by Ibon » Tue 29 Jan 2013, 14:28:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')The problem with this optimistic outlook IMO is that the leaders of every western country are still promising 'return to BAU' right around the corner. It is natural for elected leaders to always promise sunny days ahead because that is what they think will garner the votes they need to stay in elected office. Democracy is ultimately self destructive as a result. Especially in long emergency situations like Global Warming and Peak Oil where the truth will cost the leaders their positions in office.
This is definately true. We can already notice a lack of faith amongst the electorate in our political system. Everytime elected leaders promise what turns out to be lies the credibility of the institution suffers further. We have a rather unique situation where the masses are beginning to suspect that the pillars aren't holding up the structure whether it is private industry (bankers and corporations) or the public sector (government). These are positive developments in my opinion because it exposes the failure of BAU as being what it is; inherently unsustainable.
Your concern that politicians will perpetuate this out of self interest is a short term scenario in my opinion since built in with these false promises are the seeds of obsolescence.
How long do you think the electorate will remain asleep and manipulated when real life consequences make each round of promises more blatantly unbelievable?
The inherent instability is the source of my optimism. Expect anythinng but BAU extending very long into the future.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
-
Ibon
- Expert
-
- Posts: 9572
- Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Volcan, Panama
-
by Quinny » Wed 30 Jan 2013, 05:14:49
Simmering the frogs.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EdwinSm', 'I') know this thread was intended to show a bad situation, but I wonder if a weak recovery is the very best situation to be in given the constraints of Peak Oil.
Maybe it is like how many economists now think a small rate of inflation is good (around the 2% mark). Humans are emotional animals, and studies have been found to show that emotionally they can handle an effective pay cut as long as the nominal rate is going up. So a pay rise of 1% in an era of 2% inflation will cause much less social upheaval than a 1% pay cut when there is no inflation [even if both situations basically give the same loss of purchasing power]. Thus a smallish rate of inflation allows the posibility for gradual adjustment in salaries without major social problems.
Peak Oil will force a change in lifestyle to lower energy use. A quick change would result in a wrencing social change, so maybe a weak recovery (ie a small positive GDP figure, which in effect masks a drop in living standard if inflation is higher) might be the best way to reduce energy useage without massive social disruption.
Humans are good at adapting, if given time, and a weak recovery gives some time. It probably does not give enough time given the major reduction in energy use that is needed, but a longish plateau gives more hope of adjusting than a short peak in energy use followed by a rapid decline.
So will any one join me in giving one and a half cheers (three is too much) for a weak recovery?
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
-
Quinny
- Intermediate Crude
-
- Posts: 3337
- Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
-
by kublikhan » Wed 30 Jan 2013, 11:10:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'W')e can already notice a lack of faith amongst the electorate in our political system. Everytime elected leaders promise what turns out to be lies the credibility of the institution suffers further. We have a rather unique situation where the masses are beginning to suspect that the pillars aren't holding up the structure whether it is private industry (bankers and corporations) or the public sector (government). These are positive developments in my opinion because it exposes the failure of BAU as being what it is; inherently unsustainable.
I was reading an article the other day that echoed these same sentiments:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll around the globe, people are feeling increasingly skeptical and mistrustful of their leaders. According to one global trust barometer, only 52% of survey respondents said that they trusted their government to do the right thing in 2011 and, in 2012, the number plummeted to 43%. As recent surveys reveal, only 18% of Italians believe their vote matters, just 15% of Greeks says that pulling a lever makes a difference and a scant 20% of Americans agree that their government makes good decisions. Meanwhile, Japan and South Korea suffered 26- and 17-point declines in government trust ratings this year, respectively. These are all democracies. Which means that citizens do not trust the very people they voted into office.
Why is the concept of a democracy in crisis?Democracy has always been in crisis: democracy is all about practicing the art of bearable dissatisfaction. In democratic societies, people often complain about their leaders and their institutions. The gap between the ideal democracy and the existing one cannot be bridged.
