[Last_Laff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', 'S')urely we will have to find a better way or some of these people gotta go!

[Buff]

{Thread merged by MQ}

I'm curious - acknowledging the vast differences of opinion on the timing and consequences of PO - for those who believe in the post-peak crash - when do you predict we will see it?

I know this is kinda vague - define it how you wish. When will we experience the (fill in the blank) effect of the crash? Which dire effect and when will it be observable as true?

For example if one felt that US unemployment being measured at 20% were the consequence of the crash, when will that consequence be observable?

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I')'m curious - acknowledging the vast differences of opinion on the timing and consequences of PO - for those who believe in the post-peak crash - when do you predict we will see it?

I know this is kinda vague - define it how you wish. When will we experience the (fill in the blank) effect of the crash? Which dire effect and when will it be observable as true?

For example if one felt that US unemployment being measured at 20% were the consequence of the crash, when will that consequence be observable?

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I')'m curious - acknowledging the vast differences of opinion on the timing and consequences of PO - for those who believe in the post-peak crash - when do you predict we will see it?

[Buff]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')Oil spikes much higher, between 100 and 200 dollors per bbl and collapses the airline industry. Air travle slows to a crawl because nobody can afford the fuel surcharges.

[DantesPeak]

Outside of heavy industrial diesel type fuels (used by utility companies), US use of oil and products - especially gasoline - has continued to grow in the US. So despite what RGR says, we are not yet Post Peak - at least not in the US.

For a glimpse of what Post Peak will look like, see what is happening in Indonesia, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Zimbabwe. They are using less oil domestically, and it is not a pleasant situation in any of those locations.

So to answer your question, which I assume refers to the effects within the US, my best guess for peak oil/NG energy use is 2010 – possibly as early as 2007 or as late as 2012. At first these effects will likely be mild, with things getting worse over time – possibly leading to some type of collapse of society and/or change in the political system a few years or so afterward (such as we saw in the 1930s).

Having siad that, I don't think anyone really knows what could happen, or how fast events might transpire post peak.

[pea-jay]

To simply answer your question "when will we know?"

If you are reading this site you already know. Still the discussion is crash or no crash. I think (barring out-and-out middle east war) there will be no crash for the first several years after the peak. It will be ho-hum and full of entirely blameable financial or news events that have caused a down turn in the economy. Right now there is still plenty of "waste" in the global economy before things get bad.

Dont get me wrong, a crash is still likely. But probably 5-10 years when the declines get serious and no more fat can be trimmed.

Still it could all collapse tomorrow if the conditions (war) were right

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', '
')
I was hoping for something more specific with a predicted date.

[careinke]

I think most Americans will be aware of peak oil in the next two years. The peak (2005) will be acknowledged in 2009. By 2010 we will be in a major depression. By 2015 total economic collapse.

I hope I’m wrong and it takes longer. I will barely have my lifeboat in place by 2010.

BWTFDIK

Cliff (Start a revolution, grow a garden)

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I')'m curious - acknowledging the vast differences of opinion on the timing and consequences of PO - for those who believe in the post-peak crash - when do you predict we will see it?

I know this is kinda vague - define it how you wish. When will we experience the (fill in the blank) effect of the crash? Which dire effect and when will it be observable as true?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', 'Y')ou won't. Here are we, nearly 2 years post peak, and what is happening?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', ' ') I was hoping for something more specific with a predicted date. Like oil hits $150 and airline travel declines by 80% from 2006 levels, and this happens in 2017.

[Buff]

No, MQ I don't believe in "infinite growth". I read on one of your threads that there were 3 basic types of beliefs expressed on this forum - 1) There is no peak anytime soon, more oil will be found, 2) There will be a peak, not sure how soon and 3) the peak is now

There also seems to be a variety of opinion on what the effects will be once we are post peak 1) life goes on with no post peak effect (alternative energy allows continued growth with no lifestyle changes, 2) big changes caused by the transition to other more costly fuels, including big changes in consumption habits, technologies and more; or 3) there will be an economic collapse, a massive die-off of the human population, and an economic reality of local agrarian communities somehow equivalent to what we had before we started exploiting fossil fuels.

