[nocar]

I understand that Aaron thinks that everything we do is not only futile but also egoistical, selfish, no matter how good our intentions.

On account of the selfish part I long ago came to the conclusion that everything we do is selfish. For example, Mother Theresa helped people because it made herself feel better (I think, but perhaps she calculated on a place in heaven, which is obviously selfish) . So there is no such things as selflessness. But some of our actions bring less pain and more joy to other people than other actions, and some bring better chances for future generations to enjoy life than other actions. Starting a nuclear war seems to be an obviously bad action in that context.

But let's skip the questions of morality. Aaron, what strategy do you recommend? Should we consume as much as possible to bring about peak oil as soon as possible? Buy food that use as much poisonous chemicals as possible? Empty our gastanks into lakes, thereby wasting and poisoning at the same time?

nocar

[Eddie_lomax]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'L')ive fast, die young, leave a good-lookin corpse.

Most regulars here are familiar with the concept of Jevon's Paradox. (See thread this forum)

Basically what Jevon said, was that energy savings from conservation or improved efficiency are absorbed by increased usage.

That people will find ways to use available energy to the extent of their ability to acquire it.

Some clever posters will no doubt assert that this principal does not apply during times where overall energy supplies are declining. The inability of these folks to grasp relative comparisons or measurements is self-evident to everyone who actually understood the material you were exposed to in Algebra I.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Eddie_lomax', 'T')he logic you give is sound, but you presume a world of growth, if we (in the western world) closed our borders to immigration and let our low birth rates get to work then Jevon's paradox just wouldn't work. Neither would energy be a problem, or polution, and we wouldn't have to live with the devastating loss of biodiversity.

[Ludi]

I'm no big fan of Richard Dawkins, because I know for a fact he provides incomplete information in order for that information to fit his worldview.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') disagree with Jack and Aaron's prognosis that left to ourselves, we will revert to a thugish, brutal state. That was never our natural way. It can't be.

[grillzilla]

Aaron wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot only are the practices of conservation, recycling & similar methods ineffective, but I assert that they actually contribute to the problem.

[johnmarkos]

OK, let's look at Jevons through the lens of Macroeconomics 101.

Do you really think that society can conserve so much oil that there will be a net decrease in its price, post-peak? If so, you have more faith in people's ability to conserve than I do!

That is, after peak oil can society conserve more each year than production decreases?

If PO is a supply constraint, it raises the price of oil. It shifts the supply curve to the left, causing the price to rise.

Since the price of oil is the same all over the world, the net conservation would have to equal the net decline to move the curve back to its original place.

So, say 2005 global production is 85 MBPD and 2006 global production is 83 MBPD.

For the sake of simplicity, let's say 2005 US consumption was 20 MBPD. That leaves 65 MBPD for the rest of the world.

At hypothetical 2006 levels of production, the US has to reduce its consumption by 10% -- to 18 MBPD -- to leave 65 MBPD for the rest of the world.

It bears repeating: if supply drops by about two percent, the US, the world's biggest consumer, has to reduce its consumption by 10% to counteract that.

Anything less and PO has more of an effect on the supply curve than conservation does. In that case, conservation is merely a (natural) reaction to the price increase.

What I just described is an idealized "Jevons curve." In reality, other factors in addition to the price of oil affect people's (and nations') demand. I maintain that conservation's ethical (both in the moral sense and in the sense of "habit") effects are greater than its economic ones.

[johnmarkos]

On a related note, in the original Jevons thread, I posited a scenario in which the US could conserve at a rate matching the production decline. In this case, US conservation would have no effect on the post-peak supply curve.

So again, looking at Jevons in a post-peak world through the lens of Macroeconomics 101:

1. If we conserve more than the absolute production decline (unlikely), we counteract its effects on the supply curve and shift it to the right. This is the only scenario in which a Jevons price decrease could occur.

2. If we conserve as much as the absolute production decline (also unlikely), we exactly counteract its effects on the supply curve. In this case (all other things being equal), the price remains constant.

3. If we conserve at the decline rate, we effectively force the rest of the world to powerdown right along with us. You could call this the invisibility scenario.

4. If we conserve more slowly than the decline rate, we augment the effects of decline on the price, shifting the supply curve even further to the left.

Anyone who's taken more than one economics class care to comment?

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', 'D')o you really think that society can conserve so much oil that there will be a net decrease in its price, post-peak? If so, you have more faith in people's ability to conserve than I do!

[johnmarkos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'I') don't really understand the shifting of the production curve after Peak you discussed.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'I') don't really understand the shifting of the production curve after Peak you discussed.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', '
')Anyone who's taken more than one economics class care to comment?

[coyote]

Okay, cool. So, instead of saying, "geology will be the limiting factor," would it then be more appropriate to say that there will be a "vertical supply curve," since the quantity supplied (how much we'll be able to pump in a year) will be fixed, no matter what the market price?

[johnmarkos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', 'I')'ve been teaching myself economics lately, I hope that counts as more than one economics class

[johnmarkos]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'O')kay, cool. So, instead of saying, "geology will be the limiting factor," would it then be more appropriate to say that there will be a "vertical supply curve," since the quantity supplied (how much we'll be able to pump in a year) will be fixed, no matter what the market price?

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', ' ')Cooperation within groups serves only to oppose other groups - the enemy, however defined.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('johnmarkos', 'M')y Macro textbook (Principles of Macroeconomics, by N. Gregory Mankiw) uses the example of an earthquake causing a limit to the supply of ice cream. Same thing.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'y')ou need to turn your TV off, and walk out into your neighborhood. People there are shy, friendly, and unsure of themselves. You are the victim of advertisers hell bent on scaring you into buying shit. get over it and free yourself