Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Request Help On PO Aftermath

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Request Help On PO Aftermath

Unread postby Valdemar » Wed 09 May 2007, 07:49:10

Once more, I have come across a good poster with regards to countering many arguments normally put for PO collapse. This post is a follow up to one where I posted, among other things, the link to the Die-off website's agriculture article.

I've been trawling this site and elsewhere for rebuttals to these points, but any feedback would be appreciated with regards to these points on agricultulral fuel usage, costs of building a nuclear reactor and so on. There are other parts that are much easier to counter, such as the peak drop-off being exacerbated by human factors in geo-politics rather than geological, but I can take care of those myself for the most part (though any better information to back this argument up would be appreciated).

Thanks in advance.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sikon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Admiral Valdemar', 'A')griculture uses a lot more than many think. And the die-off is not going to be the same as the Third World. [...]


My previous post's figure of 1.7% of total U.S. energy consumption being used for agriculture is from a reliable government source, as shown before, a publication of the state of Kansas discussing figures for the whole U.S.

In contrast, your article is written for its political bias.

Still, the following particular part of it is not too bad, though not perfectly accurate:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Article', 'A')gricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer

19% for the operation of field machinery

16% for transportation

13% for irrigation

08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

05% for crop drying

05% for pesticide production

08% miscellaneous


The above quote from your article would imply energy usage in agriculture being ~ 3.2 times greater than that involved in fertilizer production alone.

They also say:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Article', 'T')o give the reader an idea of the energy intensiveness of modern agriculture, production of one kilogram of nitrogen for fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of from 1.4 to 1.8 liters of diesel fuel. This is not considering the natural gas feedstock.9 According to The Fertilizer Institute (http://www.tfi.org), in the year from June 30 2001 until June 30 2002 the United States used 12,009,300 short tons of nitrogen fertilizer. Using the low figure of 1.4 liters diesel equivalent per kilogram of nitrogen, this equates to the energy content of 15.3 billion liters of diesel fuel, or 96.2 million barrels.


While they obviously expect readers to be intuitively impressed by their 96 million barrel figure, a relevant comparison is U.S. oil consumption of around 7600 million barrels annually (~ 2004 data here). Supposing ~ 96 million barrels a year for fertilizer would be ~ 1.3% as much. Combine with their earlier figures implying energy usage in agriculture being ~ 3.2 times greater than that for making fertilizer. Then, their figures would lead to an estimate of several percent of U.S. energy being used in agriculture.

While that's not very much anyway, actually their figures aren't right.

A far better publication is here, from a relatively reliable .gov website. Not only does the preceding report show how energy use in U.S. agriculture is a bit more than 1.5 quadrillion Btu, compared to 100.4 quadrillion Btu total (2004), they also show the components of the figure, graphs of changes over past years, and more info.

Of course, total energy involved in the food industry can be greater, like all of the energy used by restaurant workers driving to their jobs, plus everything else that could be added up depending upon one's criteria. For example, there would tend to be more energy indirectly invested in an expensive restaurant meal per hundred calories than in the corresponding portion of goods like a supermarket bag of flour. But that isn't very relevant for the necessary food supply. Rather, the primary concern is that involved in producing food before much extra processing. And that's not much, not compared to the total energy supply.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Admiral Valdemar', '[')...] Instead, you'll see material possessions start to disappear as more and more people find it harder to buy, or rather "consume", the products made today that keep the economy afloat. [...]


The general idea of potentially a very major economic depression is something suggested by me before, including in my preceding post, though it would not tend to last forever. But the particular degree of such effects matters a lot, a topic covered more later.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Admiral Valdemar', '[')...] If you want to make an electric fleet you're going to use energy. The monetary costs of scooters, buses and trams mean nothing. [...]


On the contrary, very inexpensive items don't use an enormous amount of energy to manufacture, and their cost implies a low upper limit on the cost of the energy used in production.

For example, for the previously illustrated electric bus with $54000 cost shared among enough passengers for ~ $100 capital cost per passenger, that implies under $100 per person of energy involved in its manufacture.

