production is now based on petrochemical-derived fertilizers. The "Green Revolution" is only possible with high soil nitrogen densities. Those densities just aren't possible with recycled sewage and compost."

You must factor in trade rules set up by western powers and agri-business demand for land use.

If we didn't pay farmers to set aside land to create artificial scarcity, or forced people to grow what could only be shipped abroad then we may in fact have sustainability after the petro collapse.

[Dogmudgeon]

76. True again

Modern agriculture is highly artificial. American society could easily convert to "craft agriculture", but in most parts of the world, even Europe, without "Green Revolution" agriculture, near-universal hunger would inevitable. And not just hunger, but out-and-out famine. Most Americans and Canadians don't realize just how rich and fruitful is the continent we live on. It's as close to Eden as anywhere we know of, and it's "ours".

As you wrote,

... we may in fact have sustainability after the petro collapse.

After a crash, yes, we could create a sustainable and robust world agriculture. The problem is getting from here (6.5 billion people, with 1.5 billion experiencing periodic hunger) to there (a smaller number of people, but better fed).

Simply convincing most Americans to practice vegetarianism wouldn't be nearly enough to re-balance the use of cropland. We would still have serious famine problems, especially since animal husbandry is only as wasteful as it is in America -- the carnivorous equivalent of the Green Revolution. A poorly-adaptive supertechnology is part of the problem all around, as I believe you are arguing. And politics is built into modern agriculture -- which would scare anyone who pays attention to it.

The transition scenario is the major concern. It's never too late for Humanity to collectively wise up, but how much suffering and death are we ready to accept until we get there? We already have the coping tools we need -- every other end-of-the-world New Ager talks about how "the coming changes" will "cleanse" Humanity. In this case, the "cleansing" could come at the expense of 6 billion souls being karmically recycled, and I can't accept that since I have no confidence in reincarnation. But if the world population in 2070 has fallen to, say, 800 million, just such a new-agey belief system will be needed to explain all those corpses releasing nitrogen for re-use.

When I first confronted the magnitude of death caused by WWII, I was nearly in shock. Fifty million people died in that war. But when you consider an "oil crash", you're suddenly confronting an engine of destruction over one hundred times as deadly as WWII but with no singular Hitler-figure to blame.

Part of my proposed Manhattan-Like Project would include developing crops that can "fix" atmospheric nitrogen. At that point, we could revert to lower-tech agriculture, and if multiculture involving nitrogen-fixing bacteria is part of the equation we would almost have to revert -- Green Revolution and super-hybridization are genetic disasters waiting to happen.

We would be repairing the problems science created by using more science, which would in turn introduce a new set of problems, but if we let our technology develop according to what we learn through that same scientific process -- rather than yoking scientific work to profit and nothing else -- we would have a clear opportunity to develop a high-tech civilization that we could sustain indefinitely AND spare the Earth the burden we are now placing on it.

We DO have a good chance to live through our mistakes and build a better world. I'd just prefer that we not do it on the corpses of five or six billion people who died miserably long before the end of their natural lifespans.

--bkl

[StandUpGuy]

78. Damn I'm saving that one

OK I fully agree.

Now a question.

Can we expect our current political system to be flexible enough for the changes necessary in the time frame required?

[Dogmudgeon]

88. Can we? Yes. Will we? Toss a coin!

Even our political system is flexible enough. There is really no reason why we can't avoid most, or even all, of the coming crisis, and set about transforming our world into a utopia, and do it within the lifetime of the average political movement -- eight years or so in the USA.

Except for one little thing: The people in power need to make some sacrifices of their own, and they are not going to do that. I'm not even talking about yuppies. The real power elites in the world thrive on human misery, and a seemingly uncontrollable situation that plunges the world into misery will be their utopia.

A wiser man than I once wrote, "'tis better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven." And there are more than enough of Hell's little princes in this world to keep progress from happening. Look at the damage that just the Bush and Saud cabals have done. And as the human toll rises, newer, more ingenious devils will step up to claim their empires of rotting human flesh.

But if enough people get wise fast enough and demand life-affirming change, life-affirming change will happen. Part of the job ahead will be to convince our existing world-wide "petty bourgeoisie" that they won't be among the favored. When Satan learns that he has to strike a bargain with Man, Satan will take the easy way out and tender a bid instead of seizing the premises by force and fire.

One irony is that for all our talk about morality and good-and-evil, this crisis really will bring good and evil into high contrast, and we can't assume that white American Christian Anglo-Saxons will be leading the Saints Triumphant into the New Jerusalem. To avoid an apocalypse, it is necessary to reject that apocalypse, and not one of us will be spared the necessity of making that choice. Trading apocalypse for survival means trading fantasy for reality, even though reality is more painful in the short run.

For us lefties, it may mean having to accept nuclear energy as a stopgap measure and abandon our dreams of an Arcadian utopia of organic vegetarianism and immersive entertainment technology. Neo-Cons will have to abandon their fever dream of universal compulsory capitalism, two Hummers in every garage and a parking space for each one in the Mall and the Church parking lots. And would any of us really welcome a stricter form of governance over our lives?

I don't want to imply that these are inevitable, or even desirable. Dreamscapes containing Nukes, Hummers, happy-face Fascism, loin-girding and self-flagellation all miss the point. I DO want to show how it won't be an easy task. However, it can be a rewarding task. Our lives may have less material wealth, but a much greater measure of achievement and "making a difference." (And I don't think that we will be that much poorer if we start on it right now.)

Yes, we can do it. That's never the problem -- human beings are capable of the most incredible feats even the Gods can imagine. The problem is one of forging the necessities of survival into the will of humanity. We have only our legions of Hell's entrepreneurs to go through to get there. But I am certain that when the moneychangers of Hell realize they can get a better deal, they will happily invest in Heaven.

--bkl

[neebob]

71. Why will the horses be gaunt and sickly?

[Dogmudgeon]

81. Starving horses. And dogs. And cats.

People eat first.

A die-off from an economic disaster would bring famine. All domestic animals, depending on humans to feed them, would be in immediate danger of dying.

I don't think widespread famine will hit North America, though; but we won't have enough food and livery resources to provision every family with a horse. Even cats and non-working dogs will be too expensive for most people to keep.

Outside of North America, people will not just be not feeding their animals, they will be eating them. And I suspect that if meat becomes prohibitively expensive here in North America, people will learn to cook with domestic animals.

We think famine is common today. It is not. Many people are on reducing diets involuntarily, but they can survive on 2000 kCal per day, even if 2800 kCal is optimum. And the situation in Sudan is tragic, but it's still small.

Imagine, if you will, an entire world like Sudan is today, with five or six billion people starving on diets of under 1200 kCal per day, and having to deal with out-of-control bands of soldiers and police who have gone rogue and turned into the gangs of thugs we commonly see in apocalyptic fiction.

Well, unless we face what's coming and face it now, that is the kind of world we will have to live in, in as little as ten years -- probably more like 25. But with the world's elites blindly following their insatiable appetites for power, it will happen.

And we'll be able to watch it all on advanced low-power HDTV -- if we haven't been evicted for nonpayment of rent or mortgage when 90% of our jobs evaporate.

The good news is that we can still make the changes we need to avoid a die-off. The hour is late, but it's not too late. There is still hope, opportunity, and desire. And I assert that we have the will, too.

Which, I assume, is one of the reasons why we are Democrats, whether written with a capital or lower-case "D".

--bkl

[nose pin]

83. Don't worry

The horses will be eaten by the Canadians before they get that skinny.

