I have been a peak oil doomer for a while, but lately have decided that the clathrate gun could blast us back into the eocene any time soon as well. The reports of the amount of methane coming out of the permafrost and the possible melting of the clathrates are worrisome.
At least we'll be warmer around here when the heating oil runs out.
That may be the least of our worries.
PeakOil is You
POLL: Are you a Peak Oil Doomer, Climate Doomer or both?
Re: POLL: Are you a Peak Oil Doomer, Climate Doomer or both
by Revi » Fri 21 Jan 2011, 18:52:57
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
-
Revi - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7417
- Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Maine
Re: POLL: Are you a Peak Oil Doomer, Climate Doomer or both
by vision-master » Fri 21 Jan 2011, 18:55:52
Yeah, no kidding. 
These ppl could care less about any of the nonsense that goes on around here.
These ppl could care less about any of the nonsense that goes on around here.
- vision-master
Re: POLL: Are you a Peak Oil Doomer, Climate Doomer or both
by dolanbaker » Sat 22 Jan 2011, 14:47:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '8')) As usual none of the pole options are an exact fit but it is the nature of the beast when you try to digest complex problems into just a few lines. Peak oil is definitely going to happen but I'm not sure of the level of chaos that will result. And at the same time the climate is obviously changing but the degree of that change and the proportion of it that is attributed to human activity is often grossly overstated. Both problems are offshoots of the real problem which is the population bomb. Remove that and the other two fade away.
+100%
Just to add, the peak oil issue will soon be replaced by peak gas, then by peak coal before the real energy crunch hits home!
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.:Anonymous
Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence.
Hungrymoggy "I am now predicting that Europe will NUKE ITSELF sometime in the first week of January"
Our whole economy is based on planned obsolescence.
Hungrymoggy "I am now predicting that Europe will NUKE ITSELF sometime in the first week of January"
-
dolanbaker - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3855
- Joined: Wed 14 Apr 2010, 10:38:47
- Location: Éire
Re: POLL: Are you a Peak Oil Doomer, Climate Doomer or both
by mos6507 » Sat 22 Jan 2011, 15:17:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', '
')That may be the least of our worries.
')That may be the least of our worries.
Yeah, suddenly your population drain will reverse and you'll be surrounded by everyone fleeing north from anywhere south of New Jersey, all wondering how they're going to live on nothing but potatoes, blueberries, and what's left of dwindling maple syrup.
- mos6507
Re: POLL: Are you a Peak Oil Doomer, Climate Doomer or both
by Arthur75 » Sun 23 Jan 2011, 09:00:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '
')Overall though, I don't see peak oil talked about much insofar as how it changes AGW mitigation. What I wonder about is how some can hold both views simultaneously, that peak oil doom is imminent and yet they still think massive government programs are needed to mitigate climate change doom.
If you accept the one, how do you support the other? In the peak oil doom scenario, there won't be any massive government programs of any kind, much less climate change reversal. And more to the point, Kunstler's "world by hand" is the ultimate emissions reduction program -- neither carbon taxes nor cap and trade can touch peak oil.
')Overall though, I don't see peak oil talked about much insofar as how it changes AGW mitigation. What I wonder about is how some can hold both views simultaneously, that peak oil doom is imminent and yet they still think massive government programs are needed to mitigate climate change doom.
If you accept the one, how do you support the other? In the peak oil doom scenario, there won't be any massive government programs of any kind, much less climate change reversal. And more to the point, Kunstler's "world by hand" is the ultimate emissions reduction program -- neither carbon taxes nor cap and trade can touch peak oil.
Not sure why you say so, regarding mitigation solutions or policies for peak oil and AGW, seems to me that if they work for one objective, they also work for the other, and so are basically the same, and when they are not, like CCS or geoengineering stuff in general, they usually are false solutions or bad good ideas, and could be described as easter island strategy technological statues.
If we take the CCS example, it is estimated that the loss in energy production efficiency would be at least 30 or 40%, to capture, transport, and pump the CO2 under the carpet, so for every two moutain tops blown up in the Appalaches, you would blow up a third one in order to be able to put a "green" sticker on the energy produced from the first two (and not even talking about the other pollution aspects besides the CO2 one, augmented by so much). And this being heavy industry tons related energy intensive processes, no progress Moore's law kind to be expected there (always take so much energy to move a ton, or possible to know theoritical maximum levels of efficiency for the whole process).