Only a moderate percentage of manufacturing cost is electricity and fuel. For example, much less than 1 barrel of oil per person would be involved in making that bus, relative to the number of people transported by it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Admiral Valdemar', '[')...] To do any of what you propose to convert to electrical vehicles will literally kill the economy and take decades to do. [...]


You really haven't countered the electric vehicle cost figures illustrated before, such as $1000+/person for good electric motorcycles and ~ $100/person capital expense for some electric buses. Obviously, those examples are relatively inexpensive models, not the fanciest, but this discussion is about the survival of modern civilization.

Today, electric vehicles are almost 100% outcompeted by vehicles running on relatively inexpensive oil products. In the future, electric vehicles either may or may not be primarily outcompeted by vehicles running on synthetic fuel or by other possible competition. But there will be transportation, one way or another. Even a cheap electric bus is far more practical than walking for the commuting distance of a lot of people.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Admiral Valdemar', '[')...] It's the energy cost which you're going to be ploughing into building those nuke plants and keeping agriculture up to spec, unless you convert to CTL, in which case say hello to even lower grain yields than today within another decade or two as AGW takes its toll. [...]


You repeat claim after claim, but you have not countered the specific figures in my previous post. For example, you don't counter the figure referenced before of <= 4 PJ energy cost for construction of a typical nuclear power plant versus 300 PJ payback per decade. You just ignore it, continuing to try to convince readers that the energy cost is excessive.

With a lot of people, repeating the same thing over and over again can be effective, many having an instinct to believe that which repetition has made familiar, particularly if it seems to be the belief of the majority, a common method in marketing and propaganda. For example, if you were speaking to the public and repeatedly referred to energy cost in the same sentence as nuclear power, eventually more people would associate nuclear power with excessive energy cost in their minds, without any actual quantitative supporting evidence needing to be found. However, such doesn't work with those who know to look for supporting calculations and figures, evaluate them (or notice their non-existence), and check references.

So far your pattern has been saying any countermeasure discussed for replacing peak oil energy losses would kill the economy and/or require too much energy.

In addition to lacking proper supporting calculations, that whole mode of thinking is hardly productive.

In contrast, while what is said here has obviously negligible effect to the world either way, the basic philosophy of my arguments is beneficial, insofar as enough people sharing it would lead towards specific, practical, helpful action. The world already has way too many people with an opposing view, like the segment of environmentalists who focus on "problems" of nuclear power, who contribute to historical lack of progress on switching the energy source.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Admiral Valdemar', '[')...] If you want to make an electric fleet you're going to use energy.


You use italics as if such is a special thought, but that everything involves some energy usage is obvious. Rather, one of the differences between you and me is that I look up appropriate quantitative figures, like those in my last post.

The energy costs versus payback of nuclear power plants was covered before with specific figures. The energy involved in operating the electric motorcycle was illustrated in detail in my last post to be ~ <= 2% of the total electricity consumption by the average U.S. household (direct and indirect). The energy involved in manufacturing its rechargeable battery is still less than the preceding figure for recharging it hundreds of times a year, and overall its payback ratio for energy cost is excellent. A similar situation applies with the other examples.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Admiral Valdemar', '[')...] If you're looking at a 10% or more decline, which is well within the confines of reality, you're looking at less than a decade before you're using half of your available liquid energy. [...]

Ten percent or more annual decline is vastly above what various major past local peak oil events shown in my preceding post's graph suggest as the typical trend. It shows typically around 15% drop in the first decade after peak, +/- 5%, corresponding to historically <= ~ 2% average decrease per year. Anyway, see the historical data for various countries shown in the graph, and observe the lack of seeing a bunch of sharp drop-offs after local peak oil events. Anything is nominally possible in worse-case scenarios with enough external events influencing the situation, but the preceding general trend has happened again and again as shown in the graph.

It was illustrated before how only ~ 47 billion out of ~ 160 billion gallons of annual U.S. gasoline and diesel vehicle fuel consumption are used by commercial trucks, most rather being less necessary individual usage like people commuting and going places with often 1 person per car.

