Overly pessimistic on Peak Oil?

by **MonteQuest** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 19:19:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', ' ')I think using the analogy of the behavior of animals in bio-systems is quite weak when applied to humans. By virtue of our intelligence we have the ability to engineer nature and are therefore not bound, to a certain extent, by the natural laws affecting other forms of life.

by **mkwin** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 19:27:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'P')eople are pessimistic because they believe people won't be motivated to change and we're going to fall of a cliff.

by **Pixie** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 19:28:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'C')oal peaking in 15 years?? Do you have a link to this information? I can't remember exactly but the last figure I saw was an estimated 300 years potential supply.
.

by **Pixie** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 19:31:17

Sorry, I said it was the USA that figured out coal was peaking. It was the germans. Should have known.

by **mkwin** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 19:34:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', ' ')I think using the analogy of the behavior of animals in bio-systems is quite weak when applied to humans. By virtue of our intelligence we have the ability to engineer nature and are therefore not bound, to a certain extent, by the natural laws affecting other forms of life.

by **mkwin** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 19:44:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pixie', 'S')orry, I said it was the USA that figured out coal was peaking. It was the germans. Should have known.

by **threadbear** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 20:01:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mmasters', 'T')he exact mechanisms of manipulating oil may not be easily provable (just like how the fed manipulates the stock market is not easily provable) but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen (or it isn't plausible).

by **keehah** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 20:22:25

Re: Overly pessimistic on Peak Oil?

Would not seem so from this thread. If all one's comments really offer to support this is denial, human huris and ignorance.............

A good explanation of ER/EI issues for those that need to understand the ramifications.

Feels Like I'm Dying...From that Old Used-to-Be
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') tend to be an optimist, at least by the standards of peak oil activists (which isn't very hard). By that I mean that I believe in individual action and I believe that we could overturn the system that we live within and make better choices. But I also think this is less likely than that we'll do the wrong thing, and part of it is that our brains are trying to kill us (or at least our kids). That is, we've gotten into habits of thought so destructive and so automatic that we don't even recognize their basic failures. And if we don't recognize the failures in our own heads and overturn them, we're in big trouble.

by **MonteQuest** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 22:45:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', 'C')oal peaking in 15 years?? Do you have a link to this information? I can't remember exactly but the last figure I saw was an estimated 300 years potential supply.

by **MonteQuest** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 23:23:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', ' ')The US has other options. To start with many you have to improve your energy efficiency. You use twice the energy per person than Europeans while we live a comparable (better in some cases) quality of life.

by **MonteQuest** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 23:33:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', ' ') The capital investment required to bring about a bridge system could easily be funded by government.

by **MonteQuest** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 23:40:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mkwin', ' ')No other species in the history of the known universe has had anywhere near the ability to shape his environment as man. This is not arrogance it’s fact. we are not above nature but have a degree of ability to engineer our environment that no other species has come close to.

by **MonteQuest** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 23:45:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', ' ')"The most significant part of the bill gave the authority for the government to subsidize the construction of new refineries for petrochemical companies, despite the fact that the oil companies had intentionally been closing down refineries for years prior to the hurricanes"

by **kochevnik** » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 23:59:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bshirt', ' ')Where the hell did all this mindless bureaucracy come from?

by **threadbear** » Sat 02 Jun 2007, 00:53:21

For all intents and purposes, Big Oil and other oligopolies own the FTC, and I don't trust any institution to investigate itself. It's really that simple.

I thought we were here to question conventional wisdom and institutions who support the status quo. Instead it turns into a forum for earnest chalkboard monitors to scurry around making sure we're not whispering rude things about the education system, in class.

by **threadbear** » Sat 02 Jun 2007, 00:57:54

Kochevnik, Eventually there will be only about 5 corporations left in the US (and Canada, for that matter) who will be able to operate due to the red tape. Do you think this is an accident? After all small and mid size operators are driven out, the restrictions will relax.

by **MonteQuest** » Sat 02 Jun 2007, 01:15:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'F')or all intents and purposes, Big Oil and other oligopolies own the FTC, and I don't trust any institution to investigate itself. It's really that simple.

by **rdberg1957** » Sat 02 Jun 2007, 04:55:12

I have been reading on this site for quite some time. Montequest, I wonder if your frustration comes from the contrast between your reading of the evidence for overshoot and the optimistic wishes of newcomers. It must feel like an endless, thankless task to continue educating others whilst the environment crumbles.
If peak oil were the only problem, it would be very difficult to manage, but the combination of global warming, resource depletion (minerals, water, soil), overpopulation, the likely decrease in agriculutural production, the decliine in biodiversity and the likelihood of irrational violent responses to oil depletion bode ill for the survival of many.

