Peak Oil
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.
Post a reply

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby zeugen » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 02:01:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'N')o, the projection of 9.2 billion by 2050 is based upon a continued rise in the standard of living to foster a Demographic Transition and lower fertility rates.

With peak oil on the horizon, that isn't going to happen.

Yes, correct, and that is actually my point. Projected "business as usual" population growth gives us 9 bil, but of course we're here to talk about the "non-business as usual" world post peak oil.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t the current rate of growth (1.2%/yr) the population will double to 13.4 billion in 2065.

You're being a bit pedantic now. "Current growth rates" also include the decelerating trend from 1964 when the growth rate topped 2% through to today's rate. Obviously that trend is part of the guesstimate for the "BAU" 9bil population.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o, it doesn't work that way. Every day we are beyond carrying capacity, the carrying capacity degrades. Thus as you slowly reduce the population over decades, you are still in overshoot.

You have to get the extra people off the boat quickly.


Ummm ... my turn to be pedantic? At the moment strictly speaking we aren't "beyond" carrying capacity as we are still able to consume the critical non-renewable resources, and not just fossil fuels, that have expanded carrying capacity to support the current population. But that's precisely the problem, when those critical resources reach a peak and start declining then we have too many people on board with a built in population growth of around 75 million a year at the moment ... or around 2 people a second.

The immediate critical resource of concern is oil, and yes, as we slide down the post peak Hubbert curve over the next few decades its "phantom" boost to the planet's carrying capacity will go with it. Some of that carrying capacity deficit will be replaced with alternative energies, increased efficiency and voluntary population reduction (Soylent Green anyone?) ... but the rest is overshoot and die off.

How quickly this all happens and to what extent, whether we drop off the Olduvai cliff or sail cheerily into a sustaina-babble techno futurist wonderland, is precisely what the debate is about. From my non-eco-specialist philosophical perspective, given the biosphere damage already in the system with climate change now an irreversible reality for the next couple of centuries or more, the current major extinction epoch, the degradation of large tracts of our arable land, drought and desertification and the current oil end game resource wars that will apparently "not end in our lifetimes" ...

I think the worst case scenarios are becoming increasingly likely. For me the logical end point of our modern "infinite growth" based free market capitalist ideologies and global way of life is simply species extinction perhaps sometime towards the end of this century. Practically speaking that probably won't happen and as James Lovelock says there will always be a few breeding pairs of Homo sapiens ... we are the world's most efficient plague species after all.

But all we are talking about here are futural possibilities and worst to best case scenarios based on the available evidence. No one can know the actual future as it is as always an open question.
Polemos is lord of all things,
it has shown some to be gods and some mortals,
it has made some slaves and others free.
Everything originates in its strife ... Strife is justice
and all things both come to pass and perish through strife.
Heraclitus
User avatar
zeugen
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby LoneSnark » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 12:55:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')e are the world's most efficient plague species after all.

What an odd sentiment. Do not plagues move on eventually? So far it seems Mankind plops down and builds farms and cities, never again to roam. Nothing else like it exists in the Animal Kingdom. From the outside our civilization looks more like plants, growing and expanding in place (cities get ever larger, they do not break stake and move elsewhere).

Wow, I like this metaphore. At an abstraction level, our farms collect sunlight, our mines collect nutrients, and our cities organize and distribute the whole shebang... nice.
User avatar
LoneSnark
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby AWPrime » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 13:24:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t has yet to be shown that the earth ecosystem could survive if humanity manages to use the total resources on earth.

Well, what constitutes a resource is a human concept. The "Earth Ecosystem" itself should count as an excellent resource, and starving it to death would be killing the golden goose.

While your question is interesting, it begs the question of what percentage of Earth's total resources are being used by mankind? Most mines are no where near a mile down, large swaths of the planets surface are left to nature, and the vast majority of the land we do use (farms) are still a productive part of the ecosystem, contributing to both the water cycle, carbon cycle, and others. For most natural resources, such as freshwater, where it occurs naturally is not where we want to use it. So, while it rains 350 days out of the year in parts of Alaska, ranchers in California are constantly fighting over fresh water. As such, in southern California man might use 98% of the fresh water, but in Alaska less than 1%. While almost every acre of land in Japan is intensively farmed or forested, millions of acres of North America are left to grassland. This intensive use contrasted with neglected plenty replicates around the globe.

