[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paulo1', '
')I don't think Gail is correct in her level of doom, to get back to the original post. I understand her reasoning, but choose to believe that we will simply get poorer.

Paulo

[Lore]

Take away our jobs and support systems and most of us are only a few weeks away from living like third worlders.

[Plantagenet]

Some of us already live like third worlders part of the time.

Live frugally, chop your own wood, heat with wood, hunt and fish for food, hike, walk, run, ride a bike, ski....its not so bad, really.

[jupiters_release]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'S')ome of us already live like third worlders part of the time.

Live frugally, chop your own wood, heat with wood, hunt and fish for food, hike, walk, run, ride a bike, ski....its not so bad, really.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jupiters_release', 'I') had no idea the third world had it so nice.

[peterjames]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '[')wish.

[FloridaGirl]

Like Gail, I've been thinking that our global energy curve could be a shark fin for 4 reasons.

1. Consider Hubbert's bell shaped curve for global oil. There is a finite amount of economically producible oil in the world so the area under the curve is fixed. Hubbert's theory for a field or a group of fields assumes that it is produced as fast as possible. Now consider that the left side of the global oil curve has been limited by demand. Producers like those in OPEC could have produced more. So the left-hand slope of the oil bell curve is lowered and since the area under the curve is fixed, the whole thing is shifted to the right which raises the possible peak and makes the right hand side steeper.

2. As the peak is approached and the price of oil increase (it basically quadrupled), demand gets capped and the peak is flattened. So then the oil that would have been produced in the cap of the curve is shifted to the right which causes the right hand side to get steeper again.

3. What really matters to the economy is the net energy produced. So think about subtracting all the energy it took to produce, refine and deliver the resulting oil products. On the left hand side of the curve, the energy required is relatively small but it increases as the easy and best quality oil is produced. This makes the right hand side of the net energy oil curve even steeper.

4. Our economy is based on a Ponzi like financial system that requires growth. Growth in net energy, of which oil is a large part of, is required for growth of the fundamental economy (see http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse). Without growth in the fundamental economy, the system collapses. I believe we are in the beginning stages of that global collapse and the extraordinary money printing by the central banks of the world is evidence of that collapse. At some point, the money printing will no longer postpone the inevitable and the system will cease to operate. This almost happened in 2008. Consider what would result when every bank fails. No company can pay their workers or buy materials. Ships will no longer deliver goods because they cannot be paid for. That alone will cut the US's oil supply in half. There'll be no food in the stores and no gas in the gas stations. How will the US producers keep producing if the companies cannot pay for supplies and the workers can't find gas to get to work? The same goes for coal and natural gas so there'll be massive electricity shortages too. This will all result in an even sharper drop off in the oil curve and net overall energy as well.

I hope my theory isn't so but I'm afraid it is. I don't think the right hand side of the curve will be smooth since I think that people will figure out how to restart the system but it will run up on a lower ceiling of energy availability and drop again resulting in a jagged up and down decline.

But this is my hope for climate change as it appears that humans in general are not smarter than yeast and we will not control our consumption. I understand that the climate will probably continue to worsen anyway for a while but it should be "less bad" if we reduce our carbon emissions. My greatest hope is that we are really smarter than yeast and will control ourselves and that is what I live and advocate.

[kiwichick]

@ fg

any intelligent government will introduce rationing to ensure essential sevices continue

imagine , for example , if 95 % of Americans have to park up their cars/trucks and take the bus/walk/bike/train

instant and dramatic reduction in oil consumption

and welcome !

[ROCKMAN]

"...instant and dramatic reduction in oil consumption". As well as a huge increase in unemployment for folks involved in the energy sector but that would be greatly outweighed by folks unable to commute to work. Houston is unique compared to cities of similar size: even in a decade of rapid growth in public transport there would still be hundreds of thousands unable to get to work. And that would be only those that still had jobs. That's the failing of most theoretical plans to cut oil consumption IMHO: those unintended and huge negative impacts on the economy.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FloridaGirl', '
')I don't think the right hand side of the curve will be smooth since I think that people will figure out how to restart the system but it will run up on a lower ceiling of energy availability and drop again resulting in a jagged up and down decline.

[Pops]

Very good!

Points to those who understand that what we have a systemic problem rather than simply a fuel problem or a climate problem and that systemic problem is more pressing than the Overnight Armageddon of empty gas tanks or the Eventual Armageddon of boiling in our skins.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gail', 'U')nfortunately, the real situation is that the laws of physics, rather than humans, are in charge. Basically, as economies grow, it takes increasing complexity to fix problems, as Joseph Tainter explained in his book, The Collapse of Complex Societies. Dissipative structures provide this ever-increasing complexity through higher "Energy Rate Density"

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FloridaGirl', 'L')ike Gail, I've been thinking that our global energy curve could be a shark fin for 4 reasons.