What can be done to improve the interaction between our leaders and the citizens?The fact that a growing number of people are mistrustful of the politicians who govern them is good news for democracy. The critical argument of my book is that in order for democracy to function, people need to have a real choice and a shared purpose. What we lack dramatically today is what I call democratic reformism — political actions that are not just control of those in power or pressure for a certain cause or in favor of a certain group, but a political strategy that tries to envision the improvement of society as a whole.
America just avoided going over the “fiscal cliff,” but it looks like our leaders have lost their ability to reach consensus. Is this a symptom of democracy in crisis?In the last decade, American democracy has been turned into a game of chicken, in which preventing the other side from governing is more important than governing yourself. From 2008 to 2012, Republicans in Congress have used the filibuster as often as it was deployed in the whole seven decades between World War I and the end of Ronald Reagan’s second term. This fact alone makes democracy look ungovernable.
Viewed from Europe, the U.S. looks like a dysfunctional post-communist democracy in which politics is an ungovernable zero-sum game. Compromise has become more difficult than ever because most Congressmen and Senators come from a one-party state where you are rewarded for non-compromising.
Recently a friend of mine said that they’re working on software that, any moment a politician is giving a statement on an issue, automatically shows the different positions on the same issue he or she has taken. And this is perceived as a great contribution to democracy because you can show that a politician is changing his view. But democracy is not about people not changing their views. The most important figure in democratic politics is not the guy who is not changing his view. The most important and positive hero for the democratic society is somebody who is ready to change his views after a rational argument. If I cannot change the politician’s view, even giving him a very strong argument against his position, he’s either an idiot or a fanatic. I’m afraid because these type of technologies are making consistency more important than reasonability.
Is democracy in crisis?
The oil barrel is half-full.
by dolanbaker » Wed 30 Jan 2013, 15:59:59
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SamInNebraska', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')The economy of the UK (and the rest of the EU) just can't cope with the record high energy prices we are seeing now.
and isn't willing to get their shale gas drilling program in gear to help them deal with it either.
The best that can be hoped from fracing will be a delay in the inevitable decline in the supply in cheap energy. Unlike in the US where gas is a byproduct of oil fracing, any gas fracing will be for gas only. Politically it would likely need a couple of cold winters & empty gas tanks to make it acceptable to the general population for fracing to be done on a large scale.
But it won't solve the problem of declining oil supplies in the future though.
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"
by kublikhan » Wed 30 Jan 2013, 20:49:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'T')here is no perfect solution.....but a huge supply of cheap NG is a godsend right now. Lets use the 100 years of NG that Obama says we have to build a bridge to a post-carbon economy. We can stave off economic collapse for 100+ years if we transition our transportation economy from oil to NG.
When Obama mentioned we had 100 years supply of natural gas, he was talking about current consumption. If you replace all of our current oil consumption with natural gas, that will greatly increase our natural gas consumption. There would not be a 100 year supply of natural gas.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
by kublikhan » Thu 31 Jan 2013, 00:06:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'I')'m surprised you would second guess our president----Are you suggesting he was lying or that he didn't check his numbers before making this claim in his speech?
I'm not second guessing our president, I'm second guessing you. As usual, you are distorting what someone actually said.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'I')f you go back and read the speech, Obama never said "at current consumption" as your post wrongly suggests---Obama's actual words were that we have enough NG to "last 100 years". Those were his words and his meaning is clear---there is enough NG to last 100 years. Surely Obama is smart enough to understand the difference between lasting 100 years and being used up more quickly. AND look at the context of Obama's promise that NG will "last 100 years". Obama is boasting about the huge amount of NG that has been found and suggesting people use more of it because it will "last 100 years."
