[JohnDenver]

The peak oil community is 100% certain about two things:

1) World oil production will peak, and when it does, declining consumption of oil will inexorably crash the world economy. If usage of oil keeps declining, the economy must contract, recess and eventually fall into depression.

2) World usage of oil must be drastically slashed immediately. For example, Darley says (and I quote): "It does flag up the message if we're going to talk about responses and that is the main thing that the Post Carbon Institute talks about is responses, when one starts to talk about that the first thing to say, and the middle thing, and the last thing to say is to use much less, and we mean much, much less, we don't mean 5% we mean 50%, 60%, 80%, 90% reductions in the amount of energy and materials throughput, and we are very well aware of the fact that this is an enormous thing to say."

Putting two and two together, it seems clear that Julian Darley and PCI are consciously advocating that we crash the global economy.

Or is Darley, or someone here, aware of some way to reduce global energy consumption by 50 to 90%, and not send the economy into a recession/depression?

[jato]

Catch 22. Right or wrong Americans will wait for a crisis before changing our system.

If we change it now and conserve, we could "ration" the fossil fuels and make them last several centuries. This will never happen.

[gnm]

Americans don't have a monopoly on stupidity either, I'm hard pressed to think of any time humanity (or a given civilization) changed to a more difficult lifestyle, scaled back growth, etc to preserve for the future or prevent whats always percieved as a (never inmy lifetime) problem...

You can even find examples in archaeology here...

-G

[clv101]

The problem is that the amount of oil available in the future will be less than now.

If we carry on consuming as normal then the oil decline, with it does come will be very rapid indeed and cause serious problems. If on the other hand we decide today to reduce our consumption today we can be far more controlled about it. We can make smart decisions that reduce our consumption whilst not causing serious problems. The decline will still come, but not as soon. Also when it does come the still serious problems won't be quite as serious since our economy won't be as dependant.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clv101', 'W')e can make smart decisions that reduce our consumption whilst not causing serious problems.

[Permanently_Baffled]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clv101', 'W')e can make smart decisions that reduce our consumption whilst not causing serious problems.

[ChickenLittle]

Sadly, I don't think humans will ever willingly conserve oil/energy on an individual basis. We have become far too addicted to instant gratification and will always take the path requiring least effort.

We drive our kids to school not because there is no school bus/public transport/crossing guard, but because using these requires organisation. We prefer to defrost food in the microwave instead of letting it defrost naturally, because that takes forward planning. We blow dry our hair because air-drying takes too long, and we haven't budgeted the time. We leave our electrical goods on standby, because pressing that one extra button/flicking that one extra switch would apparently kill us.

Rationing, even before a crisis strikes, would soon teach people to budget time and resources. It would also teach people to make choices again, instead of just "having it all" and taking it for granted.

[schajw]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clv101', 'W')e can make smart decisions that reduce our consumption whilst not causing serious problems.

[JohnDenver]

Jim: Certainly the measures you mention could help reduce crude oil consumption, but how do you know that they will not drive the economy into recession/depression?

The reason I ask is this: According to mainstream PO theory, it is impossible to maintain economic growth or even economic stability while using decreasing amounts of oil. Right? Isn't that the very reason why PO is dangerous?

[Peak_Plus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think we're going to allow ourselves to crash first.

[trespam]

JD: You exagerate and put the most extreme spin on everything.

PO community is not monolithic. There is no 100% certainty about all the matters you refer to. PO community provides estimates and models.

Peaking: It is almost 100% certain that oil will peak in this century. It is highly certain that it will peak before 2030. And there are good arguments for it peaking around 2007.

Economics: The world economy may very well crash without peak oil. Crash simply means asset depreciation (e.g. housing, stocks), rapid exchange rate adjustments (e.g. dollar), and production. The economy is highly leverage without PO considerations. With PO, the probabilities increase. There is also a good argument that people will not accept a change in lifestyle, which more expensive energy implies, without an initial shock.

Why all the anti-PO rhetoric and insinuations? Just the way the US government and US private sector are running up debt is increasing the likelihood of a global economic shock.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Permanently_Baffled', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')For example, can you reduce consumption by 3% a year without causing serious problems?

