[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')ezakin, I'm sorry I misinterpreted and thought you were talking about an immediate space program when you meant over at least a 150 year time span. I will have to respectfully disagree with you about that premise even if it is less far fetched. The reason is that you only address the energy issue, not the water/land/overpopulation/carrying capacity issue. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts about that.

[donshan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', '
')I'm also more than willing to be shot down about the idea of a metals/ no usury sustainable monetary system. But I don't think its due to the fact that there is limitless precious metals in the earth. Furthermore, in a powered down world, it will be increasingly impossible to mine at the level we are doing today. In essence we are dealing with a finite supply of a substance that we could base a currency on. A finite and knowable amount of currency can be the basis for a sustainable economy. (But I'm open to other suggestions).

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dezakin', ' ')As an aside I suppose its kind of funny that the one that sees a bright future of abundance as bitter while the one that sees the inevitable fall of humanity into humble misery as, hmm... chipper? (I don't know what montequests demeanor is. I've never met him.)

[thuja]

Thanks Donshan- interesting thoughts- and thanks for the link to the wikipedia piece- very informative.

I think one of the main problems with the gold standard is that we tried to create a growth based economy on a metal that grew in fits and starts. In modern times, there is much less known recoverable reserves compared to the world market and it will become increasingly difficult (due to energy constraints) to mine it intensively.

My hope is that somehow we will shift to a sustainability , where growth would be tempered by restraints in terms of population, resource extraction, etc.

Forms of currency that are fixed and where usury is frobidden make it impossible for economies to grow, the opposite of what society thinks is good right now. Consider the native-americans- there was very little population growth over thousands of years. Before the advent of agriculture, humans lived sustainably for tens of thousands of years without endangering the viability of their species.

Can we retain some of the best attributes of the last 6,000 years (limited agricuture, arts, healing crafts, low power energy technology, etc.) while not getting into the species-cidal growth death spiral that we have found ourselves in?

[clueless]

Sadly we have created a culture of consumption, and young people are targeted from birth to become consumers, that has become our identity. I am not offering any original thoughts Roscoe Bartlet explained this and there is an excellent PBS documentary called "The Merchants of Cool" that is very telling about the way our kid's minds are molded from television. MTV is one constant commercial. The only way we will ever stop eating ourselves out of house and home is if we work to change to definition of success in this country. Does anyone ever see that happening ?

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clueless', 'S')adly we have created a culture of consumption, and young people are targeted from birth to become consumers, that has become our identity. I am not offering any original thoughts Roscoe Bartlet explained this and there is an excellent PBS documentary called "The Merchants of Cool" that is very telling about the way our kid's minds are molded from television. MTV is one constant commercial.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', 'M')ost television programming fills the needs for vegetative entertainment and some babysitting, both in turn engendered by a world too complex for the average person to be able to manage effectively.

[JustinFrankl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I')'d say the main reason for babysitting with TV is the terminal lack of time of the parents.

[grabby]

If energy declines we can still keep our economy running by just charging more for each product.

No problem, you can charge two, three, even ten times more.
That way you can sell less products and make more profit.

[grabby]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', 'M')ost television programming fills the needs for vegetative entertainment and some babysitting, both in turn engendered by a world too complex for the average person to be able to manage effectively.

[backstop]

I have a problem with the premis behind the title of this thread: Economic growth with declining energy ? -

While there has undoubtedly been massive increase in quantitative measures of material thruput and of human population, this is in reality balanced by the (unaccounted) destruction of natural capital and of both human and other creatures' quality of life.

To call what we've achieved "Economic Growth" is merely a convention of the powerful and their lackeys & dupes - any impartial observer would plainly be justified in describing at least the last two millenia of our global impacts as being a net economic decline. -

Under any rational economic analysis, the decline of capital assets is a process of impoverishment, not enrichment.

Similarly, if the damage, and potential energy costs, of our fossil energy usage was set against the various fuels' Eroei, very different figures would be recorded as the "Potential Energy per Tonne" of a given fossil fuel.

Thus in answer to the thread's title I'd observe that one of the problems we face is that of fundamentally incompetent accountancy - We need to retire the present heretical doctrine of eternal material growth on our finite planet, in favour of the discipline of economic regeneration for qualitative development.

So while there is no chance of what we call economic growth continuing as the energy sources that spawned it decline, given a new understanding of Economics there is a clear possibility of a successor culture running a thriving, if very different, economy, by means of energy resources that are sustainable within the ecosphere.