[WLKjr]

75. I second that

It's all about the oil revenue/supply stupid. A finacial collapse like that would mean a breakout of world wide war, famine, starvation and poverty. You think your bad off now with a Wal-Mart down the street or a SUV in your driveway, watch when the resource war starts. There will be total chaos every corner you look. The rich will still be rich, and the poor will just die. It will be survival of the fittest, and every man/woman for themselves. The End, will not be a utopia, but world not recognized by yourself or anyone else.

I attack the idea posted, not you so don't take offense to it.

[asthmaticeog]

5. Yeah, great,

the physically weak will be dominated and perhaps often killed by the physically strong, who'll also plunder those little independent businesses you can't wait for, since there won't be money for municiplaities to maintain police forces anymore. Hell, there won't be money for municipalities to maintain municipalities.

And those horses? Where are we gonna get 'em? Do YOU know how to "break" a horse? I sure as hell don't. The coming financial apocalypse will be a BOON to the folks who already have resources and property. The rest of us can count the days 'till we're slaughtered for whatever food we might posess.

BTW, what makes you think we'll shore up our southern border but Canada won't?

Anyway, running out of oil isn't the problem - it's the declining production on the way to running out that's going to cause a serious depression and possible population-cull. And the very rich will be able to survive that. And since we're not using solar, wind, and hydrogen power now, we need oil to build solar panels, windmills and fuel-cells. I don't see anyone doing that yet on any large scale. Will we start in time to equip everyone before it's no longer feasable? Suuuuuure we will.

Sorry to be a downer, but historically, chaos doesn't uplift anyone.

[Deja Q]

7. To lose is to win, and he who wins shall lose...

It's sad, really. The worst of our species are the ones who'll survive. If you can call that survival and it wouldn't be long term.

Those with money only know how to play with money. They play golf on the side, they have no clue how to SURVIVE. And their money will be just about worthless. They will HAVE to rely on farmers and luck. And the economy those with money created DISCOURAGES FARMING.

They will be just as dead. The beauty is, they'll get to live longer.

[Birthmark]

10. Peak Oil is nonsense

Just sayin'. :)

[Geo55]

13. Have you actually explored the subject or are you "just sayin'" ?

[Birthmark]

16. I've explored it in as much detail...

...as I could tolerate. Will we run out of oil one day? Yup. Will it be the apocalypse? Nope. The logical fallacies of the Peak Oil doomsday scenario alone could fuel humanity's energy needs for tens of millenia...if only we could figure out a way to harness them.

[shadu]

17. Please give us a quick run down

I have never thought about this before.
When will the oil run out, anyway?

[Birthmark]

22. Here's some

All quotes are taken from this site: http://dieoff.org/page171.htm

"Ultimately the renewable must completely fill the gap left by the depletion of oil, for the nonrenewable beyond oil which include coal, nuclear, oil sands, shale oil (so far an unrealized source), geothermal energy, and hydro-electric power, will also ultimately be gone."

Geothermal energy is going to be gone? lol When? A million years or a billion? I don't think that the earth is going to run out of heat anytime soon. The overwhelming majority of scientists would agree with me.

Similarly, I see no reason to suppose that rivers will stop flowing. I guess that I'm just not enlightened. I mean, after all I didn't even know this:

"(Note: Dammed reservoirs eventually all fill with silt, and all geothermal electric power facilities show some decline to a greater or lesser extent. In the longer term, neither hydro-electric power nor geothermal energy for electric power generation is a renewable resource)."

See? I'm such a dunderhead that I thought that we could build new damn dams! Of course, I still think that since the author never makes it clear why new dams can't be built

There have also been some interesting advances. One is the production of oil from organic waste - which won't be running out any time soon. There are some interesting developments elsewhere on the energy front. (I'll see if I can dig up some links)

But let's not let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good 21st century re-working of Malthus. After all:

"When one examines suggested alternatives to petroleum, two facts stand out. First, the use of oil and natural gas as a huge supply of raw material for myriad petrochemical products importantly including fertilizer and pesticides, is unrivaled. Second, energy is energy in a sense, as it is defined as the ability to do work."

Of course, this may be true. But the author has to find a way out of this unaccountable moment of clarity. Ah, here ya go!

"It is important to note that the end product of many alternative energy sources such as nuclear, hydro-electric power, wind, solar, geothermal, and tides is electricity, which is not a replacement for oil and natural gas in their important roles as raw material for a host of products ranging from paints and plastics, to medicines, and inks. But probably the most vital of all uses is to make the chemicals which are the basis for modern agriculture. Electricity is no substitute."

There is a logical flaw that is cleverly hidden in the author's contention. That is, that one source must fulfill all of oil's uses. This is patently untrue. Any reduction in the use of oil by alternative power for whatever purpose will lengthen the time until we run out of oil.

If we reduce our use of oil by say, 50%, then we have twice as much time to deal with the problem, assuming the problem actually exists in the first place. I'm not exactly clear on how soon that they say we will run out of oil. If it's 50 years at current consumption, then a 50% reduction would give us 100 years. Think of the advances that have been made in the last 100 years. Nuclear power was undreamed of! As was solar. 100 years is a very long time in our technological society. Of course, if we could reduce our use of oil by 90% (which is extreme, I'll admit), then we might buy ourselves another 450 years. I won't even attempt to guess what advances are possible in that span of time.

"A recent review of the future prospects of all alternatives has been published. The summary conclusion reached is that there is no known complete substitute for petroleum in its many and varied uses (Youngquist, 1997). The distinguished British scientist, Sir Crispin Tickell (1993), expresses a similar view: "... we have done remarkably little to reduce our dependence on a fuel which is a limited resource, and for which there is no comprehensive substitute in prospect" (p. 20)"

Note the clever use of the words "complete" and "comprehensive." There is no reason in the world to suppose that a single souce must do all that oil does. The replacement for oil might (and probably will) involve several substitutes, used for several specific purposes.

As I said in my first and much briefer post, Peak Oil is alarmist bunk.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

36. What about the argument that

it will take plentiful cheap oil to even make the transition to oil substitutes? For example, new dams can of course be built, but I imagine it takes a lot of oil to do so...

My current feeling is, we're in for a world of hurt but perhaps not the apocalypse. The decline in production (not "running out," because we'll never run out) combined with the rise in demand (several percent per year) will probably result in at the very least bloody wars and global economic meltdown. Humanity will get through it, but not without a lot of strife.

My worry is that the steps that needed to be taken to make the transition about which you are so sanguine have in fact not been taken, and thus we are all going to be caught by surprise several years after Peak, without the energy needed to make the transition.

Would you agree that oil production will in fact peak, and it's only the timeframe and the effects of it that are in question?

[Birthmark]

40. What will really happen.

As demand for oil increases and supply decreases, the price will rise, possibly dramatically. As the price rises, other energy sources become more cost effective and begin to replace oil (which will continue to rise in price). Those that have switched to the other sources will find themselves at a competitive advantage...which will force their competition to switch to alternative sources as well. This has the added benefit of reducing demand, relieving some price pressure, and extending the time before oil runs out.

Will this be a seamless process? Almost certainly not. Will there a be a mass die-off from severe economic displacements? Almost certainly not. If history is any guide, it will probably be a bumpy ride - how bumpy no one knows. But life and civilization will go on.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

41. Time will tell.

In the meantime, I'm stockpiling guns!!!!

(Just kidding)

Hey, I love your sig line - what's that from?

[Birthmark]

42. My sigline

That's actually from a dream I had.