Oh that's great logic. Obama never said he
wasn't talking about using the US's supply of natural gas to supply the entire planet's energy needs. Perhaps we should just assume that's what he meant? That way we are covered on both fronts. We can stroke our pet natural gas meme by boasting about this huge natural gas claim. Then if it blows up, we say it was all that dimwit Obama's fault for lying. Got all your bases covered there eh planty?
Anyway, here are some articles that discuss the facts and math behind Obama's "100 years of natural gas speech".
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hen President Barack Obama said in his State of the Union speech this year that the United States has a supply of natural gas that can last nearly 100 years, he was using a quick-and-dirty, back-of-the-envelope computation that is nonetheless rooted in recent geological research.
Even the nation’s top petroleum geologists, who typically measure natural gas reserves in trillions of cubic feet (tcf) grudgingly admit the need to simplify — even oversimplify — their research for public consumption.
“The 100-year supply is strictly a talking point, and scientists don’t use it, but it gives you a comfort factor that lets you know you’re on the right path,” says John Curtis, a geology professor at the Colorado School of Mines and director of the Potential Gas Committee. The nonprofit group of industry experts and academics regularly assesses the nation’s untapped resources.
Obama was using what is called an “R/P ratio” — the nation's gas “reserves” divided by the amount of gas “produced” in the last year. The result is a number that represents the length of time those remaining reserves would last
if production continues at the same rate. The Math Behind the 100-Year, Natural-Gas Supply Debate$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') lot of folks have heard these numbers before; especially the "100 years of gas" meme. Industry-wide job growth forecasts are dependent on tons of overlapping assumptions—suffice to say that it's highly, highly speculative and shouldn't be taken too seriously. Especially since one of those assumptions—that there's enough natural gas to meet current energy demands for 100 years—may be grossly overstated.
First of all, that '100 years of gas' figure was first trotted out by a biased report carried out by the natural gas industry, and should be taken with a grain of salt. This must-read Slate piece by Chris Nelder explains:
"The claim of a 100-year supply originated with a report released in April 2011 by the Potential Gas Committee, an organization of petroleum engineers and geoscientists. In short, the Potential Gas Committee report is not an impartial assessment of resources."
This isn't to say straight-out that the report is rubbish—but there's a massive built-in incentive for the contributors to gin up some extra-rosy figures to boost their industry.
But the devil is in the details, of course—here's Nelder breaking down why, even if there is '100 years worth of gas' buried in the US, we probably won't be able to get most of it...
I really encourage you to read Nelder's entire analysis—it's quite thorough. He says that a more accurate number may be 21 years worth of gas at current consumption levels; but he also notes that
since nat gas champions are saying we should be converting our transportation sector to run on the stuff, we may run out even sooner than that.The bottom line is that we should be raising skeptical eyebrows aplenty when the president—or anyone—starts trotting out talk like the '100 years of gas' claim. Or say that the United States is like a 'Saudi Arabia' of gas, or so on. There simply isn't enough good information out there to know just how much gas is recoverable, and there's every reason to be cautious of industry-backed numbers. There's certainly not enough good info available to justify making such grandiose claims that, in truth, border on industry boosterism.
The oil barrel is half-full.
by kublikhan » Thu 31 Jan 2013, 02:11:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'W')hy do you think Obama was lying? Isn't it more likely that he checked with the scientists in the USGS to get the latest info on the amount of NG in US fields, and then with the economists in the EIA and in Commerce to look at economic projections and scenarios for NG utilization, and then made his prediction based on that info?
Obama said the US has enough NG "to last 100 years" --- and he is in a unique position to know whereof he speaks.
That was sarcasm. But he also didn't say we could have 100 years of supply if we moved our entire transportation infrastructure over to natural gas. The Potential Gas Committee, which originated the 100 year quote, said the estimate was based on current consumption, not current consumption plus all of our oil, coal, nuclear, etc needs.
The oil barrel is half-full.
-
kublikhan
- Master Prognosticator
-
- Posts: 5064
- Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
- Location: Illinois
-
