Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

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

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby KillTheHumans » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 12:24:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') don't see the "1000 billion" anywhere in that chart of estimates.


Americans...such short attention spans, always looking to skim. Might I recommend actually READING the article?
User avatar
KillTheHumans
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rockies

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby KillTheHumans » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 12:30:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I')'m new here, maybe someone can clear some things up for me.

Why do people keep posting data not relevant to peak oil here as being caused by peak oil? Or are there people here who really believe the US housing bubble was caused by peak oil?


Because peak oil MAY have been YEARS ago now....and when your prayed for trigger event doesn't bring down modern civilization like you hope ( think...Y2K as another example ), you are forced to dream up other scenario's.

Think about it....we have now morphed the shortage of a transport fuel into somehow being the cause for WAY too many people running around the planet. Its all oil's fault somehow, that as we transport ourselves randomly, it makes us want to breed!!

Except China has been busy breeding for years and only just now is discovering cars!!
User avatar
KillTheHumans
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rockies

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby KillTheHumans » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 12:33:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')sked and answered three times already.

Here's the fourth.

...


The magic words in this context are

PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED


This is Peak oil. Why ask for something so rare? Wild speculation, innuendo and SWAG's are the way to go!
User avatar
KillTheHumans
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon 17 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Rockies

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 13:35:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', 'A')nd sorry to say but a simple google search has exposed your sources as pseudo science.


Sources as pseudo science?

Just becasue I refer to the population demographers as pherologists does not make estimates of carrying capacity psuedo science.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')orry Monte but your reaction shows clearly that you do not have any reliable source to quote from, nor a peer reviewed study, which would confirm your believes.


No, I would say your reaction shows you are in denial of overshoot.

The Problem of Denial of Overshoot
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 13:38:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' ') The magic words in this context are

PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED


Published in the journal, Politics and the Life Sciences of September 1997, Professor Kenneth Smail made the case for dramatically reducing human numbers, and 17 leading commentators in the field of population and development contributed their peer reviews on it.


http://eco.gn.apc.org/pubs/smail.html
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 13:52:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GreyGhost', 'W')hich of these requires increased use of fossil fuels?


They require an increase in the standard of living like we experienced over the last 40 years.

What has been the driving force behind this rise?

Access to cheap, readily available fossil fuels.

"It is a serious error the fact that, of the UN's three projections of population, only the medium gets attention because it seems 'most likely'. All three projections assume that birth rates will fall in poorer countries as they develop economically, as happened in industrial countries. UN projections in 1992 ranged from 4.36 billion to 28 billion for the year 2050 - the difference being produced by a quite modest difference in assumed future fertility. So we should have little confidence in projections." Carl Haub- demographer, Population Reference Bureau, Washington, DC.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 13:56:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', ' ')Many Third World countries are open sewers, with smashed forests, overgrazed or desertified land, poisoned water, huge numbers of endangered species (or outright extinctions). They have damaged themselves so severely that they have to import food from rich, wasteful America, a land where the survival of a mussel species is given more priority than the water supply of a major city.


Largely for cash crops to sell to industrialized countries as exports or because cash crops are exported. It has been estimated that 70% of the world's pollution is USA caused, no matter where you find it.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 14:03:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' ')
However the published figures for carrying capacity are between 0.5 and 40 billion.


Correction. 0.5 to 14 billion

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m only interested in a serious institution (university) who has a pherology department.


Then you will go hungry. :roll:
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 14:10:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' ')You guys are not able to name one University which has a pherology department.

But you quote pherologist expert as base for your figures.


No, we quote the leading leading commentators in the field of population and development as the base for the figures.

You are "title obsessed" which has nothing to do with the merits or facts under discussion.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 14:13:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', 'P')lease guys all I'm asking for is a peer reviewed scientific paper published in an academic publication, which confirms your figures. That can not be that hard ...


Ok, let's put the shoe on the other foot.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Smail', 'T')he case for a dramatic reduction in human numbers over the next 2 or 3 centuries is presented as a testable hypothesis. Even if the figures presented (eg. 10 billion before stabilisation and 2 to 3 billion for the optimum sustainable number) are both proved quite off target by subsequent research and events, the hypothesis still stands so long as the first figure exceeds the second. He hopes his hypothesis is wrong and that rapid slowing of growth and huge improvements in technology will result in earlier congruence between the two figures. But it is time that the burden of proof shifted to the 'cornucopian optimists'; they must show that the earth can withstand, without damage, another couple of centuries of growth in human numbers.


Stop the ad hominem attacks and cite a peer-reviewed study to refute the studies we have provided. That can not be that hard ...
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 15:10:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', 'P')lease guys all I'm asking for is a peer reviewed scientific paper published in an academic publication, which confirms your figures. That can not be that hard ...