I was simply an observer in this dream. There were these helicopters chasing this crowd of people. They were gunning people down. I was told by someone in the crowd that it was the government. The crowd got smaller and smaller until there was just two other people and me left. We ran into an office building; one of those with big glass doors on sides of the lobby so that you can see right through the building. The helicopter landed on the far side of the building. The occupants got out. I immediately recognized Steven Tyler and said, "That's not the government. It's Aerosmith!"

I woke up laughing my ass off, and outraged at my own brain simultaneously. I haven't spoken to it since. :)

[Taylor Mason Powell]

45. Hilarious!

I wish my dreams were that entertaining!!

[Birthmark]

47. I have the best dreams of anyone I've ever heard of.

I think that it comes from not taking much terribly seriously. I almost never have nightmares...but when I do they are doozies. (I won't tell you my nuclear war dream.)

[Imperialism Inc.]

100. You have offered good information on why a total

die-off of all of mankind and society will not occur. However, you have not offered anything to back this statement : Will there a be a mass die-off from severe economic displacements? Almost certainly not. Absolutely nothing you said supports this idea. Will there be new sources of energy? Sure, of course. But they will become more cost effective only because the cost of oil goes up. So the choice will become more costly oil or more costly other sources of energy. Either way it will cost more in inputs to maintain society than it does now. That means higher prices for consumers. How many live at the poverty level right now and how will those people survive once the prices go up? They won't survive. Unless you think there will suddenly be a massive, spontaneous restructuring of society and its economy. If you really think that the corporate world and current economic systems that can barely see past the next quarter are going to solve this major problem you are deluding yourself.

[Birthmark]

101. Backup for no mass die-offs

"Either way it will cost more in inputs to maintain society than it does now. That means higher prices for consumers."

That is correct. But over the long haul, this kind of thing seems to work itself out within the system; prices will rise, but so will wages.

"How many live at the poverty level right now and how will those people survive once the prices go up? They won't survive."

Um, that's too big a logical jump. An astute politician will probably notice a bunch of semi-starving people, from whom s/he can easily gain support by simply feeding or housing them. Politicians love adoring followers.

"If you really think that the corporate world and current economic systems that can barely see past the next quarter are going to solve this major problem you are deluding yourself.

Therefore, unless you really think that Peak Oil will occur in less than a quarter, business will deal with it. They may or may not deal with it well or wisely, but in the end they'll work it out.

[Imperialism Inc.]

109. I'm not sure what world you are looking at.

But over the long haul, this kind of thing seems to work itself out within the system; prices will rise, but so will wages.

Right now we have a 30 year trend where the exact opposite is happening.

Um, that's too big a logical jump. An astute politician will probably notice a bunch of semi-starving people, from whom s/he can easily gain support

Again flies in the face of current reality which seems to indicate the exact opposite. Since the poor are getting poorer and no politicians are doing anything about it , the big jump is to state that will all change. And it still doesn't address whether or not it will happen in time to do any good. Especially in the current political climate where big financial interests rule the day.

Therefore, unless you really think that Peak Oil will occur in less than a quarter, business will deal with it.

No. You have it completely backward. The whole point is that some problems require planning far in the future. If they can't see past the next quarter they can't solve problems that go beyond the next quarter. You are assuming it can be fixed in a quarter or even a 5 year plan. That is crazy given the scope of the change. If we start right now maybe we have a chance. However, there are going to have to be incentives to make actions that don't make sense in a fiscal year or 5 year plan to make bottom line sense for corporations. Remember that corporations are required by law to think only of profits for their shareholders, so a solution where millions die but they can profit off those who don't is just fine for them. We can probably head off the problem and I think Kerry will start us down that road but it isn't going to happen through the "invisible hand". You seem to acknowledge that with the statement about astute politicians but then contradict it here.

[Birthmark]

112. OK, I see where you're at.

You are taking the past couple of decades as normal. They aren't. Drawing conclusions based upon them have led you to mistaken conclusions.

"Right now we have a 30 year trend where the exact opposite is happening."

Wages have increased in the last 30 years, although more slowly than the rate of inflation. Even in terms of standard dollars though, the drop in wages has been pretty minimal.

"Since the poor are getting poorer and no politicians are doing anything about it , the big jump is to state that will all change. And it still doesn't address whether or not it will happen in time to do any good."

Simply "getting poorer" is not bad enough. Unless there is actual, widespread pain things are unlikely to change quickly; although they will change. When survival becomes an issue (which seems to be the point here), the people will demand redress.

"You are assuming it can be fixed in a quarter or even a 5 year plan."

The defect in your logic here is that you seem to be implying that *everybody* has to find the answers. That's simply not true. Only ONE person has to find (a) viable alternative(s). Once those altenatives are found (and it's quite likely that they already exist), the changeover will happen with remarkable speed and a semblance of efficiency. Those who cannot change will be unable to compete.

[Peak_Oil]

113. That's pretty cruel, I think.

Once those altenatives are found (and it's quite likely that they already exist), the changeover will happen with remarkable speed and a semblance of efficiency. Those who cannot change will be unable to compete.

So what happens to them? Homelessness and starvation? That what you want? How is that different from Peak Oil?

I think most of the "everything's going to be OK" crowd has a misunderstanding of how widespread poverty really is in this world. A great deal of the world exists on $1 a day or so. What would $1 a day buy you here in the US? A basic, entry-level apartment in a major city is going to set you back a minimum of $600/mo. On $1/day, that's 20 people spending every cent they collectively have on a studio apartment. Without food, water, electricity, etc.

When you have a global labor arbitrage market, prices tend to level out across geographical lines. Education will be worthless, but inherited wealth will be an enormous predictor of future wealth.

Poverty is wondering if you'll make it through the winter regardless of how hard you work. You really want to see that happen here?

[Imperialism Inc.]

116. But peak don't you get it.

That may be correct but it doesn't matter. Current reality is irrelevant. That is all going to magically change when the time comes. The legal creations called corporations will no longer care about the bottom line they will start giving it away. The wealthy classes too. Mass transportation will sweep the nation providing a way to get to work for the poor. It will all be built in record time out of sympathy for the starving masses. My faith tells me so. So stop worrying, the invisible hand loves us almost as much as big brother.

</end sarcasm>

[Peak_Oil]

117. Oh, cool! I can envision the rich divesting themselves for the poor too!

Oh, I feel much better now. There's no way the rich would prefer to have an army of servants (us) wandering around. They'd much rather give up their enormous hoard of material posessions just to help us out.

[Birthmark]

118. Me, cruel? Nah.

My competition comment was in regard to businesses.

[Imperialism Inc.]

115. You aren't being realistic.

There is a whole system of infrastructure that will need to be built and that doesn't happen over night. Your faith based approach is bunk.

[Birthmark]

119. A whole infrastructure? Really?

Do dams and nuclear plants require a different kind of power line? lol

[Peak_Oil]

107. What won't really happen.

As demand for oil increases, the price will increase, possibly dramatically. As the price rises, the poor lose their homes and their jobs, and end up on their friends' and families' couches, which will eventually become the street. Since there is no way for them to spontaneously produce food for themselves, they will begin to starve.

When they begin to starve, they will do what they must to get food. Beg, perform on streetcorners, commit petty crimes, break into homes and restaurants to get food.

There will be a huge hiring surge for security guards. Armed security guards. Unfortunately for the poor and for the guards, there are 200 million guns in the streets in the United States. Somebody's gonna die, and it will be the beginning of the first food riots in the US.

If there was a machine that could transform money into food that would be great. Unfortunately, that machine is the land, and it takes time before the seeds that are planted are harvested. We need to get to the first harvest before the first food riots.