Regards,

Backstop

[pedalling_faster]

depends on the definition of economic growth, and on whether the numbers involved are a result of inflation-greater-than-4 %.

the United States claims GDP growth of about 4% last year.

in terms of REAL output, square feet of home as opposed to sale price, REAL health as opposed to a bunch of people going to see doctor$ because our environment has made then sick/sicker, i'd say Real National Product per capita declined in 2005.

[Revi]

I agree with pedalling faster. Real economic growth stopped around the turn of the millenium. We are all running faster on our treadmills, but no further ahead. The only way to get ahead in this post peak world is to move out of fossil fuels and into alternatives. Those that don't are doomed to the fate of the dinosaur.

[wagdog]

Bill Harbaugh, associate professor of economics at the University of Oregon, trashes peak oil doomers and places blind faith in the invisible hand of free markets to remove energy scarcity. He likens peak oil doomers to Thomas Malthus who argued that population would soon outstrip food production, and that mass starvation would result.

According to his logic, higher prices will incentivise development of miraculous technology to bring down the price of alternative energy, while increasing efficiency of energy consumers. He offers little proof that this transition will be painless when he cites: "Since it peaked about 1970, U.S. energy use per dollar of economic output has been falling steadily. It is now half what it was."

[Odin]

Anyone who has blind faith in the market desrves to ignored or mocked.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wagdog', 'B')ill Harbaugh, associate professor of economics at the University of Oregon, trashes peak oil doomers :
"Since it peaked about 1970, U.S. energy use per dollar of economic output has been falling steadily. It is now half what it was."

[Odin]

I've been wondering for a while, does economic growth require increased resource exploitation? what about "non-material" goods like downloaded music and information; or things with subjective value, like a painting by a good artist being worth more than a painting by a so-so artist, both used the same materials but one is worth more than the other.

[Denny]

I can see a situation in which the economy could prosper, wiht hihg oil prices or even rationing. What is really needed is a collective belief that the naitona wil ulatimaely survive and prosper from a crisis.

It seems that the U.S. has the potential to get out form under its foreign oil dependence, but it wil take a literal transformation of the economy to do it.

But, it was done before. Consider that World War II took a complete retooling of U.S. production. Things were undertaken, without paralysis by analysis, becuase they had to be. Within a couple of years of the war breaking out, ships were being built at one shipyard at the rate of one a week, bomber aircarft in one location at the rate of one per hour. Things that would have been perceived as impossible in 1940 (and maybe even today!) were happening in late 1942, mid 1943. And, consumers lived within tight constraints, like three gallons of galoline a week, no tires, very limited steel, etc. What carried people was the collective need, and a shared vision of victory.

Here we are in 2006. We see that so much of U.S. manufacturing capacity and human talent is idle. And, much more to be idled very soon. If we just consider that every major auto component supplier, like Delphi, Visteon and Dana could be easily retooled to produce windmills, biomass equipment and solar cells, we can see that the means are there for the having. These firms, that make up the backbone of America's heartland are a diamond in the rough. The skill sets are there, along with most of the expertise needed in electrical/mechanical engineering. It just takes the right set of economic incentives to make it happen.

If the U.S. could land a man on the moon, with all the requisite government programs and spending that took, it can become the world leader in alternative energy likewise. It needs real leadership, credible leadership, and a shared belief in the future.

[Revi]

I agree that we could turn the corner into a solar economy with some leadership. We aren't getting it at the top, so each of us has to do it. Switch into a solar economy now, while you still have some resources. Plan to put into motion some solar projects now. I know some guys who started out with 2 people and 1 truck installing solar systems a couple of years ago. Now there are 13 guys and 6 trucks installing them. There's economic growth with declining energy, for some people.

[SoothSayer]

Hmm - most of these posts are erudite & many are believable.

However as soon as I start feeling that we can create a workable Plan to maintain/grow the economy in the face of Peak Oil, an image of the teeming million or so people in my local city of Birmingham (England) pops into my mind & I shudder.

So many of the local population are ill educated and/or of extremist religious faith that I really cannot imagine that they would listen to any Government telling them to cut back on fuel or energy, or change their way of life in any way.

I suspect that major energy cost increases, or fuel shortages, would cause trouble on the streets.

The UK government must be aware of this, but I have no idea of what their approach might be to such disturbances.