I just think those that are prepraing for the crash and die-off are wrong. I would fall into the camp of those that feel we as a species will adapt to the reality of diminishing supplies of oil by transitioning. I think the market will drive the changes - as oil gets more expensive, alternatives will become cost effective. Humans population will continue to grow, but due to declining growth rates, the population will stabilize at about 9 billion about 2050. Our per capita consumption of oil will continue to go down, and per capita consumption of energy total will go down. There will some day be a sustainable population and economy. There are enough energy options to allow a transition to a sustainable future.

Conserving energy is in my view the largest untapped resource, and one that can deliver immediate benefits without the limitations and environmental concerns that accompany most energy choices. As I look around I see enormous waste. But I think the only thing that will change consumption patterns is a much higher cost of energy. I think when oil gets to be 2, 3 4 or 5 times higher than it is now, other energy sources will also rise in price, and that in turn will drive changes in consumption habits.

We Americans are hugely wasteful. Transportation. Building heating and cooling. Lighting. Food. The massive amounts of "stuff" that goes to the landfill. What percentage of our consumer goods could be recycled with a change of habits? I heard that we don't even recycle 50% of our aluminum beverage cans - arguably the easiest, most convenient consumer package to recycle.

I am a believer in a successful transition from oil. Of course as has been mentioned a war or wars would change everything.

[Ludi]

Buff, a lot of us who are "preparing" are doing what we consider to be "transitioning." Can you explain how you, your family, and your community are "transitioning" and how you see this differing from "preparing"?

How do you see our society "conserving" and cutting out "waste" without eliminating the enormous job sectors reflected in that "waste" and what do you think those people will do for a living when their wasteful jobs are eliminated? What will you do for a living, or do you see your job as being necessary and not "waste"?

Thanks.

Oh, another question - when do you see this conserving and transitioning beginning to happen and how will we distinguish it from "collapse"?

Thanks again.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I') just think those that are prepraing for the crash and die-off are wrong. I would fall into the camp of those that feel we as a species will adapt to the reality of diminishing supplies of oil by transitioning.

[Buff]

Ludi - answers to your questions could be very long. Too long. But as examples what we are doing at our home is reducing our carbon footprint. We have cut electricity consumption by 30% by installing a more efficent heating/cooling system and switching out most of our light bulbs to florescent. We recycle glass, steel, plastic and aluminum. There are a lot of other examples and I think we have only begun.
At work I am a heating/air conditioning contractor. We get to eductate customers on how to reduce energy use, with and without our products and services. We directly do system maintenance - we found one beverage distributor with 8 10-ton rooftop systems that were not being maintained correctly. We did it correctly and they saved $20,000 in electricity in 2005 ( a very hot summer) as compared to 2004. We help our customers identify ways to cut energy use including insulating, duct improvements, and much more. Again I could go on but it gets too long.
At work we also recycle cardboard, paper, batteries, computers, steel, aluminum and copper. We invested in a new Sprinter service vehicle that gets 24 mpg deisel instead of another gasoline van that gets 12 mpg. This year we are changing our flourescent lights in the office from T12 to T8, which will cut electricity consumption, perhaps 10-20%. 2 years ago we added a new rubber roof with 2" of foam insulation saving on heating and cooling costs. This year we are adding 1.5" of foam along with new siding to our building. These are just examples of real things that can be done. Again, I feel we are just beginning and the opportunities to save energy are mind boggling.

As far as where people will work I believe there will be plenty of job opportunities as there are now. There has always been and will always be "churn" as technology changes, and with it the number and types of jobs people have. The old example of buggy whip manufacturers being put out of business by the change to automobiles. Isn't it amazing that with the loss of 10's of thousands of jobs (or even 100's of thousands) in the last 20 years due to corporate downsizing and "offshoring" that the unemployment rate in the US is in the low 5% range?

Or course there will be the statement that the official unemployment rate does not count "discouraged" workers, and it will be pointed out that losing a $30/hr manufacturing job and replacing it with a $10/hr service sector job has its own problems. The official unemployment rate also does not count the huge amount of workers in the underground economy. The change from losing jobs in some sectors while growing jobs in other sectors only reinforces that there is tremendous churn.

I think we have plenty of jobs that need to be done that are not wasteful (including mine). It is not possible but think of the large number of jobs we would have as teachers and workers engaged in rebuilding our infrastructure, as well as the myriad of other jobs that would be available if we were trasitioning - jobs in alternative energy, conservation and all the new technologies we are not even aware of yet.