[cosmicaug]

46. Things having worked out O.K. in the past doesn't mean they always will.

Birthmark wrote:

All quotes are taken from this site: http://dieoff.org/page171.htm

"Ultimately the renewable must completely fill the gap left by the depletion of oil, for the nonrenewable beyond oil which include coal, nuclear, oil sands, shale oil (so far an unrealized source), geothermal energy, and hydro-electric power, will also ultimately be gone."

Geothermal energy is going to be gone? lol When? A million years or a billion? I don't think that the earth is going to run out of heat anytime soon. The overwhelming majority of scientists would agree with me.

You're using a straw man argument. Clearly you've read the note which you quote below and should know that you're debunking something other than what the author intended? He claims that geothermal plants diminish in efficiency over time and clearly, with at least some arrangements, this must be true (you are using deep rock/earth as a heat sink and if you manage to change its temperature significantly due to excessive heat flow to your heat engine you will reduce the temperature differential and thus the efficiency of the engine). Now, whether that is, in real life a long term concern or not I cannot tell you but I can tell you it is not the physical absurdity you're making it out to be. The other issue is whether it is practical to put this form of energy into general, widespread use to a sufficient degree so as to actually offset enough oil consumption to make a difference. We don't know the answer (one clue, however, would be to note that if this essentially free form of energy production was very easy to implement in general, everybody would be doing it).

Birthmark wrote:

Similarly, I see no reason to suppose that rivers will stop flowing. I guess that I'm just not enlightened. I mean, after all I didn't even know this:

As to hydroelectric power, the same applies. You've read what he's written and you should know he's not claiming water will stop flowing. He's talking about a sedimentation issue (though, I suspect the timetable might be a little long --i.e. this probably doesn't make a great deal of difference in the big scheme of things because, if we are to be screwed, it will happen long before it becomes an issue).

Birthmark wrote:

"(Note: Dammed reservoirs eventually all fill with silt, and all geothermal electric power facilities show some decline to a greater or lesser extent. In the longer term, neither hydro-electric power nor geothermal energy for electric power generation is a renewable resource)."

See? I'm such a dunderhead that I thought that we could build new damn dams! Of course, I still think that since the author never makes it clear why new dams can't be built

As to the issue of just making more dams, that clearly ignores the fact that damns have associated costs with them which we may or may not be able and willing to pay (such as loss of living space, ecosystem damage, loss of arable land --that last one could become a biggie). This is not to say damns are good or bad. They have their place. The issue is whether the electrical output can be ramped up to a sufficient degree to make up sufficiently for the drop from oil based energy production as to make a difference. The other issue is whether it can be ramped up fast enough (damns --or most other forms of energy production, for that matter-- cannot be created overnight). We don't know that.
Birthmark wrote:

"There have also been some interesting advances. One is the production of oil from organic waste - which won't be running out any time soon. There are some interesting developments elsewhere on the energy front. (I'll see if I can dig up some links)

O.K., that can get just a little bit silly. It will be of help, there's no doubt about that. However, you should note that a lot of that waste has been made with oil in the first place and that you will never (I try not to use that word because it's almost always wrong, but this time it's right) get as much energy out of it as you put in. That leaves you with agricultural waste and begs the question of: whether it will be enough and whether it will be the best use for agricultural "waste" (remember, unless you think this process is magic, you won't get enough energy from it to want to waste it on fertilizer production).
Birthmark wrote:

But let's not let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good 21st century re-working of Malthus. After all:

The only reason Malthus gets a bad rap is because we humans hate to admit that the consequences of laws of physics have the very real potential of applying to human populations as well as they do to populations of bacteri in a Petri dish (newsflash: they do). Well, that and dogma led magical thinking by economist types such as Julian Simon.
Birthmark wrote:

"When one examines suggested alternatives to petroleum, two facts stand out. First, the use of oil and natural gas as a huge supply of raw material for myriad petrochemical products importantly including fertilizer and pesticides, is unrivaled. Second, energy is energy in a sense, as it is defined as the ability to do work."

Of course, this may be true. But the author has to find a way out of this unaccountable moment of clarity. Ah, here ya go!

"It is important to note that the end product of many alternative energy sources such as nuclear, hydro-electric power, wind, solar, geothermal, and tides is electricity, which is not a replacement for oil and natural gas in their important roles as raw material for a host of products ranging from paints and plastics, to medicines, and inks. But probably the most vital of all uses is to make the chemicals which are the basis for modern agriculture. Electricity is no substitute."

There is a logical flaw that is cleverly hidden in the author's contention. That is, that one source must fulfill all of oil's uses. This is patently untrue.

In my opinion, you're seeing a flaw where none exists. What you're replying to can be summarized with "electricity is no substitute", which is true. As to what would be a substitute, that is easy. Any process which ends up producing a mess of carbon chains of different lengths is likely to provide a decent starting point. The aforementioned process to turn waste into fuel (assuming it works well and scales up in time) could be one such starting point. Simple biomass would be another possibility. You still have to realize that it will involve costs which we may not be willing or able to pay (if you use biomass for fuel or, as a raw resource for raw materials at a greater extent than we currently do now, it'll involve diversion of crops for the purpose of feeding --this at a time when we'll have no fewer people to feed and a likely loss of productivity from lower usage of fertilizers).


Birthmark wrote:

Any reduction in the use of oil by alternative power for whatever purpose will lengthen the time until we run out of oil.

If we reduce our use of oil by say, 50%, then we have twice as much time to deal with the problem, assuming the problem actually exists in the first place. I'm not exactly clear on how soon that they say we will run out of oil. If it's 50 years at current consumption, then a 50% reduction would give us 100 years.

That's your biggest mistake right there. It's not about running out of oil. It's not even about human economies adjusting to an increasingly tight supply. The issue is about how the adjustment is likely to take place (is it going to be Mad Max after a massive die-off or is it going to be Shangri-la). The answer is that we don't know.

This is also true with various ecological doomsday scenarios. Anybody who thinks that they can mean the end of life on earth is wrong. The problem is that they may mean the end of life on earth as we know it where "not as we know it" may or may not be much fun at all (if it even includes humans --which in my opinion, it probably would though the question again reduces to Mad Max or Shangri-la).

Birthmark wrote:

Think of the advances that have been made in the last 100 years. Nuclear power was undreamed of! As was solar. 100 years is a very long time in our technological society. Of course, if we could reduce our use of oil by 90% (which is extreme, I'll admit), then we might buy ourselves another 450 years. I won't even attempt to guess what advances are possible in that span of time.

That things have worked out O.K. in the past (actually they haven't but at least we're still here) doesn't mean they always will turn out O.K. in the future. This argument only works until it stops working (and by then it's too late). Again, it's dogma led magical thinking by the Julian Simon types.

Birthmark wrote:

"A recent review of the future prospects of all alternatives has been published. The summary conclusion reached is that there is no known complete substitute for petroleum in its many and varied uses (Youngquist, 1997). The distinguished British scientist, Sir Crispin Tickell (1993), expresses a similar view: "... we have done remarkably little to reduce our dependence on a fuel which is a limited resource, and for which there is no comprehensive substitute in prospect" (p. 20)"

Note the clever use of the words "complete" and "comprehensive." There is no reason in the world to suppose that a single souce must do all that oil does. The replacement for oil might (and probably will) involve several substitutes, used for several specific purposes.

Certainly if we are to significantly reduce our dependence on oil it'll be through conservation and through expansion of energy production from other sources. The issue at heart is whether the present alternatives can be expanded sufficiently (and on time) to prevent serious problems. The writer of the piece you quote opines otherwise and you haven't presented a convincing argument to contradict that.
Birthmark wrote:

As I said in my first and much briefer post, Peak Oil is alarmist bunk.