As such, if I had to guess at an arbitrary figure, I would guess mankind is using something like 10% of the Earth's available resources.
What also needs to be considered is that it takes a diverse array of resources to, lets say mine something. So there will always be a 'shortage' or 'an event of ecosystem destruction' before one is able fully exploit that type of resource.
Fighting technobabble and Woo Woos.

http://www.skepticwiki.org
AWPrime
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 07 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 04 Dec 2007, 13:27:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')e are the world's most efficient plague species after all.

What an odd sentiment. Do not plagues move on eventually? So far it seems Mankind plops down and builds farms and cities, never again to roam. Nothing else like it exists in the Animal Kingdom. From the outside our civilization looks more like plants, growing and expanding in place (cities get ever larger, they do not break stake and move elsewhere).

Wow, I like this metaphore. At an abstraction level, our farms collect sunlight, our mines collect nutrients, and our cities organize and distribute the whole shebang... nice.



Just want to point out, as I so often do, that our civilization is not "Mankind." Most of Mankind's cultures have not been civilizations.
Ludi
 
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Wed 05 Dec 2007, 02:08:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zeugen', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'N')o, the projection of 9.2 billion by 2050 is based upon a continued rise in the standard of living to foster a Demographic Transition and lower fertility rates.

With peak oil on the horizon, that isn't going to happen.

Yes, correct, and that is actually my point. Projected "business as usual" population growth gives us 9 bil, but of course we're here to talk about the "non-business as usual" world post peak oil.


Which means very possibly no continued decline in the birthrate. Then we reach the high end estimate of 11.2 billion...unless we trigger a die-off.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou're being a bit pedantic now. "Current growth rates" also include the decelerating trend from 1964 when the growth rate topped 2% through to today's rate. Obviously that trend is part of the guesstimate for the "BAU" 9bil population.


No, 1.2% is the current growth rate, not 2%, That isn't pedantry, that is correcting your error.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t the moment strictly speaking we aren't "beyond" carrying capacity as we are still able to consume the critical non-renewable resources, and not just fossil fuels, that have expanded carrying capacity to support the current population.


We are not beyond the phantom carrying capacity of fossil fuels, perhaps, but there is no question we are beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of the earth.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he immediate critical resource of concern is oil, and yes, as we slide down the post peak Hubbert curve over the next few decades its "phantom" boost to the planet's carrying capacity will go with it. Some of that carrying capacity deficit will be replaced with alternative energies, increased efficiency and voluntary population reduction (Soylent Green anyone?) ... but the rest is overshoot and die off.

No, I don't think any of that phantom capacity will be replaced as the actual carrying capacity has degraded due to overshoot. Without restoration of the ecosystem, most ecologists and demographers think 1 billion might be a stretch.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think the worst case scenarios are becoming increasingly likely.

On that point, we can agree.
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 zeugen » Wed 05 Dec 2007, 03:10:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'N')o, 1.2% is the current growth rate, not 2%, That isn't pedantry, that is correcting your error.

No, you ARE being pedantic, and at continued 1.2% growth the population will NEVER stabilize at any number. For your benefit in future I will spell it out: At current growth rates, with the current decline in growth factored in and "business as usual" economic growth, the UN estimates a global population stabilizing around 9 billion by mid century.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e are not beyond the phantom carrying capacity of fossil fuels, perhaps, but there is no question we are beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of the earth.

Certainly yes of course I agree on that, no question we are beyond the carrying capacity minus the fossil fuels that drive intensive agriculture and all other forms of intensive farming, that power 95% of all transport and freight, that allow us to strip mine bitumen, coal and metal ores, provide us with very cheap organic materials for plastics etc., not to mention provide most of our electricity, or around 85% of our total energy inputs. Industrial modernity is a global technological civilization founded 200 years ago on non-renewable fossil fuels.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') don't think any of that phantom capacity will be replaced as the actual carrying capacity has degraded due to overshoot. Without restoration of the ecosystem, most ecologists and demographers think 1 billion might be a stretch.

