by MonteQuest » Tue 22 Nov 2005, 00:00:42
Is peak oil the "tip of the iceberg?"
How many see peak oil as a symptom of a greater disease? The "tip of the iceberg" expression is derived from the fact that icebergs float because the density of ice is lower than that of seawater. The ratio of these densities tells us that 7/8 of the iceberg's mass must be below water.
The mass below the surface of peak oil is the expectations of infinite growth in a finite world. Driving this false premise is a debt-based monetary system that services past debt only with future growth. Changing the cultural direction and asset inertia behind this is tantamount to trying to turn the Titanic on a dime. Never happen; no matter how hard you try.
So, the transition we need to do is not from fossil fuels to renewables, but from an infinite growth mindset to one of sustainability based upon the received solar flux and the earth’s ability to absorb our impact through the environmental sinks. We are already burdened with un-repayable debt, unbridled population growth, rampant environmental toxicity, increasing loss of biodiversity, scarcity of resources, and alarming reports of increased global warming; all consequences of our collective hubris. We need to address all of these issues, not just energy production.
On the other hand, how many see peak oil as just another problem to be solved by man’s ingenuity? His course is sound, he just needs a new energy source to “stay the course”. Tomorrow the stars with JD?
For those inclined to believe it is the latter seem to propose solutions that are “conserve, transition, and continue to grow”.
One of our newest members recently asked:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', 'I')n terms of those who believe we can "switch and grow", I would just ask, until when? The potable water runs out? The uranium/coal runs out? Arable land to support growing population runs out?
On the other hand, if we realize, as many others have said before, that there are limits to growth, what kind of an economic can we develop that is based on sustainability? Interest/debt based is impossible, so we must look to other examples.
We all know that, ultimately, there are limits to growth. Are we so myopic as to not see the wall ahead, if not for us, for our descendants?
It has been man’s hubris to think he need not heed the ecological limits that has led him to this precipice.
Do we still insist the “law of the minimum” does not apply; that we are “above nature”?
Do we really believe we can make more land, more water, and more air?
And as Aaron pointed out in his blog:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '3') 1/2 % growth per year means the original quantity doubles in 20 years.
Is there anyone left who thinks that by 2025 our world will be consuming 170 million barrels of oil per day?
... or even 100 MBPD?
We have reached the limits of our most productive source of energy.
The black ceiling.
How long can man continue to plod aimlessly ahead into the abyss? We went through the first half of the oil in 125 years; according to Chevron, we will go through the other half in 30. Will history paint that as the great reign of this “modern day Rome” before the fall? History is replete with the carcasses of other hubris cultures.
Seems this “transition and grow” mindset has only the near-term future in mind.
In my opinion, any proposed solutions to the peak oil issue must address the following criteria to be viable long-term solutions.
1. They must address population growth.
2. They must address the global warming issue.
3. They must address the negative consequences of conservation efforts on the economy and efficiency gains increasing consumption.
4. They must address the economic issues of a no-growth economy and past debt.
toxic to the environment.
Anything else just pushes the day of reckoning into the future and makes the cliff steeper, unless you continue to believe there are
limits.
So, do we continue to roll over the debt until we are bankrupt or do we cut up the credit cards?
It will be a short party for mankind if he chooses the former.
Doesn’t it seem odd to you that we have gone through most of our “stash” of energy in just over 100 years?