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')OLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES is an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed journal with a global audience. PLS is owned and published by the ASSOCIATION FOR POLITICS AND THE LIFE SCIENCES, the APLS, which is both an American Political Science Association (APSA) Related Group and an American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Member Society.


http://politicsandthelifesciences.org/

Here's the peer review of the paper The Case For Dramatically Reducing Human Numbers published in that journal.

http://eco.gn.apc.org/pubs/smail.html

Now quiting asking for it and read it.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 18:54:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', 'O')verpopulation could be simply defined as a situation where there is not enough resources for the people using them.

Example:
* A tsunami washes away half of the land on a low lying island.
* Nobody died so that island has the same number of people.
* Now there isn't enough land to feed everyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore the island is overpopulated.

Now reread your post and see if you get it...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'A')lso, I don't know why you would say overpopulation caused peak oil(or peak everything). If we had half the current world population, and zero population growth, we would still hit peak oil/everything. It would just take a little longer.

If a population depends on food coming from the earth. And if food is used up and not replanted, and the earth can no longer support those people. When that needed resource is used up the carrying capacity of the earth is reduced and the earth is overpopulated. This situation would be called overshoot and a famine would come next.

Overpopulation does not require population growth, if the resources they depend on are shrinking.

I get that overpopulation is bad, it depletes top soil, aquifers, etc.
But you can find a sustainable level of people for food, water, etc. Estimates were in the 2-3 billion range for a comfortable life(or 12 billion for a miserable life). However there is no sustainable level for oil. If only 1 person on this earth used oil, that is unsustainable use because no more oil is being created. I stand by my original statement.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 20:26:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '.')..

http://eco.gn.apc.org/pubs/smail.html

Now quiting asking for it and read it.


Now that we gone full circle:

Hellig (1993): 14 billion
Smil (1994): 11 billion
Brown&Kane (1994): 10 billion
Palmer (1999): 9 billion
Meadows et. al. (1992): 7.7 billion
Whittaker & Likens (1975): 7 billion

Why are you insisting that we are already in "overshoot". Why are you insisting that the carrying capacity is around 2 billion when the carrying capacity is much higher? Even Smail speaks of optimum carrying capacity 2-3 bill to sustain our unsustainable lifestyle.

It looks like you are looking forward to, yes it looks like you really want the doom, the horror scenarios you are painting to happen? Why? To tell everyone in you horror future who is dying on your doorstep "I told you so!"? Does it make you feel better in you current life?

Look Montequest, no matter where we are in history, it is an age of anxiety, and our fears have grown exponentially over the past half- century. From the Cold War to the latest prognostication that we will soon go the way of Atlantis, to we are running out of oil by tomorrow, we embrace the threat of calamity.

It is obvious that we as a species need to latch on to worst-case scenarios because "medium-case" bore us. We likes extremes, because it is removed from our experience. The majority of people exhibit safe and cautious behaviour. Titillating news sells. Doomsday stories are an extension, an enjoyment of extremes which fascinate.

The truth is, though, that few historical forecasts come true.

Your fascination with doom-laden situations that do not materialise is exemplified by Thomas Malthus theories. His calamity of choice was starvation. Add Zombie hordes and horrible die off scenarios and we have Montequests calamity.

Malthus predicted global famine and suggested, somewhat controversially, that war, poverty and disease were useful means of population control. He said the population grew "geometrically" while resources increased "arithmetically". The result would be starvation.

But the theory did not take into account that improving technology would dramatically increase our ability to create resources.

Even 200 years on, modern Malthusians like Montequest are still espousing the theory. In the Sixties, Paul Ehrlich, the author of Population Bomb, and Lester Brown, the founder of the Worldwatch Institute, predicted that the "dramatic consequences" of our "throwaway lifestyle" were only a McDonald’s carton away. Remember Ehrich? He is popping up all the time as expert here in carrying capacity threads.

It would be easy to dismiss Ehrlich and company, but their concerns were genuinely based on their knowledge - and an ancient human fear of disaster.

Can we go now back to the subject of this thread, which was: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?
Last edited by Lighthouse on Sun 02 Dec 2007, 20:38:54, edited 1 time in total.
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Duende » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 20:35:56

Lighthouse wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ven 200 years on, modern Malthusians like Montequest are still espousing the theory. In the Sixties, Paul Ehrlich, the author of Population Bomb, and Lester Brown, the founder of the Worldwatch Institute, predicted that the "dramatic consequences" of our "throwaway lifestyle" were only a McDonald’s carton away.

Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? Well, in the end, the wolf really does come. :shock:

Inaccuracy in the past invalidates the theory not. The fact is, infinite growth is impossible in a finite world. Period! Pin that quote on your shirt and read it over before each time before you post.
"Where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger?" -Thomas Huxley
User avatar
Duende
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat 27 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: The District
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 20:47:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Duende', 'R')emember the story of the boy who cried wolf? Well, in the end, the wolf really does come. :shock:

Inaccuracy in the past invalidates the theory not. The fact is, infinite growth is impossible in a finite world. Period! Pin that quote on your shirt and read it over before each time before you post.