So things like CCS are really an extension of the "BAU mindset": lets use more energy to clean up the mess in order to be able to keep on using as much energy or even more, meanwhile accelerating resource consumption and the speed towards the resource crash.
For other mitigation strategies, on the technical solutions aspects they are either on the production side (renewables and nuclear, ok can be discussed for nuclear) or on the conservation side (energy efficiency), and so end up valid towards both objectives.
Note that concerning the conservation or efficiency side, it can take a huge amount of different forms, as it is related to the "technical" infrastructure used in a very general sense : from insulation of current houses or buildings to the shape of the cities, vehicles and transport network efficiency and technological choices, products and appliances efficiencies, etc
Considering the starting point (huge percentage and amount of fossile energy used), it seems quite clear that the top priority should be on the conservation side, more or at least as much than on the production side : very often easier and cheaper to gain watts (or produce negawatts) from current position than to add clean non fossile watts to replace the fossile ones.
But maybe the key problem here, is that efficiency measures often appear less "sexy" than alternative production ones, as Jonathan Callahan points out in a recent TOD thread :
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7189#comment-760386
Which maybe leads to the economic or political associated policies that could be set up to "manage" the transition (if at all possible of course).
To me they can basically take three different forms :
1) subsidies or tax rebate on solutions defined as "good", either on the production or conservation side.
2) taxes (volume based) on raw materials and fossile fuels in particular, that economically push any alternative solutions either on the production or the conservation side
3) regulations and laws on new products (from houses to vehicles and appliances, and urbanistic codes) defining minimum levels of efficiency for new products, or even forbiding some technologies for a given function (like incandescent light bulbs for lighting for instance, now forbidden in several EC countries)
And of course to this should be added the "common infrastucture" strategies and projects, for instance related to transport networks and technologies.
In between 1) and 2), I think 2) should clearly be favored as the prime mechanism, subsidies make sense when linked to research and development, but when linked to production CAPEX and OPEX it is very debatable. Moreover, it is very easy to be wrong in this "good solutions labelling business", good solutions labelling business which is always necessary prior to setting up subsidies on production, corn ethanol could be considered as a prime example here, if indeed its EROEI is inferior or barely superior to one. Plus subsidies are much more prone to various cheats and loopholes than straight volume based taxes. Taxes on fossile fuels have the advantage of "not caring about the solutions" at all, leaving the responsibility of defining and deciding whether they make sense or not to the ones investing in them.
About 3), for sure some are necessary, but here also we should probably be careful about the "good solutions labeling business" not becoming overwhelming on this aspect.
Ok here I know taxes isn't a very popular word in the US (and the world over), and of course some redistribution principles have to be set up in parallel (or some other taxes removed like taxes related to work for instance), but still on principle taxes on fossile fuel are most probably the best mitigation policy, and this even after the peak, even if maybe it can appear a bit counter intuitive at first glance (or gut feeling). And this in a pure self economic interest for a given country (and even for the job market in the country).
Here the prime example for the US is of course the current gas tax level, which results in not only the trade balance deficit keeping on increasing, but more importantly still a huge number of highly inefficient vehicles being bought everyday, when sound investment strategies at all levels is the only way out of this mess if there is one.
Guess you knew I would manage to end up on the US gas tax level aspect, no ?
-
Arthur75 - Tar Sands
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun 29 Mar 2009, 05:10:51
- Location: Paris, France
Re: POLL: Are you a Peak Oil Doomer, Climate Doomer or both
by Rod_Cloutier » Sun 23 Jan 2011, 10:07:33
I was at the beach last summer. On the way home on the highway there was an obvious tornado, tearing up crop land and visible from a great distance. Tornado's are comparively rare where I live and the immediate effect of this tornado was people stopping their cars on the highway to get out and take a look. Some had even stopped to get video footage on their IPod's of the event.