Or not.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

20. hee hee! That's a funny comment, but

would you care to provide a "Cliffs Notes" version of a few of these "logical fallacies?" Because I've seen several attempts to debunk Peak Oil and I haven't found any of them terribly convincing.

And yes, in case you are wondering, I am very openminded on the subject.

[Birthmark]

24. Please see post #22 above.

[Dissenting_Prole]

27. Are you sure you understand the implications of peak?

"Will we run out of oil one day? Yup. Will it be the apocalypse? Nope."

It is apparent that you do not understand what Peak Oil is. The issue is not running out, it is the gap between supply and demand that will occur shortly after the peak. By the time we are anywhere near "running out" we will have the tools to deal with the problem. It's the period realization that we've entered the decline that will cause unrest.

http://www.endofsuburbia.com/

[Birthmark]

29. No, I'm really quite stupid.

As are the people who invest, invent, and produce. I mean, it would be utterly *impossible* for other products (solar, wind, etc.) to become cost-effective at any point other than the bitter end. lol

[rustydad]

43. Supply/Demand

Usually 'peak oil' folks talk of oil extration as represented by a curve with time across the horizontal and extraction as barrels-per-time-unit on the vertical. A graph. To really nail down the time when TSHTF one must overlay the 'Peak" curve with a similar graph of "demand" curve. Both curves are only approximations. Extraction depends on the geology of oil fields, number of wells, technology, and other factors. Many if not most oil extractors are secretive about the oil left in their fields. One sign of "peaking" is or will be when prices rise and production does not (sound familiar?).

Demand is even harder to pin down. Much depends on the economies of the importing nations. When oil prices rise too high economies are thrown into an inflationary cycle. This in turn usually causes recession. Recession leads to "demand destruction" as people cut back on heating, driving, etc. Eventually when oil is purchased by the highest bidder and their isn't enough to go round prices will double, triple, up and up. Economies will start to flounder (think Argentina). The timing of all this may be anywhere between now and a few years away. The really important issue is not when, it is coming, but whether the war nations will use military might to grab oil. In that scenerio all hell will brake loose. Keep those fingers crossed. Bob

[indigobusiness]

18. Peak buffalo was scoffed at, too.

Peak passenger pigeon, peak dodo bird, peak ...

[Birthmark]

19. Which of those led to an apocalypse, if any?

[Geo55]

21. Your right.....

I'll just fire up my buffalo car , go to my favorite buffalo powered resturant , order up some buffalo along with some buffalo grown vegies.

[gpandas]

23. what about reply # 20, birthtmark? eom

[Birthmark]

28. I responded in post #22 above.

[cosmicaug]

25. Only one.

Last I heard of none of those were the foundation for an economy except for bison --and, in that case, some would argue that it did help to lead to an apocalypse of sorts.

[Birthmark]

26. For the buffaloes, maybe.

I don't remember any mass problems for people. I'm always open to enlightenment. But be aware, if you have to make a case for a past apocalypse, it probably wasn't all that apocalyptic, just inconvenient. :)

[Geo55]

34. "just just inconvenient"

I hope for everyone's sake your rosey view of the tranistion (if any), becomes reality.
But the hard fact is the modern world economy depends on a CONSTANT flow of easily obtained oil.
Even a minor disruption in that flow results in large repercussions across the globe.
A major one...will lead to something a little more severe than ,
just inconvenience.

[robcon]

51. Your claim of a need for a CONSTANT flow of oil is unsupported.

Why is oil... which has never had a constant flow, all of a sudden subject to the need for constancy?

[cosmicaug]

54. I guess...

robcon wrote:

Why is oil... which has never had a constant flow, all of a sudden subject to the need for constancy?

I guess that probably depends on what one means by "constant" (and, if anything, we might very well need increasing flow).

[Geo55]

55. where you around in '73

for the "artificial" , OPEC driven stortages ?

[Jose Diablo]

74. Well actually, 1973 marked the date of peak oil in the USA

When the production of oil in USA leveled off and demand continued to go up, then we started importing more oil than extracting here. Thats when OPEC knew they had us by the short hair.

Artificial shortage of oil on OPEC's part, but very real on domestic production.

Strange thing is, peak oil was predicted way before 1973, but few people paid any attention. I guess some things never change.

[AlienGirl]

50. The mass-killing of buffalo was a crucial part

...of the genocide directed at Native Americans. Societies of people who relied on the bison for everything from food to tools died. Apocalypse? Yeah, I'd say so.

Tucker

[Blue Wally]

59. Most of the Amerind.........I

die off occurred years earlier before massive European immigration to North America. Read McNeil's "Plagues and Peoples". The societies didn't die, but the loss of the buffalo caused them to become government wards.

[cosmicaug]

62. Exactly.

Blue Wally wrote:

Most of the Amerind die off occurred years earlier before massive European immigration to North America. Read McNeil's "Plagues and Peoples". The societies didn't die, but the loss of the buffalo caused them to become government wards.

Exactly! And the extermination of the bison was not an accident but a deliberate policy to produce that result. For that matter, I would speculate (because I'm not well read on the subject), that the heavier reliance on the bison might, in itself, have been a post-Columbus innovation (as I'd imagine a lot of it would have been made much easier by the introduction of horsemanship --something that they, naturally, did not have before horses came on the scene). Just as well, their way of life had evolved a dependence on bison and it was purposefully destroyed by exterminating the bison.

[cosmicaug]

52. You know what the hell I'm talking bout.

Birthmark wrote:

I don't remember any mass problems for people. I'm always open to enlightenment. But be aware, if you have to make a case for a past apocalypse, it probably wasn't all that apocalyptic, just inconvenient. :)

You know very well that with "an apocalypse of sorts" I'm referring to what happened to the American Indians. There's a reason why the extermination of the Bison was a deliberate policy and it is because it was known that if the foundation of their way of life was destroyed you would also destroy their very society. And to a certain extent, it is true (or would you say that Native Americans are at their peak right about now?).

You should also note that while the extermination of Bison, Passenger Pigeons and Dodos has little to do with it, there are cases where the destruction of the base of a society has clearly resulted in the destruction of that society. Clearly, this never has happened on a global scale (i.e. apocalypse, as you call it); but it is also quite clear that in the past we did not have a global economy in the sense that we do today. We just don't know what will happen if a serious economic failure were to occur in a world as full of interdependencies as we have today. The only clue is from the global depressions we've had (and at least some of them would definitely qualify as "minor" apocalypses --or at the very least as being a heck of a lot more uncomfortable than the Pollyanish amongst us would be willing to admit).

[DemBones DemBones]

56. You think we palefaces merely inconvenienced native

Americans? I have a Cherokee houseguest who might like to go a few rounds with you over this.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. For the Plains tribes, the loss of the buffalo

was a catastrophe, since it made their centuries-old way of life impossible.

Like oil for us, the buffalo figured in their food supply, their clothing supply and their housing supply (buffalo hides), their heating supply (they burned dried buffalo shit for fuel, since they had few trees), and their tool supply (they made implements of buffalo bone).

The deliberate mass slaughter of the buffalo herds was partly an effort to subjugate the Plains tribes and force them onto reservations, partly just greedy wastefulness of a seemingly infinite resource to make fashionable buffalo robes.

[Birthmark]

103. I agree.

But a localized catastrophe does not an apocalypse make. The waning of oil will have dire consequences for the Middle East. They will be starting with immense wealth, an advantage that the Plains Tribes didn't have, so perhaps they will deal with it better. But I just don't see Peak Oil as anything more than a transition for the West - and those suspected of being the West. It's possible that a worst case scenario can happen, but it's possible, too, that the sun will nova before any of that occurs.