Well, just to be pedantic again, it really depends how you slice the pie. Fossil fuels will be replaced by alternative energies one way or another once decline sets in which will ameliorate some of that phantom decline. But yes overall carrying capacity is constantly being degraded through biosphere destruction and the ongoing depletion of our other non-renewable resources exacerbated by the momentum of our built in global population growth. It certainly looks like our post-industrial carrying capacity will be somewhat reduced from its pre-industrial potential ... which is where the most troubling estimates for population reduction and die off come in. The Olduvai cliff seems a definite possibility from that perspective although from what I've read "most ecologists and demographers" are a bit more cautious when it comes to guesstimates of carrying capacity post fossil fuels. The 1 billion or less is at the very extreme edge of worst case possibilities, barring species extinction due to nuclear war and runaway global warming.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think the worst case scenarios are becoming increasingly likely.


On that point, we can agree.

I think we are in general agreement overall MonteQuest. And from the perspective of the worst case scenarios peak oil really COULD be that bad especially given that we are already embarked on long term resource wars that can only divert national wealth away from any sane approach to a more or less "equitable" management of the disaster and a move towards powerdown. Our current global war effort pretty much ensures a population crash if it is allowed to escalate indefinitely.
Polemos is lord of all things,
it has shown some to be gods and some mortals,
it has made some slaves and others free.
Everything originates in its strife ... Strife is justice
and all things both come to pass and perish through strife.
Heraclitus
User avatar
zeugen
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby muon » Sun 09 Dec 2007, 04:34:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GreyGhost', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GreyGhost', ' ')MonteQuest, you are implying that Demographic Transition is caused by, and requires, high energy consumption. This is not correct. The actual causes are social and cultural change, as described in ...


No, a continuing rise in the standard of living via fossil fuels is what fuels the later stages of transition.

Access to contraception, increases in wages, urbanization, a reduction in subsistence agriculture, an increase in the status and education of women, a reduction in the value of children's work, an increase in parental investment in the education of children and other social changes will not continue to occur post peak.

The rise in the SOL that facilitates these social changes will not happen in the developing countries.

Which of these requires increased use of fossil fuels?
* access to contraception ... does not require increased use of fossil fuels (unless you count the cost of the latex?)
* Increase in wages ... ok maybe
* a reduction in subsistence agriculture ... nope
* an increase in the status and education of women ... nope
* a reduction in the value of children's work ... nope
* an increase in parental investment in the education of children and other social changes ... nope

I think your mistake is based on viewing humans as nothing more than animals, which prevents you considering social and cultural influences that can occur independently from the influences like energy and environment. With respect, I understand you have extensive experience but this is as a park ranger yes? So you know about ecosystems of animals not humans, and your experience is working against you in this case.


* access to contraception ... does not require increased use of fossil fuels (unless you count the cost of the latex?)
I don't think latex was a good choice. Where does latex come from? How do you get the latex to the factories? How do you power the factories? How do you move the finished product to stores to sell the condoms? How do you get the people to the stores to buy the condoms? Then you can worry about the money in the pockets of the people to pay for the condoms. Maybe withdrawal might fit your argument?

* a reduction in subsistence agriculture ... nope
What would they do other than subsistence agriculture? Work in factories, schools, hospitals, shops, offices? All those things require intensive energy input.

* an increase in the status and education of women ... nope
I don't know about status but most people think of education as in a developed country, very institutionalised, doesn't that energy investment along with high GDP from energy affluence? Then I can see a feedback loop between these two points, whereby the institutionalised education leads to jobs away from substistence farming (both using high energy resources) which leads to smaller family sizes - which is not as simple as it looks because the family size and the birth rate are two different things, which most people seem to ignore.

* a reduction in the value of children's work ... nope
In a subsistence economy a child's labour is valuable, it takes energy to take the child out of the fields. It takes energy to make the money to put the child into a school, it takes energy to create the wealth to be able to take the child from the field to be able to send them to school. Somehow the child must be fed, and if it's not in the field then someone else has to do the work or machinery (which requires energy) to do that work.

We are animals, but we are animals living in a more complex society than any other animal I can think of and we're basing much of this on 'loans' of energy that aren't likely to keep on coming indefinitely.