[goldfishbowl42]

European Countries did not whack 75% tax on their fuel in one go. It was added a bit at a time.

So for the US to change to this you would need time to slowly raise your fuel taxes. Of course a sudden change would be damageing.

The Trouble we have now is that time is something we are rather short of.

[clv101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Permanently_Baffled', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')For example, can you reduce consumption by 3% a year without causing serious problems?

[Canuck]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')I don't know, PB. I'm tending to the view that jacking up fuel taxes is not a viable way to reduce consumption without causing problems.

[backstop]

JD - While I'd agree with you in saying:

"I'm tending to the view that jacking up fuel taxes is not a viable way to reduce consumption without causing problems"

I think there are ample reasons for doing so, not least being the needs to signal to the public the seriousness of the issue, as well as to raise funds for investment in a crash-program of local sustainable energy developments.

That said, as relatively exorbitant EU fuel prices have shown, only moderate cuts in consumption are achieved: being dependent on petrol, people will pay what they have to. The analogy is of attempting to deter drug addiction by raising street prices: it may reduce recruitment a bit but it doesn't really address the addicts' problem. Meanwhile it does raise the pressure to go robbing and may raise the profits/kilo for the dealers.

As the Jevon's Paradox thread details, conservation is wholly unreliable as a means to change course and appears impracticable for avoiding an economic crash. Yet if it's integrated with proactive strategies for managing re-orientation, it clearly has real tactical value.

EG., raising gas taxes by 20% pa with the income dedicated to the R,D&D of sustainable biomass transport fuels. This would counter the hit on jobs and industry by launching their replacement, (as opposed to merely funding more conventional Gov.t spending or offsetting tax cuts for the rich).

Yet changing pump prices to fund sustainables doesn't have the scale or the clout to turn round the energy industry, and it hits the poor hardest. The only people who can do that (for those corporations that survive the coming recession) will be their shareholders.

At present, the energy corporation's shareholders are making profits from business as usual. That has to end if they are going to instruct the corporations to change course.

Therefore I suggest that rational governments will come to the point of introducing a revenue-neutral "BRED tax", being a tax on shareholder profits from those energy corporations with lesser % of their Budgets for Research, Exploration & Development of energy resources in the sustainables, with the proceeds being loaned to those firms with higher %s of their BREDs in the sustainables.

Like the rest of the myriad perspectives on peak oil, this points yet again to it not being a problem of finite resources, but rather being about the politics of just who chooses the resources on which society is to depend.

That sufficient political change could be achieved to allow a soft landing is beyond question: whether it will be seems to be partly up to the will and aspiration of US electorate.

Therefore for all our sakes, I hope to God that Americans take their chance of a fresh start !

regards,

Backstop

[MonteQuest]

[quote="JohnDenver
How do you do that? For example, can you reduce consumption by 3% a year without causing serious problems? If so, how? Because if you can do that, it should be possible to weather peak oil without serious economic problems.[/quote]

JD,

For once you have got it right. One clarification, it is not 3% reduction, it is more like 5%. While post-peak oil is predicted to decline each year at about 1.5 -3%, we also need roughly a 3% increase in GDP to grow the economy, pay taxes, provide jobs, pay off debts. There has never been an increase in GDP without an increase in energy consumption, especially in electrical generation.

Right now, there is no way to avoid serious economic problems even without the advent of peak-oil! Remember my Perfect Storm thread?

[Concerned]

Who really knows, whats going to happen?

We could conserve oil or use it faster sooner or later we shall have to face the ramifications of PO.

We could have world peace and an end to poverty, but thats where theory and reality diverge.

Mabye humanity will develop new technology and thrive and perhaps there will be a large reduction in human numbers.

My opinion is hedge your bets, be optimistic plug into whats available and make allowances for a harsher scenario. I'm in the process of buying a small farm and Im teaching myself how to cultivate crops for survival including harvesting and storage, water/land management etc..

Why because I want to have my cake and eat it too. Oh and another thing IMO keep yourself as debt free as possible.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Canuck', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'P')utting two and two together, it seems clear that Julian Darley and PCI are consciously advocating that we crash the global economy.

[jato]

Good morning JD.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e could happily survive consuming a lot less, but the economy can't survive it. If the economy can't survive neither can we.