[Daryl]

I think peak oil theory is great. At its minimum, it's a great starting point for conversations our society needs to have about our economic model and our resource consumption. However, I'm not convinced it is valid. Here are 3 reasons why. I know I am going to be savaged on the board for these comments, so let 'em rip!!!!


1) It is too statistically dense. Statistics are are inherently unreliable because they are subject to misinterpretation, falsification, bad data input, exagerration etc.

2) The leading proponents present the theory in a very overbearing manner. Their credibility suffers because they never acknowledge a fair point from the other side of the debate. Since they acknowledge no holes in their theory, it seems more likely they are bending many statistics to fit their argument or ignoring other statistics that dispute their argument.

3) Any apocalyptic forecast is should be held in suspicion. We have records of them going back as far as 5 or 6 thousand years and so far they have all been wrong. Not a great track record. Fear and melodrama sell. These guys are selling books, aren't they?

[tdrive]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') think peak oil theory is great. At its minimum, it's a great starting point for conversations our society needs to have about our economic model and our resource consumption. However, I'm not convinced it is valid. Here are 3 reasons why. I know I am going to be savaged on the board for these comments, so let 'em rip!!!!


1) It is too statistically dense. Statistics are are inherently unreliable because they are subject to misinterpretation, falsification, bad data input, exagerration etc.

2) The leading proponents present the theory in a very overbearing manner. Their credibility suffers because they never acknowledge a fair point from the other side of the debate. Since they acknowledge no holes in their theory, it seems more likely they are bending many statistics to fit their argument or ignoring other statistics that dispute their argument.

3) Any apocalyptic forecast is should be held in suspicion. We have records of them going back as far as 5 or 6 thousand years and so far they have all been wrong. Not a great track record. Fear and melodrama sell. These guys are selling books, aren't they?

[RonMN]

I wont rip into ya. All of your 3 points are valid.

But one point i can't get away from is "oil is a finite resource". it will decline & then run out some day (no, we're not sure exactly when). Then you throw in the unbelievable fact that the world is burning 84 million barrels a day of the stuff. Plus the USA oil production has been in decline for 35 years so we have very clear data on that part of depletion.

Top that with an economic system that dies if it isn't growing...and...well (it don't look pretty)

[cat]

The argument isn't really about if peak oil will occur. Rather, it is about when it will occur and what will happen when it does. I think you need to base your arguments around geology - how much oil does the world have remaining, and economics - how will the US, the world react to depleting oil reserves? There are a lot of good threads on this site, with many smart people looking at all aspects.

[venky]

I bought into the doomer scenario's in the begining, but the more I learnt about Peak Oil, I was better able figure out the subtle flaws in the doomer logic. I agree with you, no apocalyptic scenario has ever proved right in history and I dont think it will happen this time. Infact now I am convinced that even the peak is definitely in 2010 or probably even further away.
Ofcourse there is still the grave issue of refinery bottlenecks and fudged numbers in the middle east, which might bring an earlier peak.

I still do think however that we are in for a period of severe economic difficulties, and we will have to do a serious reassesment of our way of life and our relationship with the planet.

[mgibbons19]

I feel great now because I am listening to a link from Coast to Coast that is saying Peak Oil is a myth. Those evil oil companies aren't sharing. The club of rome made it up to starve off and limit the population. The plants are shut down to keep the prices high. I heard that Saudi Arabia's sweet light has almost doubled and is almost coming out of the ground as pure gasoline. That the oilfields are replenishing.

I'm glad we don't have to worry anymore.

[rogerhb]

A few shakes and wobbles as we traverse the plateau will help clear up some uncertainties.

[dinopello]

I think the glass half empty theory is great, but I've come to realize that it's really half full. And, I'm so much the happier.

[Ketzl]

Regarding your point #3, that apocalyptic scenarios have always been wrong, that's true to an extent; the human race is going stronger than ever. But cultures and societies have had apocalyptic collapses of their civilizations. Indeed, except for the Chinese it's more the norm than the exception. Almost every society in human history has disappeared into the dust of history. Will America be next? Surely the suburban-spawl car-culture consumerism of today's American society is not sustainable, can we all agree on that? There are so many factors that will force our society to change radically in the coming year (oil depletion, bird flu, topsoil depletion, global warming, the US trade imbalance and the growing national debt to name just a few) that change is inevitable.

But will we as a society roll with the changes and still be America, or will our national institutions fail, dieoffs ensue and survivors eke out a pathetic living in the ruins? Unlike global apocalypse, individual societies can and have failed. I'm a big fan of Jared Diamond's if you can't tell, and highly recommend his book _Collapse_. It's not a doomer book, but it did help me think of some of these issues logically. W

[Daryl]

"But one point i can't get away from is "oil is a finite resource". it will decline & then run out some day"

No doubt. I think Kunstler and the others get really interesting when they discuss how alternate fuel sources will be unable to replace oil, at least in way that will maintain our current structure. I was first exposed to these ideas in 1980 when I picked up a copy of Jeremy Rifkin's "Entropy". It rang true then and the whole thing rings true know. On another level, this is about free markets vrs government planning. Long ago, America committed to free markets. This was out of necessity. Our populous is too ornery, spoiled and selfish to accept direction from above. Downside of democracy. Now we will find out if free markets will solve it i.e. whether or not high oil prices will stimulate private enterprise to create solutions. The the outcome isn't knowable. In that sense, the certainty exuded by a Kunstler can be a little off-putting. Entertaining writer, though. Love his Wal-Mart bashing.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ketzl', 'R')egarding your point #3, that apocalyptic scenarios have always been wrong, that's true to an extent; the human race is going stronger than ever. But cultures and societies have had apocalyptic collapses of their civilizations.
...
But will we as a society roll with the changes and still be America, or will our national institutions fail, dieoffs ensue and survivors eke out a pathetic living in the ruins?