Instead of looking at it as how much food does it take to feed any given population it is more complex than that. We also have to have shelter and heat and water. In what we call developed societies (not a great term imho) we expend enormous amounts of energy for this. We also have the extras that we have come to regard as normal and part of our standard of living, and that is something that many in developing countries desire, they don't desire the Chad picture, they desire the US picture, with all it's waste and hardened arteries. So instead of how much food does it take to feed the people, how about how many joules does it take and remember to factor in the extras because people do not desire to live in the worst conditions, they desire anything better. Then look at developing countries and look at how much their population growth has vicariously depended on energy, how much energy do worldwide innoculation programs take and how many lives do they save thus leaving another mouth to feed on the planet? How much of the resources from Africa and Asia end up in the West, how much do African countries in famine depend on food from the US breadbasket to feed them and get them through that time? Without as much intensive energy as oil has given us, how do you make things like this happen? Another way to look at that might be what other source of energy would give us this and be sustainable in the long term (or indefinitely)?
Last edited by muon on Sun 09 Dec 2007, 15:14:36, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
muon
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 09 Dec 2007, 09:13:35

For you young whipper-snappers on here, latex condoms are NOT the only form of cheap birth controll ever invented. Just speaking of condoms for the moment they existed for nearly a millenia before latex was discovered. Latex became preferred because it does not pass HIV, but lambskins are perfectly effective for birth controll purposes.

Then you have Abstention (which is rather boring), the Rythm method, non-intercourse activities ect ect ect.

All I am saying is the lack of Latex would not end birth controll, I am not supporting or promoting promiscuity.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Alfred Tennyson', 'W')e are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17094
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby muon » Sun 09 Dec 2007, 15:37:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'F')or you young whipper-snappers on here, latex condoms are NOT the only form of cheap birth controll ever invented. Just speaking of condoms for the moment they existed for nearly a millenia before latex was discovered. Latex became preferred because it does not pass HIV, but lambskins are perfectly effective for birth controll purposes.

Then you have Abstention (which is rather boring), the Rythm method, non-intercourse activities ect ect ect.

All I am saying is the lack of Latex would not end birth controll, I am not supporting or promoting promiscuity.


Lambskin may work in a pre-industrial society with smaller predominantly rurual populations, but with 6.7 billion and growing, to keep a city like New York in lambskin condoms is going to be problematic. People did have contraceptive methods before industrialisation took off though and that is worth remembering. Even then, there were still people who desired family planning and implemented it. Even inside marriage there are people who do not want to have ten children, even if they're not using physical contraception, they may still be practising birth control - it doesn't have to be about promiscuity.

Each size population has it's own problems and solutions that may not be viable at other sizes. Sometimes the reasons a solution isn't viable may be of our own making though, that I think is something the human race needs to work on.
User avatar
muon
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue 11 Sep 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby zeugen » Sun 09 Dec 2007, 17:32:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('muon', 'L')ambskin may work in a pre-industrial society with smaller predominantly rurual populations, but with 6.7 billion and growing, to keep a city like New York in lambskin condoms is going to be problematic.

Oh gods ... you mean we could hit peak lambskin too!

How about we just euthanase 90% of males at birth and let the midwives select for the healthiest breeders? One surefire contraceptive is to give women the education and career prospects that allow them to progress beyond the family home, and they'd be so busy running things without the male of the species constantly rutting after them year round we'd probably reach planetary sustainability in one lifetime ... plus no peak in lambskin condoms! It could be the final solution of the offershoot problem.

:)
Polemos is lord of all things,
it has shown some to be gods and some mortals,
it has made some slaves and others free.
Everything originates in its strife ... Strife is justice
and all things both come to pass and perish through strife.
Heraclitus
User avatar
zeugen
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Ludi » Sun 09 Dec 2007, 17:40:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('muon', '[')

* a reduction in the value of children's work ... nope
[i]In a subsistence economy a child's labour is valuable, it takes energy to take the child out of the fields.



So let's promote growing food in ways which doesn't require people to be "in the fields" so much.

Like, say, permaculture and biointensive and Natural Farming.


References: Mollison, Jeavons, Fukuoka
Ludi
 
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron