[BigTex]

We've heard the doom arguments and understand most aspects of the worst case scenarios.

We are also quite good at poking holes in the PO denier arguments.

If you were asked to make the "PO is no problem" argument, what would you say?

I would say that as more nations become industrialized, world population growth is likely to slow dramatically or begin to decline, as it is already doing in Japan, Russia and a few other countries. This slowdown in population growth will lead to a slowdown in world economic growth and resource consumption/depletion. The slower economic growth will draw out the plateau of oil production. As oil prices remain high, there will be a dramatic increases in research and development in the fields of alternative energy and efficiency. This research will produce a hodgepodge of increases in efficiency and the maturation of several alternative energy sources. It will be expensive and complicated and will be a huge drag on any potential economic growth, but it will work okay. Cars will get smaller and much more expensive. Driving will become a luxury. Most people will ride a train, bus, bicycle or they will walk. Life will be harder and less luxurious, but disaster will be averted.

Less likely, but always possible, is a dramatic new discovery of some new form of energy or new energy technology that is able to completely displace all petroleum products.

What's your rose-colored glasses scenario?

[cube]

I've said it many times already. MY life will be okay; it's just everybody else that will get screwed over.

I think humans have a natural tendency to think that way. For example we all know that restaurants have a 90% chance of going out of business but people keep on opening them up. Why? Because everybody thinks they're smarter than the person standing next to them and they'll be part of that special 10%.

PO is the same way. Everybody thinks they'll be part of that 10% and they'll find a way to shield themselves from the negative effects of PO. Therefore it is not necessary to worry about PO (even if you're a firm believer).

[threadbear]

BigTex, That's exactly what I see happening. Also, am convinced that given any kind of decent education, most people will choose what is in the collective best interest of their society and environment. Greed is going to be frowned on, as well as the other deadly spins, spun by Madison Avenue to deleterious effect. Thugs like Donald Trump will be looked upon as curious aberrations of contemporary society. Large cars, large box stores, large agri-farms, will be viewed as essentially harmful---hopefully.

There are some interesting shifts in consciousness taking place, with regards to the idea of animism, that God is in all things. They could provide the impetus we need to help augment practical responses to dire situations. They will also provide us with the hope we need to move on and up.

[TheDude]

threadbear - how will you communicate to the masses your message of embracing simplicity/austerity? In a economic downturn I don't see people spending excessive amounts of money on education, like you suggest, unless it's for practical skills. Millions out of work would likely convey the message well enough though.

I suppose you could consider the outcome of this "Okay" - materialistic types get a lesson in the hard knocks of life and learn to live within their means. But unless they continue to have those means limited they'll just make the same mistakes in the end.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f you were asked to make the "PO is no problem" argument, what would you say?

[wisconsin_cur]

Best argument...

Don't worry, bird flu will kill 5 billion before we the energy crunch hits.

[dorlomin]

There is so much fat on the body of our society, we will have less afluent lifestyles but my life will be over before peak oil starts cutting away to the bone.

[Tyler_JC]

In order to understand Peak Oil, you have to model it.

I built a few basic models and time after time, I see exponential growth in wind/solar/geothermal/biomass/hydroelectric/nuclear/etc energy overtaking oil over the course of a few decades.

We have several decades to get off oil completely so I don't see it as an impossible task.

The day-to-day stuff might be hard every now and then (isn't is always?) but the long term trends save us from collapse.

[dinopello]

Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like me!

and, I'm not kidding, either.

[efarmer]

I am always amazed at what people can accomplish once they are sure that there simply isn't any other choice. Once our collective skins are hurled into the fray, ready nor not here we come, I think the clarity of immediacy will set in. I actually think it is harder to be on conscious standby, like we are right now than on ignorant standby. Ignorant standby is easier on the nerves, but I unfortunately learned too much before I figured that one out. I never thought that getting smarter would make me miss dumb so much.

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'I')f you were asked to make the "PO is no problem" argument, what would you say?

[patience]

We'll be okay, because of motivation to do so. "The marketplace is a hardy weed", quoted from somebody in The Mother Earth News, long ago. Individuals will suffer in the stressful times of changeover to new ways, but as a whole, the species will make it, because the alternative is extinction.

[namenick]

It all depends on what country you live in. In Canada we will be o.k. because the slow cutting back on consumption will be managable. And we have our own of course so we don't have to steal it from others.

In the US the people will be largely o.k. because they will be supplied with oil by their military might to a degree that they will be able to manage a slow cutback. They don't have enough of their own so they 'will' have to contend with the ocassional whack by those who they take it from by force but that's only going to effect maybe a few million at the worst because of big cities being turned into glass parking lots.

The U.K. is toast because it's only going to take one or two good sized nukes to put them in their places if they get too uppity or continue to support the US much longer.

China should be fine because they really don't need to cut back and they have already learned to live with what they have. Not to mention that they are progressive enough to understand that population control will solve some problems and they already know how to do that.

India/Pakistan the same but one side is sure to nuke the other side before the oil gets too scarce.

For a country where it will be a worse case scenario, I don't really know. Japan maybe because they need lots and don't have the military strength to get it. For the size of the country they really are the consumption pigs. Capitalist country too which indicates to me that they are going to cry the hardest when things change. Hardline capitalists are the least likely to make changes without being forced and that could lead to some of the have-nots resorting to gunplay against those who think they own it all when the stuff starts to get scarce enough that people get cold in their homes.

