[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('tom_s2', 'H')i dashster,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M'). King Hubbert, Colin Campbell, Jean Lahererre, Kenneth Deffeyes and other petroleum geologists are as much experts in the field as any nameless person on the optimistic side.

[Pops]

Y'all need to look beyond your little argument at the bigger picture. Just on that last point, there was a big oil & gas spike the period from the 50's-'70s but when oil prices rose there was a switch to coal and nukes. Retail consumers and transportation didn't drop much, it was industry and generation.

But overall energy consumption has never decreased, in the modern era anyway.

[dashster]

Good point that we have never faced a decline in total energy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')

[Pops]

We don't have to wear underwear either, watch TV or live in big houses or shop at the mall.

The problem with simply saying we can eliminates waste is that one man's waste is another's livelihood. Our economy is built on waste. Even throwing a rock through a window increases GDP.

Or as the business card of a plumber I once met read:
It may be shit to you but it is my bread and butter.
.

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'W')e don't have to wear underwear either, watch TV or live in big houses or shop at the mall.

The problem with simply saying we can eliminates waste is that one man's waste is another's livelihood. Our economy is built on waste. Even throwing a rock through a window increases GDP.

[ennui2]

I would agree that there's sort of a give and take with the economy. Before there were cars, there were buggy-whip manufacturers. And if people drive less, they will probably spend more on in-home entertainment. Physical media is actually in the process of dying there, but streaming is taking over. We're becoming very much a couch potato society and that actually might be a good thing for reducing discretionary spending. If everyone who could telecommute did, it would save a huge percentage of commuter-driven oil consumption. All that's required there is a change in corporate mindset.

I'm not saying that these behavioral changes will "solve" limits to growth, but it does illustrate that there's a huge amount of waste that wouldn't be that painful to cut out. It's just persisting due to cultural inertia.

[Dybbuk]

I think most of the thousands of pages of arguments on this forum can be summarized neatly thus:

1. The major challenges facing humanity (peak oil, peak coal & gas, climate change, overpopulation, environmental degradation, strains on the supplies of farmland, fresh water, and other resources, fiscal issues, aging populations, etc.) have the potential (if not effectively addressed) to cause catastrophes or even societal/global collapse.
2. Status quo technologies and institutions don't seem up to the task of effectively addressing these issues, so we'll need to metaphorically pull some rabbits out of the hat in order to avert catastrophe.
3. The past few centuries of human history is chock full of examples of pulling rabbits out of hats: new technologies, scientific discoveries, societal evolution, often far beyond anything envisioned by those trying to imagine the future.
4. It's unclear whether we will continue to pull the right kinds of rabbits out of the hat to deal with the challenges that lie ahead.

I think even most cornies and doomers would mostly agree with #1, #2, and #3. So the argument comes down to #4. It's all about those rabbits.

The corny position seems to be that our track record with the rabbits is so clearly positive, and market economies are so spectacular at relentlessly producing more rabbits, that it's self-evident that said rabbits are forthcoming, and anybody who says otherwise is a kook and/or stupid.

The doomer position seems to be that the rabbits required are so much bigger or of a different sort than the rabbits we've produced in the past, or our ability to generate new rabbits so compromised, that it's futile to have any hope that the rabbits will arrive when we need them, and anybody who says otherwise is a pie-in-the-sky dreamer, in denial, and/or stupid.

The middle position (which I subscribe to) is that we're really bad at predicting the future. Maybe the rabbits will come, maybe they won't. It's an interesting topic worthy of lots of discussion. Anybody who thinks they know for sure either hasn't thought enough about the topic, or else they have become invested in their position for ideological or psychological reasons, or out of pure stubbornness.

So let's keep talking about them rabbits...

[dolanbaker]

It's not just the rabbits we need to think about, it's the hats as well, in other words peoples expectations and aspirations will change as well. If people stop aspiring to live in large suburban houses and prefer to live in cities, then the requirements for millions of individual journeys that require personal transport reduces.