Now it is possible that your reading of the data is incorrect, perhaps the incomplete data we have is skewed in some way. Many bright minds disagree. However, it is more plausible that the majority of the population is in denial. For example, there is overwhelming evidence of human causes of global warming, yet many persist in denying this. Believing that the data points to likely catastrophic consequences is very stressful for me. I sometimes think it would be better to stop reading about these issues because I feel helpless at times and begin to lose hope for humanity. Yet I can't stop reading, and the more I know, the more fear I have, to the point that I am confused about my future.

by **mkwin** » Sat 02 Jun 2007, 08:19:09

MonteQuest -

You make some great points based on good factual sources but I think our difference of opinion is based on our interpretation of these facts. Firstly the coal peak – granted I accept that – but the new coal/steam hybrid plants are many times more efficient that the aging 70’s plants still in operation in much of the developed world. And no I don’t think coal is the answer, frankly it would be a disaster without carbon capture but we have to further develop carbon capture and GIVE it to China and India at cost if we expect to limit climate change.

Firstly LNG - You say each terminal cost a 'billion a pop' do you have any idea how insignificant a billion dollars is in governmental terms? You could initiate development of 100 tomorrow without breaking a sweat from a financial point of view.

Flaw in your interpretation? - Much of your view rests on the assumption that the past actions of parties are a reliable guide to the future. In economic forecasting we call this 'naive expectations’ I’ll demonstrate this with a couple of your previous comments

1) Efficiency - You quote Jevons Paradox, that increased efficiency increases demand, however, this theory assumes that supply remains constant. Yes this was true in Victorian England and the 70's/80's after the oil price collapsed. Post peak this won't happen, it will just establish the price at a new higher level - a plateau if you will. This high plateau will also make non-conventional oil and alternatives sources economically viable so it’s even possible the market could do a lot of the work before government needs to step in.
2) The effect of expensive oil on the economy – You don’t seem to have answered this point. Looking at global growth over the last 5 years its clear the correlation between high oil prices and economic slowdown has weakened significantly. There was a time when energy academics thought a $40 barrel of oil would break the world economy – let alone a $70 barrel we have today. The world has changed since the seventies – globalization has caused massive deflationary pressure. I don’t think a $100 barrel would slow global growth to point of recession. We may have a recession over the next couple of years, but it’s a result of the weight of capital and the growth in the money supply that has lead to an asset bubble in all the worlds’ real estate markets and a housing crash in the US.
3) Conservation – You assume conservation means a recession, again you base this view on the economic difficulties faced in the 70’s when conservation was last in vogue in the US. However, while there was economic hardship in 70’s, it was due to high interest rates resulting from double digit inflation. It is, however, completely illogical to assume conservation will lead to recession. What it will lead to is a greater amount of disposable income from both a consumer and corporate point of view as corporations and consumers reduce their energy bills though the elimination of wasteful activity. Far from leading to economic depression, it will help to compensate for higher oil prices and boost consumption levels.
4) Renewables – You quote current renewable figures but they don’t reflect the possibility of renewables. For just one example, in the UK a plan has been proposed for a 14 billion GBP tidal farm off the river seven that will provide 5% of energy needs of the country – carbon free and perpetual and this is just a fraction of our wind and tidal resources. The next generation PV has such great potential and the production increase in silicon and economies of scale drove down the cost by 40% in 2006. Spain has announced a plan to get the majority of its electricity from solar by 2015, this could be replicated in many southern states (especially Arizona). The current renewable amounts are based on PAST market conditions, frankly given their PAST cost competitiveness I’m surprised they have reached that level in a free market system but those conditions are changing rapidly.

I think the key difference in our views is our belief in what government can do when necessary. Maybe it’s American small government, free-market ideology and all that, but given you retooled your entire economy in the late 30’s early 40’s and built the greatest war machine the world has ever seen you would think you could provide the, maybe, $500 billion of energy infrastructure needed.

The other key point is you seem to believe the decline will be a quick collapse, I really don’t agree. In my opinion, there will be an extended plateau during which time demand can be substituted away from oil in the energy sector, efficiency and conservation could take on almost warlike effort, and non-conventional oil production will increase further – further extended the plateau. In addition, the government could force all new cars to be hybrid within a certain time frame, prioritize fuel supply, tax heavy inefficient vehicles and invest heavily in low-carbon mass-transit. Even before the peak you have Bush, the archetypal big oil man, talking about Americans addiction to oil just wait till the democrats get in.

by **mkwin** » Sat 02 Jun 2007, 08:36:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rdberg1957', '
')If peak oil were the only problem, it would be very difficult to manage, but the combination of global warming, resource depletion (minerals, water, soil), overpopulation, the likely decrease in agriculutural production, the decliine in biodiversity and the likelihood of irrational violent responses to oil depletion bode ill for the survival of many.

Who is online