Today, most of the public mainly hasn't even heard much about peak oil. Though undesirable, one can't be surprised that funding for switching the energy source is today so many orders of magnitude less than the amount of other spending when the public worries more about terrorism than peak oil. After all, politicians reply to voters, lobbyists, etc.

However, at some time like several years into world peak oil, once the situation is blatantly obvious enough, then the current situation changes. Peak oil effects may tend to eventually become the primary news story theme, once they become major enough. And then figures in millions of dollars for programs can become instead billions of dollars, with orders-of-magnitude increases possible as illustrated in more detail before.

Aside from the effect on businesses with the changed market and changed relative competitiveness of gasoline alternatives, that leads to pressure on the government for countermeasures like really devoting a significant portion of GDP to alternative fuel production, implementing electric public transportation, etc. Because peak oil is not instant doom, the majority of original industrial capability tends to remain at that point, enough for some helpful measures.

Of course, such is very undesirable compared to how there should have been a switch away from fossil fuels in advance, but civilization survives, a little like it survived the Great Depression.

**************

I assume you aren't suggesting that there will be zero future energy usage, so the question becomes how much energy is available, how much is needed for what purposes, and so on.

Before going further, let's determine more specifically what you are arguing.

Which of the following comes closest to your expectations of the future U.S. electricity supply (e.g. the number of kilowatt-hours):

1. At a time 5 to 15 years after the start of peak oil, U.S. electrical generation will most likely be:$this->bbcode_list('a')
  • 50% to 100+% as much as before peak oil.
  • 10% to 50% as much as before peak oil.
  • 1% to 10% as much as before peak oil.
  • Zero or under 1% as much as before peak oil.
    • 2. Fifty years after peak oil, U.S. electrical generation will most likely be:$this->bbcode_list('a')
  • More than before peak oil.
  • 50% to 100% as much as before peak oil.
  • 10% to 50% as much as before peak oil.
  • 1% to 10% as much as before peak oil.
  • Zero or under 1% as much as before peak oil.
    • Which of the following comes closest to your expectations of the future U.S. supply of liquid fuel, where liquid fuel includes that produced from remaining oil plus the amount of alternative fuel production (e.g. the number of Btu annually):

    3. At a time 10 years after the start of peak oil, U.S. liquid fuel consumption will most likely be:$this->bbcode_list('a')
  • 70% to 100+% as much as before peak oil.
  • 40% to 70% as much as before peak oil.
  • 10% to 40% as much as before peak oil.
  • 1% to 10% as much as before peak oil.
  • Zero or under 1% as much as before peak oil.
    • 4. Fifty years after peak oil, U.S. liquid fuel consumption will most likely be:$this->bbcode_list('a')
  • 70% to 100+% as much as before peak oil.
  • 40% to 70% as much as before peak oil.
  • 10% to 40% as much as before peak oil.
  • 1% to 10% as much as before peak oil.
  • Zero or under 1% as much as before peak oil.
    • 5. If one's answer to #4 above is B, C, D, or E, the main reason for liquid fuel production not being greater is which of the following:$this->bbcode_list('a')
  • Economic or technical inability to produce that much liquid fuel.
  • Social or political factors against producing that much liquid fuel, such as governments enforcing energy conservation.
  • Technical changes affecting efficiency, e.g. changes in the percentage of shipment by trucks versus trains, more efficient engines, or other such factors.
  • Liquid fuel having little or no advantage then, such as there being good enough widespread electric vehicles or popular public transportation.
  • A combination of the above, specifying which.
    • 6. As for potential die-off expectations, for the U.S. they are:$this->bbcode_list('a')
  • 0% of the U.S. population of 300+ million dying from starvation, like zero percent did in all past U.S. history including the Great Depression.
  • 1% to 20% of the U.S. population dying from starvation.
  • 20% to 90% of the U.S. population dying from starvation.
  • All or more than 90% of the U.S. population dying from starvation.
    • 7. As for potential die-off expectations, for the world they are:$this->bbcode_list('a')
  • 0% or under 10% of the world population of 7+ billion dying from starvation.
  • 10% to 30% of the world population dying from starvation.
  • 30% to 90% of the world population dying from starvation.
  • All or more than 90% of the world population dying from starvation.
    • If there is an expectation for die-off by causes other than starvation, that can be specified for this and the question before it.