We are 6.7 billion humans right now. Half of our food production is wasted. We have an obesity epidemic on our hand and you are telling me we have overshot our carrying capacity? Even most of the experts say we have not reached it yet. Just look at the figures I quoted.

And yes infinite growth is impossible in a finite world.. Nobody here said anything different. Nobody propagates infinite growth.

Where did that come from?

And was has infinite growth to do with my above post?
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 21:06:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '
')Now that we gone full circle:

Hellig (1993): 14 billion
Smil (1994): 11 billion
Brown&Kane (1994): 10 billion
Palmer (1999): 9 billion
Meadows et. al. (1992): 7.7 billion
Whittaker & Likens (1975): 7 billion


You cherry-pick the high end estimates from another set of studies other than the one the link refers to. Other than Palmer, the rest only use food as a metric. The rest you ignore.

The median value of all of the studies shows 2 to 5 billion.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy are you insisting that we are already in "overshoot". Why are you insisting that the carrying capacity is around 2 billion when the carrying capacity is much higher? Even Smail speaks of optimum carrying capacity 2-3 bill to sustain our unsustainable lifestyle.


I don't insist anything. I am just the messenger. Read the seminal works of Catton; Overshoot: The Ecological Basis for Revolutionary Change written in 1980 when the population was 4 billion.

I cite the leading commentators on population for the 2 to 3 billion number. In reality, we don't want to strive for the maximum of 3, nor the average of 2.5, but the lower number of 2. Why live on the edge and have one bad year degrade the carrying capacity?

Smail does not speak of a optimum carrying capacity 2-3 bill to sustain our unsustainable lifestyle. He specifically speaks of "The age of inexpensive energy, adequate food supplies, readily available or easily extractable raw material, plentiful fresh water and readily accessible open spaces is rapidly coming to a close.

Yet we should be thinking how to bring about a reduction while doing everything to reduce our environmental impacts through technology and lifestyle changes, because even stabilisation at 9 - 11 billion will not be enough to avert catastrophic consequences. "

The only time he uses optimum is here: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he case for a dramatic reduction in human numbers over the next 2 or 3 centuries is presented as a testable hypothesis. Even if the figures presented (eg. 10 billion before stabilisation and 2 to 3 billion for the optimum sustainable number) are both proved quite off target by subsequent research and events, the hypothesis still stands so long as the first figure exceeds the second.


As to contiuning our lifestlye...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')onsumption and equity: He acknowledges the serious need to address this aspect. For him, it means that developed countries have an overpopulation problem of significant proportions - that, as part of cutting their total consumption levels they will have to reduce the number of consumers. He considers a possible scenario contrasting India and the USA, in which the first has a 100% improvement in standard of living, and the other achieves a 50% cut in resource-waste: the goal of greater equity is approached but, with the predicted population growth in both, the benefits to the earth are negated. In sum, even worldwide technological efficiencies and much reduced per capita consumption in developed countries will not be enough to give everyone a much better quality of life. Overall population numbers have to be reduced as well. We must not forget, while striving for greater equity for people alive now, to think of the equity for future generations, and for other life forms - biological equity.


Looks like you suffer from selective reading and denial.

Good luck with that.

PS BTW, where is your peer-reviewed study to refute those numbers? Or do you just rely on a rant to support your position?
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sun 02 Dec 2007, 21:10:15, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 21:08:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')ou cherry-pick the high end estimates from another set of studies other than the one the link refers to...


And you don't?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '.')..

Smail does not speak of a [b]optimum

...

The only time he uses optimum is here:


He don't speak of it but he does? Thank you very much for clarifying this.

Can we now move on?
Last edited by Lighthouse on Sun 02 Dec 2007, 21:16:19, edited 1 time in total.
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 21:13:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')ou cherry-pick the high end estimates from another set of studies other than the one the link refers to...


And you don't?


Nope, I have always cited the median value of the studies in question: 2 to 5 billion.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 21:18:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')ou cherry-pick the high end estimates from another set of studies other than the one the link refers to...


And you don't?


Nope, I have always cited the median value of the studies in question: 2 to 5 billion.


You cried "Wolf" and everyone heard you.

Can we move on, now that you have "proven" that half of us must die a horrible death to save the other half.
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 21:24:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' ')We are 6.7 billion humans right now. Half of our food production is wasted. We have an obesity epidemic on our hand and you are telling me we have overshot our carrying capacity?


Food alone does not determine carrying capacity. Liebig's Law of the Minimum does. The least abundant necessity relative to per capita requirements sets the limit for any given species.

We are not just animals whose carrying capacities are largely detemnined by food availability. We are a complex species with systems in place that require energy to drive them.

We could have no starving people at all and still be in overshoot.

The load on the ecosystem would just be too great.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')ven most of the experts say we have not reached it yet. Just look at the figures I quoted.


Yes, look at them. All cherry-picked high end estimates based solely on food production and not taking energy, loss of biodiversity, or pollution and environmental sinks into consideration.

You are way out of your league here in trying to critique that which you don't yet understand.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests