PeakOil is You
Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?
Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?
by MonteQuest » Tue 01 Nov 2005, 23:40:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('marko', 'G')ood thread, Monte. My feeling is that the decline will be gradual over the long run, but that in the short run we will experience it at least partly as a series of economic collapses, probably accompanied by political instability. As I will argue, these economic collapse and political instability (or warfare) will tend to prevent us from investing in conservation or more sustainable energy technologies.
Thanks! I read your post with interest and agreement. Spot on.
Few grasp this.
Readers take note.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
-
MonteQuest - Expert
- Posts: 16593
- Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Westboro, MO
Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?
by peripato » Wed 02 Nov 2005, 01:07:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('marko', 'A')s a result, our civilization is likely to unravel in potentially very dangerous ways.
I too enjoyed your post. However you neglected to mention what effect these recurring economic and social crises will have on the environment and well-being of future generations. I also think the chances of nuclear war occuring as a result of the raft of crises facing us have been understated by most people posting in these forums, largely I feel because it is considered a taboo subject. In support of this argument a few things bear noting:
Environmentalism is a lost cause. The massive species extinction caused by human overpopulation and industrial activity has been recognised and discussed for decades, but no effective action has ever been taken to remedy the situation, even though it is a “life-or-death” one for the planet.
Mankind’s large population and high level of industrial activity is exterminating thousands of species a year. Under even the most optimistic World Bank and UN population projections, the human population is expected to increase for at least half a century, and industrial activity to increase indefinitely.
These projections imply that unless a major famine, plague, war, or other catastrophe occurs to dramatically reduce human numbers and industrial activity, the environmental destruction and species extinction will continue for a very long time. It is now also apparent that global warming is well under way.
Waiting for a hypothetical worldwide “demographic transition” to reduce global human population will accomplish nothing but the destruction of much of the planet’s biosphere. The chance of a demographic transition ever reducing human population is zero, because it is not in the interest of economic development to do so. Even countries such as the US, Germany, Canada, and Australia that have achieved very high levels of economic development press for even greater population increases and more economic activity through the encouragement of immigration now their fertility rates have fallen below replacement level.
All world political leaders want more economic development, not less. It’s absurd to believe that economic activity will ever drop of its own accord as some suggest. To suggest otherwise when all political leaders point to increased economic growth as a measure of success is an exercise in denial.
Because of the population explosion, environmental degradation and all-out industrial development, the likelihood of nuclear war is increasing dramatically, for several reasons:
Firstly, is the increasing overcrowding and hopelessness of life for massive numbers of people: the “politics of envy” drives the “have nots” to destroy the material riches that they can never possess;
Secondly, the information explosion and proliferation of plutonium have made nuclear technology and the ability to construct atomic bombs readily available to terrorist groups and rogue nations;
Thirdly, as the world supply of easy fossil fuels depletes and the effects of global warming become ever more apparent, nuclear energy increasingly touted as the techno-messiah becomes a long-term solution only if “fast-breeder” reactors, which produce plutonium, are used. The amount of plutonium available worldwide may be about to increase very much as a result.
So the death rattle of industrial civilisation may well appear a drawn out affair when viewed from a global perspective but from where you and I stand if we don't watch out we are likely to be swept up earlier rather than later by one of "manifestations" of this breakdown if trends continue the way they have unabated.
Regards.
-
peripato - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1335
- Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Reality
Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?
by thuja » Wed 02 Nov 2005, 18:49:21
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('marko', ' ')
I am thinking specifically of the financial disaster that awaits us when interest rates rise or the US economy deteriorates to the point where large numbers of people are no longer able to make their monthly debt (mortgage/credit card) payments. When this happens, you will see real estate prices and consumer spending collapse, and many banks will be in serious trouble.
I am thinking specifically of the financial disaster that awaits us when interest rates rise or the US economy deteriorates to the point where large numbers of people are no longer able to make their monthly debt (mortgage/credit card) payments. When this happens, you will see real estate prices and consumer spending collapse, and many banks will be in serious trouble.
I think one of the things missing in this analysis is the notion of globalized effects as well as localized effects. I often hear talk of inflationary pressures due to high energy costs, along with a US citizenry and government heavily in debt leading to devaluation of the dollar, and thus economic collapse, perhaps in a series of stages. I generally agree with this analysis but I think its important to examine effects at local levels.
High energy costs will place undue burdens on certain areas of the country more than others. PLaces that are extremely hot/cold such as Minneapolis and Buffalo will feel the effects of high energy costs much more readily. Cities dependent on the transportation economy, and who have not retrofitted to manufacture hybrids (Detoit) will also suffer more dramatically. PLaces in the country that are extremely overpopulated and have limited resources (such as LA and Las Vegas) will also face higher costs than other parts of the country. They will not only experience inflation but greater job loss and subsequent deflation in housing prices and rents as people can no longer afford them.
Those areas of the country that are nearest to essential goods and services such as water, energy, building materials and food may see influxes of people who want to move there and thus an increase in home prices and rents. Though inflation for transportable goods may increase for all, it will increase the highest for those farthest away from essential commodities.
Economic collapse will not be evenly spread and some areas of the country may initially thrive as other parts of the country or exurbia are devalued due to high energy costs/low resource availability.
Yes, on a macro-level, everybody will be hurt by a shrinking stock market, portfolios will nosedive, etc. But at a micro-level, you may find that housing prices actually goes up in certain areas of the country, that there are more jobs in agriculture, animal husbandry, foresty and that they start paying better as essential goods rise dramatically in price. Areas of the country that are resource heavy may actually thrive in this post peak time.
So though I agree with the commentary so far, I think its important to see the layered effects instead of just a universal economic meltdown.
-
thuja - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2202
- Joined: Sat 15 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Portland, Oregon
Re: Post Peak Oil; The Slow Decline?
by marko » Wed 02 Nov 2005, 21:57:35
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', 'H')owever you neglected to mention what effect these recurring economic and social crises will have on the environment and well-being of future generations.
I agree that the environment and other species will suffer tremendously as a consequence of the destructive and probably violent decline of this civilization. I share your environmental sensitivity. As such, I am actually hoping that economic collapse and social and economic disruption are so great as to prevent the large-scale development of coal and nuclear energy. I realize that this may mean a quicker die-off, and that I might be one of the ones to go.
If I could trade my life for the safety of the biosphere, I would gladly make that sacrifice.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', 'I') also think the chances of nuclear war occuring as a result of the raft of crises facing us have been understated by most people posting in these forums, largely I feel because it is considered a taboo subject.
Sadly, I agree. I think that it may be taboo because there is not much most of us can do to prepare for all-out nuclear war, and probably most of us feel powerless to stop US society and government if it starts rolling in that psychotic direction. The scary thing is that, since 9/11, US society feels as if it has been coaxed into the kind of psychosis that could lead to nuclear escalation. Heck, some fair percentage of Americans believe that nuclear war would bring "rapture" and their salvation.
We can just hope for the sake of humanity and the biosphere that American society returns to sanity, or, failing that, that the destruction stops short of nuclear winter.
-
marko - Coal
- Posts: 443
- Joined: Mon 31 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Massachusetts