The same can be said of any rare event, people will want to stop and take a look. How many people do you think rush out to the beach after tsunami warnings are issued, to watch (and film) the event as it unfolds? There is no shortage of disaster footage or war reporting from any crisis as it unfolds. People rush into the disaster region to take a look. (The media frezny about Haiti last year is an example.)
I think people who are aware of peak oil and catastrophic climate change are no different. We want to watch and report on the events as they unfold. We participate in discussion of 'what ifs' scenario's on this message board as the twin disasters of peak oil and catastrophic climate change unfold in tandem.
I think this puts us in as much risk as people stopping on the side of the road to film a tornado, or rushing to the beach to watch the tsunami come in! Those who are aware on this board of peak oil and catastrophic climate change are thus the most vunerable to the events as they occur; we have rushed in to watch and report the events as they occur firsthand, we are the potentially among the first victims of our own folly.
The same can be said of any rare event, people will want to stop and take a look. How many people do you think rush out to the beach after tsunami warnings are issued, to watch (and film) the event as it unfolds? There is no shortage of disaster footage or war reporting from any crisis as it unfolds. People rush into the disaster region to take a look. (The media frezny about Haiti last year is an example.)
I think people who are aware of peak oil and catastrophic climate change are no different. We want to watch and report on the events as they unfold. We participate in discussion of 'what ifs' scenario's on this message board as the twin disasters of peak oil and catastrophic climate change unfold in tandem.
I think this puts us in as much risk as people stopping on the side of the road to film a tornado, or rushing to the beach to watch the tsunami come in! Those who are aware on this board of peak oil and catastrophic climate change are thus the most vunerable to the events as they occur; we have rushed in to watch and report the events as they occur firsthand, we are the potentially among the first victims of our own folly.
- Rod_Cloutier
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1448
- Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Re: POLL: Are you a Peak Oil Doomer, Climate Doomer or both
by Oakley » Sun 23 Jan 2011, 10:40:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '8')) As usual none of the pole options are an exact fit but it is the nature of the beast when you try to digest complex problems into just a few lines. Peak oil is definitely going to happen but I'm not sure of the level of chaos that will result. And at the same time the climate is obviously changing but the degree of that change and the proportion of it that is attributed to human activity is often grossly overstated. Both problems are offshoots of the real problem which is the population bomb. Remove that and the other two fade away.
I find it amusing that more then a few here think that capitalism is the root of the problem and switching over to a socialist or communist government would improve the outcome going forward.
I find it amusing that more then a few here think that capitalism is the root of the problem and switching over to a socialist or communist government would improve the outcome going forward.
Yes the huge population is the problem. It took all of a very long human history up until the beginning of the industrial age, circa 1750, for world population to reach 3/4 of a billion, and then the explosion came and we now are at about 7 billion.
If you look at instances where other species have discovered a one time bonanza and exploded in population, then dieoff will be the solution imposed by mother nature. This is what I expect since it seems very late in the game for any sort of man made solution, even if one were possible.
As far as the form of economic system, I think that is irrelevant at this point for mankind as a whole, although the economic system does determine who dies and who lives. We don't have capitalism in the US; we have economic fascism, where special interests and government collude to rig the economy in their favor against the average man. If we had a true free market economic system, wealth would follow a normal bell curve instead of the skewed distribution we now have, and the playing field for survival would be more even. Socialism and communism both produce less economic output than free markets at any given level of resource availability, so any movement to increase government ownership or control of the economy will just increase human suffering and accelerate the dieoff. It is delusional to think that socialism and communism yield a normal distribution of wealth; these systems just produce poverty for the overwhelming majority, and still there is an elite at the top which lives in opulence.
It is unfortunate that as the end of the industrial age unfolds, there likely will be the additional tragedy of a violent struggle among those who advocate freedom, those who advocate the present system of plunder and control for the benefit of the few at the expense of the majority (fascism), and the pawns at the bottom who can't take care of themselves and advocate government take from producers and give to them. In addition to the deaths from fighting, such a struggle itself will destroy a significant amount of economic output and accelerate the dieoff.
The following article gives an overview of what lies ahead politically:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest- ... revolution
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence" Thomas H Huxley
- Oakley
- Lignite
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Mon 11 May 2009, 01:23:22