    8. At a time 5 to 15 years after the start of peak oil, the economic output or GDP of the U.S. will be:$this->bbcode_list('a')
  • 70% to 100+% as much as before peak oil.
  • 40% to 70% as much as before peak oil.
  • 10% to 40% as much as before peak oil.
  • 1% to 10% as much as before peak oil.
  • Zero or under 1% as much as before peak oil.
    • 9. Fifty years after peak oil, U.S. GDP will be:$this->bbcode_list('a')
  • Substantially more than before peak oil.
  • Around the same as before peak oil
  • 50% to 100% as much as before peak oil.
  • 10% to 50% as much as before peak oil.
  • 1% to 10% as much as before peak oil.
  • Zero or under 1% as much as before peak oil.
    • The following two questions are about the world, currently having under a billion people with a relatively good standard of living in industrialized countries plus another six billion people primarily in much poverty.

    10. At a time 5 to 15 years after the start of peak oil, GDP of the world will be:$this->bbcode_list('a')
  • 70% to 100+% as much as before peak oil.
  • 40% to 70% as much as before peak oil.
  • 10% to 40% as much as before peak oil.
  • 1% to 10% as much as before peak oil.
  • Zero or under 1% as much as before peak oil.
    • 11. Fifty years after peak oil, GDP of the world will most likely be:$this->bbcode_list('a')
  • Substantially more than before peak oil.
  • Around the same as before peak oil.
  • 50% to 100% as much as before peak oil.
  • 10% to 50% as much as before peak oil.
  • 1% to 10% as much as before peak oil.
  • Zero or under 1% as much as before peak oil.
    • While I am asking Admiral Valdemar the questions 1 through 11 above, it would be interesting if some other people also posted their expectations. Optionally they could substitute another country for the U.S. in the poll questions, mentioning which country.
    "Nothing survives. Not your parents. Not your children. Not even stars."
    -Pinbacker, Sunshine
    User avatar
    Valdemar
    Lignite
    Lignite
     
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
    Location: Cambs., UK
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Aaron » Wed 09 May 2007, 08:21:01

    EROEI
    The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

    Hazel Henderson
    User avatar
    Aaron
    Resting in Peace
     
    Posts: 5998
    Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
    Location: Houston
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Valdemar » Wed 09 May 2007, 08:23:16

    Somehow, I don't think mentioning that again will alter the fact that nuclear has a far higher EROEI, we waste a good deal of fossil fuels on things are aren't necessary unlike agriculture, so when fossil fuels get pricey, they'll be pumped into necessary areas instead.

    Are there any good articles or reports detailing the collapse of the agricultural sector with PO and climate change affecting yields?
    "Nothing survives. Not your parents. Not your children. Not even stars."
    -Pinbacker, Sunshine
    User avatar
    Valdemar
    Lignite
    Lignite
     
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
    Location: Cambs., UK
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Aaron » Wed 09 May 2007, 08:29:05

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', 'S')omehow, I don't think mentioning that again will alter the fact that nuclear has a far higher EROEI, we waste a good deal of fossil fuels on things are aren't necessary unlike agriculture, so when fossil fuels get pricey, they'll be pumped into necessary areas instead.

    Are there any good articles or reports detailing the collapse of the agricultural sector with PO and climate change affecting yields?


    Then you don't understand how to calculate EROEI.
    The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

    Hazel Henderson
    User avatar
    Aaron
    Resting in Peace
     
    Posts: 5998
    Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
    Location: Houston
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Concerned » Wed 09 May 2007, 08:32:03

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', 'S')omehow, I don't think mentioning that again will alter the fact that nuclear has a far higher EROEI, we waste a good deal of fossil fuels on things are aren't necessary unlike agriculture, so when fossil fuels get pricey, they'll be pumped into necessary areas instead.

    Are there any good articles or reports detailing the collapse of the agricultural sector with PO and climate change affecting yields?


    Why will they get pumped into necessary areas?

    In parts of the world people with money have access to energy those without don't?

    What makes people think they are entitled to cheap energy and food?

    The "waste" of fossil fuels grows our economy. iPods, film and tv, eating out totally unecessary, heck you don't "need" university, a large heated home, multiple shirts, pants, jeans, underclothes etc..

    BUT you're talking a different world when you start talking "needs" compared to the wants we can fulfill with cheap energy today.
    "Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
    -Italian Proverb
    User avatar
    Concerned
    Heavy Crude
    Heavy Crude
     
    Posts: 1571
    Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Valdemar » Wed 09 May 2007, 08:40:46

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Concerned', '
    ')
    Why will they get pumped into necessary areas?

    In parts of the world people with money have access to energy those without don't?

    What makes people think they are entitled to cheap energy and food?

    The "waste" of fossil fuels grows our economy. iPods, film and tv, eating out totally unecessary, heck you don't "need" university, a large heated home, multiple shirts, pants, jeans, underclothes etc..

    BUT you're talking a different world when you start talking "needs" compared to the wants we can fulfill with cheap energy today.


    True enough, but I'm assuming, as Sikon seems to be here, that the US has a massive shift towards the EVs he's suggested for cheap, nuclear and shifting what decreasing amounts of fossil fuels are left to agri-business. Now, you and I both know that's ignoring human factors and geo-politics. I guess Sikon is working on a best case basis here, because it's easy to say nuclear will be made at one plant a week(!) for decades if people somehow back it, rather than acknowledge that humans haven't shown any inkling of this kind of programme yet or in the near future.
    "Nothing survives. Not your parents. Not your children. Not even stars."
    -Pinbacker, Sunshine
    User avatar
    Valdemar
    Lignite
    Lignite
     
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
    Location: Cambs., UK
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Concerned » Wed 09 May 2007, 08:46:19

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
    ')You really haven't countered the electric vehicle cost figures illustrated before, such as $1000+/person for good electric motorcycles and ~ $100/person capital expense for some electric buses. Obviously, those examples are relatively inexpensive models, not the fanciest, but this discussion is about the survival of modern civilization.

    Today, electric vehicles are almost 100% outcompeted by vehicles running on relatively inexpensive oil products. In the future, electric vehicles either may or may not be primarily outcompeted by vehicles running on synthetic fuel or by other possible competition. But there will be transportation, one way or another. Even a cheap electric bus is far more practical than walking for the commuting distance of a lot of people.


    This guy just does not get it IMO.

    What will be the use of his electric bus and scooters, when the jobs the current system depends on, finance, technology, automobile et el., start disappearing?

    Demand destruction. It's like the great depression lots of people wanted to buy but had no money, the flip side in a PO world is there might be alot of cheap energy solutions applied to today world that just won't make sense in an era of declining energy.

    It's how the system as a whole will cope that is the problem. If you integrate the bigger picture Debt, fractional banking, growth based economic system, finite planet, resource wars (Iraq anyone?), then in this context electric/hydrogen/gas powered buses are the least of your fixes.

    Seriously ask someone in Iraq, North Korea, post Soviet Russia or Zimbabuae how great it would be to have electric buses? When the social system bombs out or collapses it will be hardship on an unimaginable scale.

    I'd be more inclined to think of victory gardens and survival rather than electric buses ferrying people to their finance industry jobs in energy consuming office towers.
    "Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
    -Italian Proverb
    User avatar
    Concerned
    Heavy Crude
    Heavy Crude
     
    Posts: 1571
    Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Pops » Wed 09 May 2007, 09:10:42

    I’m not quite clear on the question, but I’ll just make the observation that if ag uses <5% of total energy and iirc, today the typical American spends around 6% of disposable income on food (and at least half of that away from home) there is quite a bit of fat to burn before mass starvation and die-off.