Any such changes in social interaction will reduce the chances of an energy crunch such that most doomer predictions never come true, neither will the cornie ones either, but they'll be less wrong than the doomers. Most people would probably adapt to the changing situation while still not really understanding why things are going the way they are and the recent drops in oil price just confuse it even more.

[Dybbuk]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', 'I')t's not just the rabbits we need to think about, it's the hats as well, in other words peoples expectations and aspirations will change as well. If people stop aspiring to live in large suburban houses and prefer to live in cities, then the requirements for millions of individual journeys that require personal transport reduces.

Any such changes in social interaction will reduce the chances of an energy crunch

[ralfy]

According to several sources, at least one Saudi Arabia in new oil will be needed every seven years just to maintain economic growth, and more if middle class continues to grow.

Birth rates are lower but population keeps rising because there are too many young people. On top of that, birth rates are lower because of better education, etc., leading to more prosperity, which means a growing middle class, and in turn more energy and material resources needed.

Because transition takes place across several decades then it should have started more than a decade ago. Since the global economy is based on profit and competition, then that will have to be replaced by heavy regulation and coordination as transitions involve energy traps and lag time. That is not likely.

Finally, as for forecasts, we can probably look at what was made almost four decades ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY

and see that in light of what happened after 2006:

http://peakoil.com/production/internati ... as-in-2006

Probably the same can be seen for climate change:

http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/20 ... -accurate/

And overall forecasts of multiple factors made more than four decades ago compared to historical data:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople not driving cars would decimate the travel industry and other local industries that depend on casual driving. But there would be money spent on other things. Amazon.com sweatshop warehouse jobs would increase. And Netflix would get more money.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', '
')If people stop aspiring to live in large suburban houses and prefer to live in cities, then the requirements for millions of individual journeys that require personal transport reduces.

[Pops]

I agree, they will move in lockstep only if there is a clear direction and no choice. Unfortunately for Americans we each see ourselves as Dan'l Boone out there pitting our wits against the wilderness... alone. Any societal effort at mitigation will be met by so much resistance from the Exceptionalism Lobby (financed by wall street of course) that individual efforts are the only real option; kind of a self-fulfilling curse.

[dolanbaker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', '
')If people stop aspiring to live in large suburban houses and prefer to live in cities, then the requirements for millions of individual journeys that require personal transport reduces.

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', 'I')f everyone who could telecommute did, it would save a huge percentage of commuter-driven oil consumption. All that's required there is a change in corporate mindset.

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', ' ')If people stop aspiring to live in large suburban houses and prefer to live in cities, then the requirements for millions of individual journeys that require personal transport reduces.

[Dybbuk]

I doubt telecommuting will really catch on, because 1) a lot of people get cabin fever if they're stuck at home too much, 2) management doesn't like it because they feel less in control of their employees.

I hear a lot of talk about how the suburbs will die if oil gets too expensive, because people won't be able to afford to travel into the city to work. Hasn't it occurred to them that maybe some of the jobs could move to the suburbs (thereby converting them to "edge cities")? That seems a lot more reasonable than just abandoning all that expensive housing to pack people into the cities like sardines. I live in a suburb and my office job is a five minute walk from home.

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dybbuk', '
')
I hear a lot of talk about how the suburbs will die if oil gets too expensive, because people won't be able to afford to travel into the city to work. Hasn't it occurred to them that maybe some of the jobs could move to the suburbs (thereby converting them to "edge cities")? That seems a lot more reasonable than just abandoning all that expensive housing to pack people into the cities like sardines. I live in a suburb and my office job is a five minute walk from home.

[ralfy]

As pointed out briefly in this feature,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0ujDVRIzGM

governments should have prepared more than a decade ago.

[dolanbaker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dashster', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dybbuk', '
')
I hear a lot of talk about how the suburbs will die if oil gets too expensive, because people won't be able to afford to travel into the city to work. Hasn't it occurred to them that maybe some of the jobs could move to the suburbs (thereby converting them to "edge cities")? That seems a lot more reasonable than just abandoning all that expensive housing to pack people into the cities like sardines. I live in a suburb and my office job is a five minute walk from home.