I take my disasters one at a time when I can. :)

[redstateblues]

84. Birthmark- Thanks For Keeping The Hysteria In Check

[Birthmark]

102. Thank you.

:)

[indigobusiness]

31. Peak oil

will.

That's the point.

[Dissenting_Prole]

32. Apocalypse

I think apocalypse is too harsh.

I prefer the term James Howard Kunstler uses to describe the coming chaos:

"Sh*tstorm"

[cosmicaug]

61. Common use.

Dissenting_Prole wrote:

I think apocalypse is too harsh.

In the Biblical sense of the revelations of St. John the divine, yes it's a little too harsh (but that's just one kind of fiction). In the sense of modern culture where it refers to some event causing major societal disruption to the point where the nature of society becomes permanently and fundamentally altered into sopmething rather unpleasant (generally some sort of post-apocalyptic repressive dystopia where life is hard and cheap), no it is not too harsh.

[mhr]

48. Great Short Article On Peak Oil Here

http://www.dallasforkerry.com/mediascope/brainzone/peakoil.asp

[indigobusiness]

14. Bike to work?

What work?

[Dissenting_Prole]

30. The best thing....

The death of vinyl siding!

http://www.endofsuburbia.com/



THE END OF SUBURBIA: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of The American Dream

Since World War II North Americans have invested much of their newfound wealth in suburbia. It has promised a sense of space, affordability, family life and upward mobility.

But as we enter the 21st century, serious questions are beginning to emerge about the sustainability of this way of life. With brutal honesty and a touch of irony, The End of Suburbia explores the American Way of Life and its prospects as the planet approaches a critical era, as global demand for fossil fuels begins to outstrip supply.

[mellowinman]

33. For those of you who are interested in what the future will be like

Buy my book!

[drdigi420]

35. Hemp will be relegalized

Because the oil from hemp seeds IS renewable and can replace 90% of all petroleum products RIGHT NOW.

Any Democrat that is not fighting for the end of the Drug War and the relegalization of hemp as a natural resource belongs in a Gays for Bush or Jews for Hitler type group.

[Taylor Mason Powell]

37. Then we'll be dealing with Peak Hemp!

But we'll be too stoned to care, dude!! :smoke:

Oh, that reminds me - I think I've hit peak sack! I must prepare for the coming smokepocalypse!

[drdigi420]

44. Hemp is renewable - no peak hemp

[unhappy_guy]

38. decrease in the population..

due to mass rioting and economic collapse

[Dogmudgeon]

39. What "Peak Oil" really is

First of all, it's a kind of journalistic cliche these days. "Peak Oil" implies that the peak will arrive soon, and the rest of history will be AFTER Peak Oil.

There's a common misconception that it means that the oil "runs out" all of the sudden. It doesn't. It means that oil will become progressively more expensive until the laws of physics themselves make it uneconomical to burn it for energy. If it takes 10 calories of heat energy to recover 9 calories' worth of burnable oil, why do it?

This is expressible as an equation called EROEI -- Energy Return On Energy Investment. Even now, oil has a decent EROEI; in 30 years, if and when EROEI drops below 1.0, the energy oil industry is through. (Using oil for plastics production will probably remain profitable if less lucrative.)

All the scenarios reviewed for the future of the oil economy are based on estimated growth of oil reserves. Unfortunately, there have been only three significant oil finds since 1970 -- Prudhoe Bay (Alaska), the North Sea, and the South Caspian Basin (including Iraq). And even those oil fields are much smaller than the ones discovered under Arabia.

Industry was hoping against hope that the Iraq bonanza would top out at 3 billion barrels, with 1.5 billion recoverable. It now looks more like 500 million and 300 million, respectively.

Sure, there are other forms of energy. In America, about 35% of our energy is from geothermal, hydroelectric, and nuclear. And we only use about 15%, tops, for domestic energy. So won't that get us through?

No, it won't. Because the world economy is based on an energy consumption growth of 2.5 to 3.0% per year; when it drops below that, the economy sinks and then crashes. This is a by-product of our current practice of capitalism. All wealth is derived from growth, so without growth, wealth evaporates. Without the prospect of future profits being assures, no investments are made. A depression results. Well, if we get to the point where we don't have enough energy to maintain that 2.5% growth rate, the bottom will drop out.

But we'll still have energy for our homes, right? But if you don't have a home, you're out of luck. And do you think you'll be carried when you can't make the rent or mortgage payment? No, in this world, the capitalists would just as soon throw everyone out into the wilderness as take a loss on a property. No energy growth, no jobs, no ability to pay bills, and the whole world goes into receivership to a class of people who will themselves die out within weeks of having no income.

This isn't just idle apocalyptic speculation -- it has happened before to other great empires. Maybe not with petroleum, but when the source of economic growth was shut off, the empires died. Why do you think Rome fell? Because the Romans were having too many orgies? No, it was the increasing organization of the Teutonic and Celtic peoples to the north. No easy expansion, no cheap labor, no inflow of tribute, and Rome collapsed in several painful stages.

It's easy to compare the end of the oil economy with the Y2K panic, but they're not the same thing. The Y2K panic was from a single point in time, based on a unique series of events that were avoided. The post-oil collapse will be based on millions of small economies ceasing to exist, and it will take place over a 10-100 year period.

We can avoid that breakdown, too, but I fear that we won't. It will take, at a minimum, a massive program to develop cheap photovoltaic power AND cheaper, SAFER nuclear energy. Something like a supersized Manhattan Project. And I think we won't do it. I hope I'm wrong, but I think we're sunk.

Survival means that we will have to institute some kind of super-socialism. And that's not going to go over well at all. Developing the new energy sources will take capitalization, which means taxation, but in a contracting economy, the tax revenues won't be there. It will be a mess until/unless we go to a command economy. Not just Socialism, but a kind of need-driven Fascism. A Nanny State with a cat-of-nine-tails.

The option? A major effort, staring NOW, to develop alternative energy sources, AND a political initiative to provide for people in times of severe economic disaster.

They'll cost money.

How quickly do think anything will be done without either a large number of dead blonde-haired little girls, or the prospect of a foreign flag being hoisted on American soil?

Yes, I'm pessimistic.

--bkl

[Geo55]

58. I see this as inevideble

"Survival means that we will have to institute some kind of super-socialism"
I also have had the strange idea that someday surviviors in a deminished US will look back on Bushco as visionaries in securing our claim to the "life blood" of their existance....then I scare myself and move on.

[JNelson6563]

53. Too bad it'll take 100 years to fix the disaster first

If you think you will live to see any of this come to fruition you are mistaken. The horror of the coming disaster will last a very long time.

Julie

[seemslikeadream]

57. Gravy Train

The ragpicker's dream.



Well they fly past the ghettos and the factories
Ridin' on the Gravy Train
Leaving all the places that they really ought to brave
Ridin' on the Gravy Train
Past the coal mines black and scarred
Starter houses in the loading yard
On the Gravy Train, On the Gravy Train

There's the lucky little mothers in their luxury cars
Ridin' on the Gravy Train
Never thank each other or their lucky stars
Ridin' on the Gravy Train
That's worse than ingratitude
Worse than a piss poor attitude

On the Gravy Train, Gravy Train

Well the hanger-uppers and the hangers-on
Ridin' on the Gravy Train
Champagne suppers with their daggers all drawn
Ridin' on the Gravy Train
Some act tough, some act rude
Some bit of fluff complain about the food
You wanna see somebody getting really rude
Get on the Gravy Train, Gravy Train

Well the golden goose is clattering-a-down the track,
And they're gonna be ridin' in an old caboose
Coming back

There's the soldiers of fashion on the hit parade
Ridin' on the Gravy Train
Tongue lashing with the bitch brigade
Ridin' on the Gravy Train
Free loader licks my boots
Tells me how he digs my suit
You got lucky son, don't get cute
Get on the Gravy Train

Mark Knopfler

[Blue Wally]

60. One word

COAL!!