[GrizzAdams]

Maybe the Earth's center is a "creamy nuget," of oil, lol.

Where Oil Comes From

[scordry]

Daryl:

Your points are interesting and have some merit, but they are more a critique of the rhetoric than an evaluation of the evidence/theory.

Some specific comments regarding your three issues:

1) Statistics can be abused--granted. But 95% (+/- 5%) of the time statistics is all that is available to make sense out of a situation.

2) I think your criticism about awarding fair points to the other side could also be leveled at the "cornucopians."

3) In the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, the boy got eaten.

I do understand what you are indicating about the rhetoric; I had this same problem with Kunstler: even though I agreed with most of what he said in "The Long Emergency", I thought he may have done more harm than good because of some of his harsh and negative comments.

[Daryl]

"Regarding your point #3, that apocalyptic scenarios have always been wrong, that's true to an extent; the human race is going stronger than ever. But cultures and societies have had apocalyptic collapses of their civilizations. Indeed, except for the Chinese it's more the norm than the exception. Almost every society in human history has disappeared into the dust of history. Will America be next? Surely the suburban-spawl car-culture consumerism of today's American society is not sustainable, can we all agree on that?"


Nice point. To clarify, by apocalypse I was referring more to the great flood, spontaneous combustion of everything, Soviet invasion, Y2K type of apocalypses, which the "quick crash/die-off" version of peak oil theory resembles.

Yes, Western European/AmericanGlobalized civilization will come to an end one day. I don't believe in the Star Trek version of the future with a world government based in San Francisco and unlimited access to resources on other planets (talk about using more than a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil). The only questions are what kills us, when it starts and how long it takes. The Incas took a silver bullet. The Greeks and Romans decayed over centuries. Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee are great reads on these topics. Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" and Felipe Fernandez-Armesto's "Civilizations: Culture, Ambition, and the Transformation of Nature" are more modern scientific approaches to the same topic. I was suprised, but Patrick Buchanan's "The Death of the West" was very good also (the immigration apocalypse).

Energy crisis has to be the leading candidate at this point in time for executioner of the West. It knocked nuclear holocaust out of the number one spot after fall of Soviet Union. Avian flu just crept into third place, if I'm not mistaken.

[Armageddon]

i have been following PO for a while, and i have come to realize that PO will never happen for two reasons

1) demand dustruction will happen first. high prices will slow pace.

2) any slowdown in demand will destroy the american economy. america is so far indebted and relies on growth just to pay the debt, so if you take away the growth, its all over. and if america falters, it will bring the rest of the world down with it.

At the current rate, we may actually be at peak righ now, but i think we are in a major economic downturn right now, and 84 mbpd may actually be the most the world will ever use. but i dont believe that is necessarily the peak. It may be the peak consumption, but not peak production. Probably pretty close though, but this downturn will kill the demand. Global depression is 1-2 yrs away.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', '1')) It is too statistically dense. Statistics are are inherently unreliable because they are subject to misinterpretation, falsification, bad data input, exagerration etc.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('armegeddon', 'i') have been following PO for a while, and i have come to realize that PO will never happen for two reasons

1) demand dustruction will happen first. high prices will slow pace.

2) any slowdown in demand will destroy the american economy. america is so far indebted and relies on growth just to pay the debt, so if you take away the growth, its all over. and if america falters, it will bring the rest of the world down with it.

At the current rate, we may actually be at peak righ now, but i think we are in a major economic downturn right now, and 84 mbpd may actually be the most the world will ever use. but i dont believe that is necessarily the peak. It may be the peak consumption, but not peak production. Probably pretty close though, but this downturn will kill the demand. Global depression is 1-2 yrs away.

[ubercynicmeister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Regarding your point #3, that apocalyptic scenarios have always been wrong, that's true to an extent; the human race is going stronger than ever. But cultures and societies have had apocalyptic collapses of their civilizations. Indeed, except for the Chinese it's more the norm than the exception. Almost every society in human history has disappeared into the dust of history. Will America be next? Surely the suburban-spawl car-culture consumerism of today's American society is not sustainable, can we all agree on that?"

[peripato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', '
')1) It is too statistically dense. Statistics are are inherently unreliable because they are subject to misinterpretation, falsification, bad data input, exagerration etc.

[Daryl]

"No-one, I repeat NO-ONE can argue with success, and China is an unashamed success, all right - by doing the exact opposite of what the Freemarket Fundamentalists recommend"

Not sure I'm following you. My .02 is this: China's success is driven by their ability to arbitrage different wage price envionments. They can produce goods in a low one and sell their goods in a high one. This will continue until demand in the high environment ends or until the two wage price environments approach parity, which theortically they will over time. Banglore India has a booming economy for the same reason. They provide cheap labor for the West. Neither Bangelore or China's success is due to any economic model they are practicing. I guess I've gone completely off topic.