[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', 'I')f not then government will make us.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', '
')Here in the USA the government is 'we the people". The way I see it, "we the people" will never choose a path that voluntarily leads to a lower standard of living. The Iraq war (for strategic oil) is a good example. Deep down, people don’t mind a small, far away war to help maintain our standard of living. We justify it by tricking each other (and sometimes ourselves) by saying it is the right thing to do... weapons of mass destruction, bringing freedom to a backward region, etc. On some level (subconsciously?), most people demand a higher standard of living.

[doufus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', ' ')I'm sure you'd agree that transitioning to a lo energy
society will be painful for such a wasteful economy as the US. In such a
transition people will be hurt. In my view, i can only see it being
mitigated by broad and ruthless government intervention....

I hope we never get there. I hope conservation and nukes get us
there. I hope personal accounting for every joule is the norm.
I hope we value energy like water in a desert. If not then government
will make us.

[doufus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jato', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', 'I')f not then government will make us.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', 'S')orry, it's just a matter of degree. Voluntary conservation on a
large scale is the ideal. IF that's not enough in itself or people don't
comply then the obvious next step is draconian govt either because
the level of conservation required is so extreme that most would
object or because even low levels of conservation aren't being
adhered to.

[Aaron]

It's interesting how the PO debate has evolved over the past 2 years.

At first we were discussing the validity of the PO theory itself.

Until it became obvious that midpoint production was inevitable.

Then we began discussing timing.

When is peak?

Although that debate still rages, most informed peakers have accepted that the USGS official estimate of 2030 for peak is unrealistic.

So it's within a couple of decades.

Now we argue not if... not when... but how bad.

What's next?

After we accept that things will be bad, perhaps we will argue about how long it will be bad?

Or how quickly we can recover.

Or if we can recover.

Or perhaps if we deserve to recover.

Considering that the vast majority of people in our world live a squalid, impoverished existence today, at the peak of our wealthy hydrocarbon society, it is difficult to imagine what rainbow the Landers see on the downside of Hubbert's peak.

Depletion does move things along... just as abundant hydrocarbons have elevated humanity, depletion is the fuel for conflict.

[doufus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', 'S')orry, it's just a matter of degree. Voluntary conservation on a
large scale is the ideal. IF that's not enough in itself or people don't
comply then the obvious next step is draconian govt either because
the level of conservation required is so extreme that most would
object or because even low levels of conservation aren't being
adhered to.

[Ludi]

Doufus, so you are honestly saying people will vote for candidates who say we will have to cut back our standard of living?

[doufus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'D')oufus, so you are honestly saying people will vote for candidates who say we will have to cut back our standard of living?

[Ludi]

They will "one day realise this is a problem."

When?

[doufus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')hey will "one day realise this is a problem."

When?

[Ludi]

We do seem to be in agreement. You admit it is going to be painful, you admit once hardship sets in, we will be forced to be frugal. I don't think very many people here would argue about those points.

So again, where's all this debate springing from?

[doufus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'W')e do seem to be in agreement. You admit it is going to be painful, you admit once hardship sets in, we will be forced to be frugal. I don't think very many people here would argue about those points.

So again, where's all this debate springing from?

[skyemoor]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', '
')C'mon even americans will one day realise that this is a problem
and will demand a solution- not a promise of a never ending
party.

[doufus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', '
')C'mon even americans will one day realise that this is a problem
and will demand a solution- not a promise of a never ending
party.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('doufus', '
')C'mon even americans will one day realise that this is a problem
and will demand a solution- not a promise of a never ending
party.

[orz]

The best thing that could happen is if the Iran Euro switch in March completely screws over our economy, not only decreasing demand, but creating an outcry for oil independence, even if people don't acknowledge peak oil.

[KingM]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orz', 'T')he best thing that could happen is if the Iran Euro switch in March completely screws over our economy, not only decreasing demand, but creating an outcry for oil independence, even if people don't acknowledge peak oil.

[donshan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', 'W')hy do people insist on saying all doomers are alike? Some doomers believe that the end is imminent with the dollar crashing, the U.S. splitting apart and mass starvation this winter. Others believe that we will ramp up alternatives but it will be too little too late and that we will have catastrophic effects anywhere from 10-50 years from now.

Some believe in 95 % die off, some believe that rich countries will muddle along while poor third world countries will experience the brunt of the PO effect. Some are pro-nuke socialists, others are head to the hills survivalists. Some believe in a powered down world where massive die-off is mitigated. Some believe in human extinction. There is no one doomer. What links the doomer is the belief that we will not be able to continue civilization as we know it and there will be drastic effects on our society as we move to a post-carbon world.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', '
')
The end of cheap oil isn’t sufficient in and of itself to cause the doom scenario.
Why is that? Because there are other ways to power this society (or some derivative there of), but we need time to transition to these other sources. The less time we have, the less successful we’ll be and the harder it’ll be to avoid resource wars.

[0mar]

Nuclear power is fantasically dense. In effect, it grows up very quickly. There are maybe 1,000 reactors in the world providing 20% of the electricity. That is nothing really. However, alternative fuels, what peak oil is about, is a whole different beast. Nearly every single alternative is less energy dense than oil. Scaling up these alternatives will take nearly half a century before we see even 20% of our liquid fuels usage shift from petroleum to alternatives.

Producing electricity is easy. Crudely speaking, one simply needs a mechanism to rotate magnets/turbines continually. Producing transportation fuel takes far more elegance. And it needs to be compatible with the 100 trillion dollar infrastructure already in place.