There is enough coal in the ground in the US to adequately power our electric plants for a millenium. With research into coal gassification, it might power our vehicles.

Low grade petroleum from shale oil and tar sands would be available for production of plastics and fertilizers.

[SOS]

63. Without petroleum-derived agricultural fertilizers

the world's population will shrink dramatically. The human race can only sustain itself through oil-derived nitrogen and ammonia fertilizers, developed in the early 20th-century.

Global population figures are quite interesting...

First 3,000 years:

1000BC- 50,000,000
1 AD - 300,000,000
1250 - 400,000,000
1500 - 500,000,000
1804- 1,000,000,000

Last 75 years:
(petroleum based agriculture era)

1927- 2,000,000,000
1960- 3,000,000,000
1974- 4,000,000,000
1987- 5,000,000,000
1999- 6,000,000,000
2004- 6,300,000,000
<2050- 9,000,000,000 (projected)>

Only in the last hundred years has oil existed as an important commodity and in those years the world population has tripled. Without oil, the population could never have reached these numbers since the earth cannot sustain 6 billion people using organic farming methods.

[Massacure]

66. I disagree with part of this

How many people were above age of 50 in the year 1900? How many people are above it now?

I think a good majority of this population increase is from medical advances -- not from petrol based fertilizer.

Don't get me wrong or anything, but yes we do have a problem on our hands. I just don't agree by how we got there.

Feel free to throw some statistics if you wish. I have an open mind. :)

[Dogmudgeon]

67. No separable causes

Actually it's not an either-or equation. Medical technology requres relatively little energy input -- but it is based on industrial technologies that use a huge amount. Medical advances are part of the fabric of a modern society -- and the loom that wove that fabric is powered mainly by petroleum.

The problem is systematic. Finding energy alternatives is necessary, but in the long run, we have to find a way to organize our society so we don't depend on geometric growth rates to sustain increases in wealth, health, knowlege, and culture. Local trade will be desirable, perhaps even vital, but what currently passes for capitalism has got to change. Otherwise, Humanity itself will cease to be profitable -- and will be "rendered redundant" as the pre-WWI British technocrats would have said.

--bkl

[NashVegas]

80. A Population Die-Out Would Not Be a Bad Thing

It would be horrible for people on an individual, emotional level, but the survivors would probably be better off with the increased breathing room and less pollution.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. From my memory of how nitrate and ammonia-based fertilizers are produced

you don't actaully need petroleum - you need hydrogen. This seems to be backed up by this page from fertilizer manufacturers on how they do it:

The intermediate product in the case of nitrogen (N) fertilizers is ammonia (NH3), which is produced by combining nitrogen extracted from the air with hydrogen from hydrocarbons such as natural gas, naphtha or other (heavier) oil fractions, and hydrogen which is obtained by means of the Steam Reforming Process. Approximately 85% of the anhydrous ammonia plants in the EU use natural gas. Measures to improve production processes have focused on reducing the amount of hydrocarbon feedstock required to produce a tonne of ammonia.

The further processing of ammonia produces straight N fertilizers such as urea, ammonium nitrate and calcium ammonium nitrate, as well as solutions of the above fertilizers and ammonium sulphate. Ammonia is also the main component of many multi-nutrient fertilizers.

The point is that at the moment, natural gas is the cheapest form of obtaining hydrogen, so that's what they use. It will be very easy to substitute for this - you just need electricity to produce the hydrogen from water. So we can fall back on nuclear power, or other alternatives being developed.

[Mr.Green93]

65. Mad Max

We can have neat cars and klans and tribes and stuff.

[Dogmudgeon]

69. I'd rather saw my own leg off

I liked the Mad Max movies, too, but they were parables about survival.

The strong will survive -- and be miserable.

The weak will survive only if they are worth keeping around for the strong, and that usually means for grunt labor or bed service. "Miserable" for the weak would be an improvement.

The lesson of the Mad Max triptych was that civilization is a precious thing, and we should not wait until it is gone to learn it. Similar lessons were presented in Waterworld and The Postman. So Kevin Costner understands what's at stake, even if his movies didn't do too well by the critics.

Survival is often "neat", but it's always difficult and terrifying. Why not put some effort into preventing disaster before it happens?

--bkl

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. As one who was alive in the 1950s

I can swear to the fact that life would be survivable, even pleasant, if we stopped the growth in energy usage and even went back a couple of decades.

I can remember streetcars, no freeways, no McMansions, no SUVs, few plastics, few chain stores, no dishwashers, traveling across the country by train, most people going to Europe by ship, more containers than now being recycled, no exotic produce available, and even no TV. We lived that way once without squalor, and we could live that way again with wise leadership.

However, our leaders are too greedy and pigheaded, and our people are too brainwashed into the idea of more-more-more to do much on their own.

Our government should have started funding mass transit, intercity rail, and rational urban and suburban planning, and intensive research into alternatives to non-transport uses of petroleum in 1981. Instead, the holy, infallible St. Ronald Reagan got on TV and told us that everything was just fine and that the American way of life was the best in the world and that Americans could do no wrong. We not only continued to live in a fool's paradise but insisted on exporting our wasteful ways to other countries. We have exported fast food, the car culture, and other symbols of consumerism to countries that were doing just fine without them.

We need to wise up now. Sure, the transition will be rough, as is any transition, but the incompetence of our leaders, the greed of our business community, and the ignorance of the American people will make the transition worse than it should be.

At the very least, we can make individual changes that will soften the blow. Don't live in sloburbia. Choose either the city or a real small town that you can walk across. Patronize local businesses and buy locally produced food to keep both endeavors economically viable. Get the most fuel-efficient vehicle you can afford and drive as little as possible. You know the drill.

Humanity has survived similar shifts. In the Middle Ages, Europe relied almost exclusively on wood for its energy needs. (Remember all the woodcutters in fairytales?) This worked until there were no more forests for the people to cut down. However, just as the situation was growing critical, enterprising people discovered the powers of peat and coal. Sure, they caused problems of their own with air pollution and poor working conditions, but civilization survived, and with none of the Mad Max style scenarios that you some of you expect.

[rustydad]

77. Why we are screwed

I too remember the 50s with nostalgia. Milk delivered in return glass bottles (cream on top), the ice cream truck, the bakery truck, the corner store, the corner mechanic, three TV stations at best, one car garages, bike to school, honest presidents. And yet there was a lot wrong too, like McCarthy witch hunts, VP Nixon, huge V-8 powered cars, but all in all a better time.

What prevents us today from addressing 'Peak Oil' is that we are a culture that has lost it's ability to future plan. Most people live for the moment, buy more than they need with borrowed money, those with home equity refinance to buy unneeded devices of pleasure. We simply have given up on the future. Our retirement systems depend on the pyramid scheme stock market. Social Security has been "borrowed" away. No politician will tell you about anything except that which may happen during their election cycle, 2 or 4 years usually.

The energy shortage wall is just ahead of us and the is no hand on the brake. I see the outcome either being a slow decay into village and hamlet living for those who can transition (the strong and healthy). The economic system will have to re-evolve from the barter system to a new localized currency. The nation states and corporations will be gone forever. That is my rosy scenario.