    Here at least.
    The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
    -- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
    User avatar
    Pops
    Elite
    Elite
     
    Posts: 19746
    Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
    Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Valdemar » Wed 09 May 2007, 09:16:54

    That's what I'm thinking, so what is the basis for a major economic and agricultural impact from PO and climate change etc.?
    "Nothing survives. Not your parents. Not your children. Not even stars."
    -Pinbacker, Sunshine
    User avatar
    Valdemar
    Lignite
    Lignite
     
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
    Location: Cambs., UK
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby kjmclark » Wed 09 May 2007, 10:37:46

    That's a beautiful set of survey questions! In what forum is this discussion happening?
    User avatar
    kjmclark
    Coal
    Coal
     
    Posts: 428
    Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Valdemar » Wed 09 May 2007, 11:04:34

    Over yonder.

    To be honest, I don't see what possible result those questions can achieve.

    As I reply:

    "You may as well ask me what the price of Brent will be on 9 May 2008 at 1529 BST, because all of these factors rely on variables outside the predictions of linear models like geological resource exhaustion. The geo-political factors alone will make this tricky and as I don't profess to know how much we'll be paying for petrol in a year's time, so I won't start making predictions on equally mutable parts of the economy. While an interesting set of questions, I'm merely looking at what various developments have in store for us rather than calculating where we may be years down the line. If common sense prevails, obviously the figures for a less severe world state will be preferable over those with the opposite extreme."
    "Nothing survives. Not your parents. Not your children. Not even stars."
    -Pinbacker, Sunshine
    User avatar
    Valdemar
    Lignite
    Lignite
     
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
    Location: Cambs., UK
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Ludi » Wed 09 May 2007, 12:37:00

    People generally starve not because there isn't food, but because they CAN'T AFFORD IT. I don't know how many times this has been restated. Even famous examples of famine prove not the lack of food, but the lack of ability to PURCHASE the food. The Irish Potato Famine - the Irish were EXPORTING oats for use by the English military. Current famine conditions, the people can't BUY food.


    When will the US and other First World nations implement a Free Food policy? Who will pay the farmers to grow the Free Food?


    If people can't AFFORD to buy food, it's fairly irrelevant how small a proportion of the energy budget goes to produce the food.



    If you have NO INCOME, 6% of your NO INCOME going to buy food won't get you very far.
    Ludi
     
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Valdemar » Wed 09 May 2007, 12:55:44

    I can only fathom that they expect some new economic system to come into place. I have no idea how that would work, given the only other viable system is a command economy and we all know how well communist systems fare in the end.

    It seems a lot of people dismiss the economic ramifications and expect because we have the technology to make these problems non-issues, then we can do it regardless of the lack of economic stability.

    How does one build nuclear plants and get everyone the food their deserve if there's no economic stability?
    "Nothing survives. Not your parents. Not your children. Not even stars."
    -Pinbacker, Sunshine
    User avatar
    Valdemar
    Lignite
    Lignite
     
    Posts: 356
    Joined: Wed 28 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
    Location: Cambs., UK
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Pops » Wed 09 May 2007, 13:38:30

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'P')eople generally starve not because there isn't food, but because they CAN'T AFFORD IT. I don't know how many times this has been restated.


    No need to use ALL CAPS, Ludi, I have said as much myself. But like all things it isn’t that simple.

    I assume then that you or your parents when you were a child were always well employed – otherwise from what you say you would have starved to death.

    In fact at any given time 5% or so of the population is unemployed and some other percentage has given up finding work. Not all receive benefits or aid - do they all starve?

    If so, it’s no wonder the unemployment rate is so small.

    The fact is most people have some outside support either from family, friends, church, etc. There have been times in my life when I have had little or no income and I didn’t starve; I got by on beans and flour. Water gravy and water biscuits get boring but they fill the belly.

    During the depression 25% of the population was unemployed and 1in5 children malnourished and I am sure many did die but I don’t think tens of thousands - though I could be wrong. Surprisingly many left their city jobs and did field work just to make enough money to eat. My Dad left home at 16 and followed the wheat harvest to send money home.

    Again, my point (since I need to restate it) is we have a ways to go before we get there.
    The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
    -- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
    User avatar
    Pops
    Elite
    Elite
     
    Posts: 19746
    Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
    Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Aaron » Wed 09 May 2007, 13:53:10

    To be fair it's the very poor who suffer economic consequences first & hardest.

