by SevenTen » Fri 20 Apr 2007, 09:22:58
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DesertBear2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newsseeker', '
')But let's not think about what the world will be facing circa 2020 (Bakhtiari estimates we will be down to 55 mbpd) to 2050. The only question that remains is when does industrial civilization effectively shut down?
In his latest article, Bakhtiari philosophizes that we westerners have a great deal of utter wastage of oil- and therefore could buffer the first post-peak years by reducing that wasted oil.
However, if you look at the average Americano situation, it is hard to see exactly where those cuts would come from- at least without some very deft energy conservation talk from national and state leaders. The coddled US consumer is used to being wooed and flattered- not asked to give up comfort and convenience.
Montequest makes the point over and over that whatever "wastage" you would remove, would also remove the jobs of those people associated with that "waste".
And what about after those "first peak years" when there is no more "waste" to trim from the system?
by Newsseeker » Fri 20 Apr 2007, 09:25:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DesertBear2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newsseeker', '
')But let's not think about what the world will be facing circa 2020 (Bakhtiari estimates we will be down to 55 mbpd) to 2050. The only question that remains is when does industrial civilization effectively shut down?
In his latest article, Bakhtiari philosophizes that we westerners have a great deal of utter wastage of oil- and therefore could buffer the first post-peak years by reducing that wasted oil.
However, if you look at the average Americano situation, it is hard to see exactly where those cuts would come from- at least without some very deft energy conservation talk from national and state leaders. The coddled US consumer is used to being wooed and flattered- not asked to give up comfort and convenience.
Waste would be going to the movies or going out to eat. A summer trip to see the parents, etc. These things could be cut out but not without having a devastating effect upon the economy.
by Newsseeker » Fri 20 Apr 2007, 09:32:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SevenTen', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DesertBear2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newsseeker', '
')But let's not think about what the world will be facing circa 2020 (Bakhtiari estimates we will be down to 55 mbpd) to 2050. The only question that remains is when does industrial civilization effectively shut down?
In his latest article, Bakhtiari philosophizes that we westerners have a great deal of utter wastage of oil- and therefore could buffer the first post-peak years by reducing that wasted oil.
However, if you look at the average Americano situation, it is hard to see exactly where those cuts would come from- at least without some very deft energy conservation talk from national and state leaders. The coddled US consumer is used to being wooed and flattered- not asked to give up comfort and convenience.
Montequest makes the point over and over that whatever "wastage" you would remove, would also remove the jobs of those people associated with that "waste".
And what about after those "first peak years" when there is no more "waste" to trim from the system?
I will be very generous and say that we can remove 10 mbpd if we reduce but according to Bakhtiari we will only have 55 mbpd in 2020. That is HUGE! A 35% drop in oil. I am REALLY not looking forward to the future. And think about life beyond 2020 like around 2043 when I would be set to retire. What will production be like then? 30 mpbd? 20? Unsustainable is the word for the path that the world is on. If the oil cuts of the 70s caused such problems what will a 35% drop do?
by dhfenton » Fri 20 Apr 2007, 13:11:16
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dhfenton', '
')
I don't see it as an insurmountable, run for the hills type of calamity, unless governments turn it into one with their war machines.
Dhfention,
Out of curiosity, have you checked the news anytime the last 5 years?
Don't confuse stupid foriegn policy with nuclear annihilation. The US has done this repeatedly for the last 60 years. Remember Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Afganistan, Iraq 1 and 2? This is nothing new. The Soviets did it in Afganistan, too. The military interventions that we have seen so far prove fairly conclusively that occupation doesn't work any more. There is probably only one military in the world that could realisticly launch an invasion of the middle east, and it isn't the US, its China. They have the supply lines and shear numbers to maintain an occupation there for a long time. The worst case scenario is that the US and China would not work together on energy. In that case, China may be tempted to move on an area that supplies the US with oil. I believe that is a likely scenario for world war, and the wholesale use of nuclear weapons. This idiocy we've seen so far from Bush, is just mastrubation by comparision. Hey, I found something Bush can do right, geo-political mastrubation.
by SevenTen » Fri 20 Apr 2007, 13:44:22
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dhfenton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dhfenton', '
')
I don't see it as an insurmountable, run for the hills type of calamity, unless governments turn it into one with their war machines.
Dhfention,
Out of curiosity, have you checked the news anytime the last 5 years?
Don't confuse stupid foriegn policy with nuclear annihilation. The US has done this repeatedly for the last 60 years.
The US perhaps has been the most aggressive in regards to its foreign policy, and the most short-sighted, but as you can find in Wikipedia among many other places, it's not just the US that has nuclear weapons.
Wiki List of States with Nuclear Weapons
According to the NPT (Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty), the US, Russia, China, the UK, and France all have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan also have nuclear weapons, but did not sign the treaty. North Korea is supposed to be dismantling its nuclear weapons program.
Israel is suspected to have nuclear weapons. Iran and Saudi Arabia are suspected of having clandestine nuclear programs.
South Africa formerly had nuclear weapons. There are 16 other countries that used to have nuclear weapons programs, but most abandoned them and signed the NPT.
But there's still a lot of knowledge floating around out there.
Resources wars can start anywhere, once the whole system starts breaking down.
by Newsseeker » Sat 21 Apr 2007, 08:39:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayame', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kokoda', '
')Nobody may get to retire in the future. You will get to work until you are either too frail, too sick, too hungry or too injured to do so ... at which point you will die.
Yes. The up and coming mantra is 'no retire just expire'.
Then have your body thrown into a thermal depolymerization plant and come out as oil for others to consume.
by Geko45 » Sat 21 Apr 2007, 22:19:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newsseeker', 'T')hen have your body thrown into a thermal depolymerization plant and come out as oil for others to consume.
Soylent Black?
Geko45 - Producer of Doomer Porn
-

Geko45
- Tar Sands

-
- Posts: 639
- Joined: Thu 28 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston, TX
-