On the other hand we may end up using all the worlds military machines to battle to get the dwindling energy supplies of the world. In that scenario I doubt that human kind will survive. It will be the end time although not at all like the Fundies like bush think it will be. The only thing coming out of the clouds will be nuclear bombs, thousands of them. Bob

[Geo55]

82. Maybe end up as a global scale Easter Island

http://www.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm

[misanthrope]

90. "All in all, a better time"?...

For who? White middle-to-upper class males maybe, but that's about the extent of it.

Was polio "better"? What about widespread civil rights abuses, unprosecuted domestic violence, or socially condoned tobacco and alcohol dependency? Was it better when childbirth was a highly risky endeavour for mother and child? Or when reduced communications capabilities made emergency situations more precarious?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

91. None of these had anything to do with oil

but it was a better time in the sense of communities feeling responsible for their own. There was NEVER any talk of cutting back on education, you could raise a family on one factory worker's wages, crime rates were lower, children played outside all day without adult supervision, you knew all your neighbors, and the only homeless people downtown were a few late-stage alcoholics.

Childbirth was not particularly dangerous in the 1950s (the 1850s were a different matter), and the biggest advances in life expectancy came about in the first half of the twentieth century because of safer water and food supplies, greater understanding of how disease is spread, and better nutrition, not because of oil.

[nose pin]

86. Don't you think alot of this has to do

with population growth? Many will have to perish for this utopia to work.

[NashVegas]

79. I Think You're WAY Off on #13

Rich people will have the means to afford alternative energies for heating and powering their homes (this is, assuming the crash comes before everyone's migrated to clean energy), and the freedom to do so that renters won't. Add to that the trend towards the new feudalism and you've got a recipe for a seriously split society.

[nose pin]

85. You do know that Canadians

eat horsemeat, don't you?

#4 and #12 will cancel each other out.

[Valerie5555]

93. FYI Europeans eat horsemeat for I'm quite sure in Canada we RIDE horses

especially in Alberta.

[nose pin]

95. Horse meat is available at the IGA

in Quebec. I don't eat it, but I see lots of people buying it.

[Nederland]

89. The Problem with Applying Peak Oil Theory

What Peak Oil proponents don't like to talk about is the problems applying peak oil theory to the real world. For example, they completely gloss over the fact that Hubbert predicted that the global peak would occur in 1995. Here we are in 2004, and now the Peak Oil people say the new date is 2008. They keep pushing the date back and back because what they say will happen doesn't happen. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/natgeog.htm

Will we have a peak someday? Yes, of course we will. However, it is basically impossible to predict the global peak the way Hubbert predicted the US peak because OPEC sources are no where near as transparent as US oil companies were in the 1950's. Hubbert was able to make his US predictions because he had all the data he needed. You don't have that with OPEC sources.

Naturally then, we have two possibilities. One possibility is that things are worse than they seem and we will hit Peak Oil sooner than expected. The other is that we will hit Peak Oil later than expected. The reason that option #2 is far more likely is obvious: OPEC has an enormous interest in making the world believe that oil is more scarce than it actually is. Artificial scarcity drives the price up and makes OPEC more money.

Again, will we have a peak someday? Yes, of course we will. However, each year that passes by lowers the impact that the peak oil event will have on us. Technology is constantly improving and more alternatives to oil are being discovered and improved with each passing year.

[rman]

97. Hubbert peak

Hubbert also predicted the peak and decline of US oil to take place in the '70s, and he was correct. The '70s oil crisis caused temporary reduction of the rate of growth of demand, which caused postponement of the '95 peak.

Now we have Shell reducing their estimates of natural reserves several times within one year; serious enough for Shell's main man to step down. Production already has peaked in Syria amongst others. Experts very much doubt SA's claim of being able to significantly increase their production over-night, or at all for that matter.

"The date" hasn't been pushed back that often. The consensus now is that we're either at the peak or very close to it, and that we'll start noticing its effects within 5 to 10 years (heck, oil prices are rising as we speak). That's nowhere near enough time to develop sufficient *capacity* of alternative energy sources, nor is it enough time to scale back usage of energy to fit future capacity.
We don't need to invent alternative energy sources because we already have invented them, the problem is in applying it on a large scale, which just isn't happening and it won't happen unless we do it ourselves.

So the only real problem is that the peak can't be predicted accurately down to the year. I don't see how that translates to "Peak Oil proponents (have) problems applying peak oil theory to the real world".

[Nederland]

104. Response

In order to predict Hubbert's peak, you must have accurate data on the cost of extracting a barrel of oil from a particular field. With OPEC countries, nobody has access to that data, therefore no one can accurately predict the peak. Any person who claims they have an "estimate" as to when the peak will occur is merely guessing, not inputing precise data into a proven scientific methodalogy. The irony is, even in spite of this, eventually peak oil proponents will "predict" correctly. However, its much like a person "predicting" the result of rolling two dice. At every roll, they predict snake eyes. Naturally, eventually they will be correct, but that doesn't mean they know anything.

[Peak_Oil]

108. Translation:

We will peak, but we can't predict WHEN we'll peak. Obviously, the primary exporters of this irreplaceable substance are lying to us about how much they have. Therefore, we should relax because there might be plenty.

So. We have the prediction of when the peak will come. Might be sooner, might be later.

And finally, just to set your minds at ease once more, every year that goes by the problem of resource depletion DIMINISHES as we continue to use a non-replenishing resource.

[Nederland]

110. Good Summary (nt)

[Valerie5555]

92. Could anyone believe how Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House

roof and Ronbo Raygun took them off.


Considering a certain ex President you have got to respect the guy considering all the crap he went through as President (i.e. hostages, sour economy, "national malaise," etc.).

[gauguin57]

94. If Al Gore had been able to take his rightful place in the WH

... I can't help but believe he would have led us toward much more environmentally responsible energy policies. Don't know how much he'd have accomplished in the past 3 and a half years, but it would have been better than TAKING US BACKWARDS like Bush has.

*sigh*

I'm going to start hoarding dried legumes.

[Octafish]

96. Chimpageddon!

Without oil, there's ...
No farm machine.
No energy machine.
No heating machine.
No automotive machine.
No war machine.
No people,
Except the slaves of the BFEE.

[treepig]

105. peak oil is a political, not a technological, problem

good riddance to petroleum.

there are plenty of energy sources to replace it in the near term ranging from the more-polluting (coal) to the less (nuclear).

in the long term, there are plenty of options, too:

http://www.cea.fr/gb/publications/Clefs44/contents.htm

(but note that this is a french site - the stupidity of americans will probably doom the usa, but the enlightened portions of the world will do just fine)

[Selwynn]

111. You're exactly right.

[Gregorian]

114. Wow, that looks like a comprehensive list. Thanks.

I've been talking about this subject for thirty years. Now that I hear other people finally bringing up the subject, I'm almost scared. No, I'm almost happy. It's really about the population. Nothing more. But we can't talk about that, can we.

The problem is that energy usage is more prevalent than people realize. Most people think that flushing a toilet is nothing more than pushing a lever and having water go down a pipe. Every flush is using (combusting petroleum, usually) energy. It's enlightening to see what petroleum goes into making. Just about everything. So the resulting hardships from having not developed other energy conversion sources in time, would be much more prevalent than just the beloved disappearance of Walmart. It would be shipping, which would mean no coffee. Manufacturing of pharmaceuticals like aspirin. Sewage systems.

In fact, this post has me thinking about finally getting myself a photovoltaic array, and at least attempting to achieve a lower impact on the use of oil. But we're still far away from being able to sustain the number of people that live on this planet, thanks to those who feel the need to continue breeding.