    If you live in the US, (or almost anywhere in the West), & are below the poverty level, then you are way ahead of billions around the planet, economically speaking.

    Do the unemployed die of starvation?

    Sure they do.

    In Africa it's just plain obscene. India & China also endure massive starvation, along with many other nations like North Korea, Indonesia, & much of South America.
    The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

    Hazel Henderson
    User avatar
    Aaron
    Resting in Peace
     
    Posts: 5998
    Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
    Location: Houston
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Fredrik » Wed 09 May 2007, 13:53:17

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', 'T')hat's what I'm thinking, so what is the basis for a major economic and agricultural impact from PO and climate change etc.?


    This article sums up the impending threats to agriculture.

    Edit: Looks like you already used that one when you were debating on the other thread. :oops:
    "Only scarcity and effort make life worth living."
    "A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on [individual] desires." -Pentti Linkola
    User avatar
    Fredrik
    Lignite
    Lignite
     
    Posts: 397
    Joined: Sun 05 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
    Location: Finland
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Pops » Wed 09 May 2007, 15:17:48

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'D')o the unemployed die of starvation?

    Sure they do.

    In Africa it's just plain obscene.

    Come now Aaron, those pitiful children are victims of unemployment?

    Certainly I doubt their parents are employed but I also doubt that they were in the recent past either. Many of those babies have never been well nourished I’d venture - which I thought was the point here.

    Couple things regarding rich world causing poor world hunger from the first place I googled:
    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o attract investment, poor countries enter a spiraling race to the bottom to see who can provide lower standards, reduced wages and cheaper resources. This has increased poverty and inequality for most people. It also forms a backbone to what we today call globalization.

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ven non-emergency food aid, which seems a noble cause, is destructive, as it under-sells local farmers and can ultimately affect the entire economy of a poor nation.


    Will more there die as energy becomes increasingly more expensive and we take more of their's? Certainly.

    May many more die elsewhere as time goes by? Possibly, but not anytime soon.

    It dawns on me that in a perversely ironic way, PO could eventually lead to a betterment of life in todays worst places somewhere down the road..


    But again, not anytime soon.

    {Edit to fix my link}
    The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
    -- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
    User avatar
    Pops
    Elite
    Elite
     
    Posts: 19746
    Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
    Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Ludi » Wed 09 May 2007, 17:18:46

    Of course we "have a ways to go" Pops. In a future of decreasing energy ( resisting the urge to use allcaps for emphasis), how will a growing population find jobs? You say in the depression, 25% were unemployed. There was plenty of energy during the depression. How will there be employment during a future of decreasing energy? I can see people working, perhaps for food and other necessities of life, but, jobs? For money? Where will that come from?
    Ludi
     
    Top

    Unread postby Pops » Wed 09 May 2007, 18:05:55

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', ' ')( resisting the urge to use allcaps for emphasis)

    Thanks (I think italics add emphasis without the shouting connotation of All Caps - but then I’m a graphics geek :) )


    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'h')ow will a growing population find jobs?

    I dunno.


    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'Y')ou say in the depression, 25% were unemployed. There was plenty of energy during the depression. How will there be employment during a future of decreasing energy?

    I dunno.


    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') can see people working, perhaps for food and other necessities of life, but, jobs? For money? Where will that come from?

    I dunno.


    I guess I'll simply copy/paste my conclusion from my original post perhaps it might be more clear this time around:
    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Me for the third or fourth time', 't')here is quite a bit of fat to burn before mass starvation and die-off.

    Here at least.

    I guess I should have phrased it as:

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '"') [We]have a ways to go"


    Jeez, what a friggin waste of time...
    The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
    -- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
    User avatar
    Pops
    Elite
    Elite
     
    Posts: 19746
    Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
    Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
    Top

    Re: Request Help On PO Aftermath

    Unread postby Ludi » Wed 09 May 2007, 18:08:47

    Don't know what your problem is, Pops. Why do you have to be such an asshole to me most of the time?


    Jerk.
    Ludi
     
    Top
    Next
    Post a reply

    Return to Peak Oil Discussion

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



    cron