I think the transition has started and will accelerate only as traditional energy costs increase. There is investment growing now in alternatives but are restricted by risk (of collapsing prices like we saw this month) in the energy arena. So the answer to your question is the transition has started but only is only in its infancy.

I think the difference between transition and collapse is with transition we have the opportunity to live comfortable lives and with collapse we would be relegated to pre-industrial living standards.

[thuja]

Well Buff- I think most people here would like to see some sort of transition to sustainability and you mention a way that comes up frequently.

1- Energy prices rise dramatically as fossil fuel production peak and decline.

2- Conservation and efficiency measures ramp up accordingly. New job sectors are created. There may be some recessions but no dramatic collapse.

I agree that this very well may be the first approach and may let us in the First World linger around for another 10-20 years. (The Third World will not be as lucky as there is very little fat to cut.) But lets move on to the next phase.

3- Fossil fuels start becoming scarce. There is only so much fat to cut. Prices of basic commodities- food, gasoline, gas for cooking, heating, cooling go through the roof.

4- The working and middle classes are forced to cut back on everything except the basics. Massive job loss. Depression. Hunger and even starvation in some sectors. We'll still be able to outbid the Third World for basic goods so that's where we'll see the real pain. Massive epidemics, starvation, warfare...actually that's already started.

Your transition ideas only really work for the first phase. They won't stop the massive depletion of fossil fuels. We can't survive as an industrialized world without them. At some point, we won't have enough of those fuels to run a functional globalized civilization. Collapse.

[Buff]

You are of course correct that even with conservation etc that eventually the use of fossil fuels is no longer an option to sustain us. The energy would have to be some combination of renewables. some type or types of nuclear. or perhaps something we are not yet aware of.

I would respectfully disagree with "10 or 20 years" but then that is the basis of disagreement of many here. I think the transition will have to be to non-fossil fuels but I think it is more likely to take 100 years than 20.

I am familiar with some of the arguments of why the collapse is inevitable and imminent. There are also some arguments that there will be fossil fuels along with alternatives for a much longer time than those who believe in the collapse find plausible.

I guess everyone has a right to choose who they believe. Paul Ehrlich told us in the early 1970's that there would be "massive starvation" (what is now called a die-off) due to population growth. He predicted this would happen in the 1980's. His belief was based on population growth trends and his data on resource availability including food. Especially food. He was certain he was right.

[thuja]

You know Buff- I don't entuirely disagree. I said 10-20 years rather flippantly and I do believe that continuum of deterioration could take quite a bit longer. Humans are rather crafty and there is a lot of fat to cut. I could extend my prediction out to perhaps 30-50 years before severe threats to First World civilization.

In terms of the effects of shrinking resources, we do not have to wait for the future. Look to Subsaharan Africa and the middle East for study cases of resource wars, droughts, famines, pestilence, the whole 9 yards.

However...you're going to find some very hard headed and smart people will disagree with you entirely on the idea of a valid alternative or set of alternatives that will be able to keep the civilization as we know it functioning.

One of the main reasons you will hear about has little to do with finding alternative energy sources. It has to do with agriculture, and the need for fossil fuel based fertilizers to prop up the "Green Revolution" that allowed for a massive bloom in human population. Take out these inputs, along with difficulty in processing, packaging and distribution, and you will see the beginnings of true hardship that will affect the First World as well.

We are seeing the first stirrings of this problem right now. Because of our need for liquid fuel (sorry- nuclear, wind and solar won't cut it), there is a huge push towards ethanol made from corn. Because of this push to use crops for fuel, the price of corn in terms of feed and food has risen dramatically. Mexican citizens are seeing their tortillas go dramatically up in price. Farmers who need corn for their animals are feeling the pinch. Once we really get underway, food costs will start to skyrocket.

The problem is, once you really dig into this, you realize that we can't keep up our modern civilization without massive inputs of liquid fossil fuels, and no basket of alternatives will suffice.

I agree that the First World will somehow muddle through far quite a while. But is there a light at the end of the tunnel? Nobody has convinced me or most of the people on this board up to now. In fact the optimists hope for some pre-industrial semi-agrarian existence after decades of turmoil and pain.

So please let us know...transition? To what?

[Ludi]

Thankyou, Buff.

You honestly think air conditioning is not "waste"?