1. Consider Hubbert's bell shaped curve for global oil. There is a finite amount of economically producible oil in the world so the area under the curve is fixed. Hubbert's theory for a field or a group of fields assumes that it is produced as fast as possible. Now consider that the left side of the global oil curve has been limited by demand. Producers like those in OPEC could have produced more. So the left-hand slope of the oil bell curve is lowered and since the area under the curve is fixed, the whole thing is shifted to the right which raises the possible peak and makes the right hand side steeper.

2. As the peak is approached and the price of oil increase (it basically quadrupled), demand gets capped and the peak is flattened. So then the oil that would have been produced in the cap of the curve is shifted to the right which causes the right hand side to get steeper again.

3. What really matters to the economy is the net energy produced. So think about subtracting all the energy it took to produce, refine and deliver the resulting oil products. On the left hand side of the curve, the energy required is relatively small but it increases as the easy and best quality oil is produced. This makes the right hand side of the net energy oil curve even steeper.

4. Our economy is based on a Ponzi like financial system that requires growth. Growth in net energy, of which oil is a large part of, is required for growth of the fundamental economy (see http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse). Without growth in the fundamental economy, the system collapses. I believe we are in the beginning stages of that global collapse and the extraordinary money printing by the central banks of the world is evidence of that collapse. At some point, the money printing will no longer postpone the inevitable and the system will cease to operate. This almost happened in 2008. Consider what would result when every bank fails. No company can pay their workers or buy materials. Ships will no longer deliver goods because they cannot be paid for. That alone will cut the US's oil supply in half. There'll be no food in the stores and no gas in the gas stations. How will the US producers keep producing if the companies cannot pay for supplies and the workers can't find gas to get to work? The same goes for coal and natural gas so there'll be massive electricity shortages too. This will all result in an even sharper drop off in the oil curve and net overall energy as well.

I hope my theory isn't so but I'm afraid it is. I don't think the right hand side of the curve will be smooth since I think that people will figure out how to restart the system but it will run up on a lower ceiling of energy availability and drop again resulting in a jagged up and down decline.

But this is my hope for climate change as it appears that humans in general are not smarter than yeast and we will not control our consumption. I understand that the climate will probably continue to worsen anyway for a while but it should be "less bad" if we reduce our carbon emissions. My greatest hope is that we are really smarter than yeast and will control ourselves and that is what I live and advocate.

[AgentR11]

I think these shark fin graphs that understate coal really fail to grasp how little oil is required to make coal usage continue to increase.

Even if the world were down to 10mbpd, coal would still continue its ramp up. You couldn't afford to drive, and the economy would be really beaten up, but the lights would be on, the coal would continue to move; and worse, I suspect any regulatory limitations and requirements for emissions would be completely unenforced. Those giant mining trucks, they run just fine on $50/gal diesel. They trump your car. They trump the city commuter bus. They trump the police car. Short of the army tank in a time of war, they trump just about everything.

So no, don't get your hopes up on any graph that shows decline in coal use. Not happening.

A world with crashed oil production keeps coal, keeps heavy container ships, keeps farm machinery. What it can't keep is you driving your truck to Walmart or to your job, unless your job actually involves hauling around a half ton of fairly valuable cargo from site to site. So certainly devastating economically; but that coal fired plant in China?? As long as Ming the Bored shows up for his PLA job... Its running.

When Ming stops showing up? I think CC will be the least of our troubles as hundreds of fission plants across the globe go unattended and without external power.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')Points to those who understand that what we have a systemic problem rather than simply a fuel problem or a climate problem and that systemic problem is more pressing than the Overnight Armageddon of empty gas tanks or the Eventual Armageddon of boiling in our skins.
.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'O')ne should examine ones interior motives at needing to fix on a certain outcome so early on as this process unfolds.

[hvacman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '[')wish.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', ' ')But it's hard to stay on our toes while we keep our chin up, our eye on the ball, our nose to the grindstone and our finger in the wind.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hvacman', ' ')Back in the day, logs were hauled from the woods to the mill by narrow-gauge rail using wood-burning locomotives, that is if they weren't floated down to the mill via flume or the river. Wood-fired "steam donkeys" snaked the logs out from the woods to the staging decks.