[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PeakyKeen', 'h')ospitals and emergency services get 1,000, the local police force comes next

[Wildwell]

Some very poor analysis there, very poor indeed. In future my posts both here and on POD will be much more scientific, using hard data from official sources and graphical analysis. In the meantime, please go back and examine the facts, with the following points in mind:


1) Powering our most common means of transportation

Yes, mostly air and the private car. MOST car trips are less than 5 miles and have traditionally replaced walking, cycling and bus travel and have exclusively almost all grown up since 1950. Air travel 80% of the time is luxury holiday traffic, only 20% of travel is business. Air travel was almost non existent before the last world war, indeed it had to be subsidised (Eg imperial airways) to get going at all. Oil became an important transport fuel from the 1950s onwards and replaced coal. Do business people and other people always need to travel? No. The internet can replace a great majority of trips.

In the SW of England, which is highly car dependent the reasons for trips were as follows:

Commuting journeys accounted for only a relatively small proportion of all journeys in the South West (18% - of which 3/4 were made by car) during 2002/03. However, a further 6% were made for travelling to a place of education.

One-quarter (27%) of journeys are made for leisure. This includes visiting friends, visiting sports and entertainment venues and taking holidays and day trips; a further fifth (20%) of journeys are made for shopping; 25% are for personal business such as going to the doctor or paying bills.

2) Powering machines that do the majority of the work of agriculture and essential industry.

Correct about agriculture and incorrect concerning ‘essential industry’. Again, oil use replaced coal from around the 1930s onwards in industry and agriculture.

3) Powering and supporting the aparatus and infrastructure that brings food to the markets that require it.

Yes, but this is a relatively small amount that can be substituted. Please read up on food miles too and why they are rising. 12,000 miles apples because they are a penny cheaper than locally grown apples I think you will find is the principal reason.


4) Powering the machines that we use to build our important physical structures such as roads, bridges, houses, governments and commercial buildings, public works buildings, hospitals, etc.

To an extent yes, but a relatively small part. People were building homes, government building, viaducts and other large infrastructure long before oil.

5) Producing electricity, which is in turn commonly used to heat or cool homes, refrigerate food, and light communities.

Very little oil use goes to electricity production, zero in many countries.

This fertiliser argument is now well worn and poor, all you need is an energy input like electricity which can be generated from a multitude of sources. Actually the yields using organic farming methods are not much lower - it just costs 73% more to produce the same product in some cases. But as food is incredibly cheap by historic standards this is not such an issue as many would believe.

Oil is only special because of plastics and a decent liquid transport fuel, but with corrections on the demand/supply side this can be addressed.

[ashurbanipal]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ome very poor analysis there, very poor indeed.

[Wildwell]

In the Peak oil debate it’s important to understand, with statistical analysis, exactly what oil is being used for. That’s the first thing. Then what is the effect on cost increases on these activities and can fuel be substituted with something else and at what cost. Or do these activities even need to take place?

For example, almost 50% of oil use goes to fuel cars. Let’s just say for argument’s sake, if that fuel was pulled, what would people do instead, how could they get by, what journeys are they making, what is the effect on the economy?

Next you would have to look at the effect on aviation, which is the next biggest oil user and probably the economic sector which is most dependent on oil. What will be the economic effect on tickets and on say things like globalisation? Keep in mind air fares and unit costs are at ridiculously low levels right now. Can plane use be substituted? Well some can’t but some can, today.

Next food:. How oil relates specifically to it. And it’s no good saying that wasteful truck have to take the strain, there’s no other option, there’s plenty as well as growing food much closer to markets. At the moment a typical apple in a British supermarket may have been shipped 12,000 miles and be 12 months old.

Facts should come from as nearest official sources as possible, most nations have some sort of statistics bureau. Some facts are quite surprising and there are a lot of myths about. It simply isn’t good enough to argue, we need out-of-town malls, 3 cars per family, one solely dedicated to pick the kids up from school even though it’s only 2 miles away and a bus runs and so on and so forth.

True Peak oil analysis should look at the supply AND demand side, and you know what I’ve not seen one decent report on it yet, and how each interact. Most comments on these forums are limited to hand waving and boy society will collapse if I have to walk a bit more or take the bus. As I said in my future posts, although it won’t be for a month or so, I’m going to do some low down dirty analysis of the hardcore facts rather than a bunch of hearsay or quotes from lobby groups. I don’t even accept posts that tally oil use with GDP, it’s too simplistic, you could also draw a similar graph that tallies oil use with crime, but wouldn’t really tell you an awful lot about the real factors at work.

[ashurbanipal]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the Peak oil debate it’s important to understand, with statistical analysis, exactly what oil is being used for. That’s the first thing.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'A')s I said in my future posts, although it won’t be for a month or so, I’m going to do some low down dirty analysis of the hardcore facts rather than a bunch of hearsay or quotes from lobby groups.

[Wildwell]

It’s too simplistic to correlate oil use and GDP, that’s what I mean in terms of oil use = GDP in direct terms. It could also be higher disposable income = more vacations + new car = oil use.

No, there isn’t a really decent macro-economic oil depletion report in existence as far as I know.

Your reply says a lot about how you form your opinion.

‘Well, for me, I would be completely screwed. I'd lose my job and subsequently my daughter. I have no option to move, and no prospects in my area to find another job that pays remotely as well as the one I have. Most of my income would go to child support. I would probably end up in an efficiency apartment rooming with some fat dude named Buddy, with no prospect in the future to get out of that situation. And that would be what would happen only if "they" (whoever they are) took oil away from only me. If even half the people where I live are in an analogous situation, it'd be far worse.’

You might have to move and take a lower paid job. But have you factored in how much money you would save not driving? The point is, nobody ever argued it was desirable not to have the use of, for example, a car. However some argue the peak oil debate in ‘life and death’ terms, so when I make an argument for ‘needing’ something it’s in the spirit of whether it is life and death. This may sound cold, but obviously something would have to give and luxuries are usually the first to go, initially that might be a smaller car or an electric car, but it could mean relocalisation on the other hand all out war might break out.

When I get round to doing the number crunching I'll post the sources, at this stage it's just a debate.

[Joe0Bloggs]

{topic merged by MQ}

... *enough* priority access?

If they do, we may have to carpool and telecommute, and there will be a global recession, but at least we won't starve. (well, those of us who aren't already starving, that is.)

True, fossil-fuel based industrial agriculture is not the best way to grow things, but as of now we don't have any viable alternative that can scale up.

Do any of you see a plunge in agriculture output and mass starvation soon after Peak Oil?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Joe0Bloggs', ' ')Do any of you see a plunge in agriculture output and mass starvation soon after Peak Oil?