Good question though and it will be interesting to see how the doom and gloomers paint this picture.

[Tyler_JC]

Japan is hardly Hardline Capitalist and they are not the ones to suffer from Peak Oil.

They have high corporate taxes, lots of regulation, and several state-owned businesses.

And yet they are a first world country with a productivity and capable workforce (declining in size, however).

The only reason it looks like they are struggling is that they have a very dense population (not lots of luxurious land to build suburban ice cream castles) and their population isn't growing dramatically.

A 1% growth rate translate into a 1.5% growth rate in terms of per capita income. And it's a 2-3% growth rate in terms of GDP/worker.

They might have to import everything but they are so efficient that they will be able to pay much more than the American soccer mom or the Indian middle class worker in his Tata.

[Schadenfreude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schadenfreude', 'T')he company featured in Wired Magazinea few days ago has just discovered a process that would provide for cheap cellulosic ethanol from waste or scrub crops such as switchgrass. The company hopes to have a pilot project producing 40,000 gallons of ethanol in a year's time. That should provide guidance for further and rapid development. Estimates suggest that as much as 30% of the US automobile fuel requirement could be met by processing waste in CE alone. That's before any scrub crops such as switchgrass are grown at all.

Since oil isn't going to run out in a year or two or three or four or five or six.., then it would seem that Cellulosic Ethanol has excellent potential for developing infrastructure widely and rapidly, much better potential than hydrogen! Hydrogen is problematic as all hell.

Ethanol's problems, such as corrosiveness, can be easily solved by current materials science applications. In that light, why bother at all with hydrogen? Cellulosic Ethanol produces about 85% less atmospheric carbon than conventional gasoline.

Similarly, Nanosolar, Inc was featured in an article ( Nanosolar’s Breakthrough - Solar Now Cheaper than Coal ) with their product that makes solar energy very competitive with traditional energies. As long as oil prices remain high, ordinary economic substitution will take place.

Despite all the fervent, quasi-religious, doom-saying that is the socially accepted mantra around here, it looks increasingly like technology WILL provide solutions - technology that doesn't have to be scientifically or practically marginal, such as fusion or the hydrogen economy. And it appears that oil will be around in sufficient quantities to provide a liveable /Development/Implementation curve the whole world can adopt.

So, the human race may have to conserve fossil fuels and there might be some constraints on our fuel use that we did not have to live with before. Big deal.

[nero]

Well Iraq is looking more stable and once the oil investment gets serious, Iraq might become the next Saudi Arabia. Brazil looks like it has a serious amount of new oil coming along, Venezuela and Canada can both increase the heavy stuff for a while so I think there will be no immediate supply problem.
Even if there are supply problems over the next decade, we still have alot of discretionary consumption and (consumption in poor areas) that can be priced out by high prices.
Over the next 10 years while we have sustained high prices but no supply disruption, battery technology is likely to develop to such an extent that oil for land transportation will be thought of as obsolete. Of course we will still be using alot of oil for land transportation but the new infrastructure for an electrified future will be developing rapidly.
Once it is clear that oil will not be the critical resource of the 21st century, much of the geopolitical tension around the world will be eased, and a second peace bonus will allow America to address the deficit problems.

[Nano]

My best argument is M.A.D.

Mutually Assured Destruction means that everything will be ok. Sure, economic collapse, shortages, terrorism and conventional warfare might sweep parts of the globe in the course of next few decades, but there will surely never be a nuclear armageddon, so everything will be okay.

Another argument is that the peak oil problem is not a technological issue. In other words: we're not dependent on new technology that might never be developed. We already have all the technology we'll ever need to survive sustainably in relative comfort in a free market economy. What we've been waiting for is a solid business case for bringing about the transition. While that business case is coming together as we speak with oil trading near $100, all we have to organise is gradually deflating consumption in a fair and orderly manner, which we should be able to manage as long as we have sufficient socialist elements in government. Bottom line is we just need to prevent too many people from slipping into poverty in order to prevent social chaos. Then all will be okay.

[Grifter]

To undoom the message I usually explain that as recession hits certain countries before others that this will in turn lessen the effect globally as the more competative countries will have more resources at their disposal.

That people having less money might lead to less consumption of resources and so less devastation to the environment.

We might have to work less and this will be okay because everyone will be in the same boat we may find new cheap communal forms of leisure activity which will be more emotionally fullfilling than that which we have at the moment.

[namenick]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'W')ell Iraq is looking more stable and once the oil investment gets serious, Iraq might become the next Saudi Arabia. Brazil looks like it has a serious amount of new oil coming along, Venezuela and Canada can both increase the heavy stuff for a while so I think there will be no immediate supply problem.
Even if there are supply problems over the next decade, we still have alot of discretionary consumption and (consumption in poor areas) that can be priced out by high prices.
Over the next 10 years while we have sustained high prices but no supply disruption, battery technology is likely to develop to such an extent that oil for land transportation will be thought of as obsolete. Of course we will still be using alot of oil for land transportation but the new infrastructure for an electrified future will be developing rapidly.
Once it is clear that oil will not be the critical resource of the 21st century, much of the geopolitical tension around the world will be eased, and a second peace bonus will allow America to address the deficit problems.

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('namenick', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'W')ell Iraq is looking more stable and once the oil investment gets serious, Iraq might become the next Saudi Arabia. Brazil looks like it has a serious amount of new oil coming along, Venezuela and Canada can both increase the heavy stuff for a while so I think there will be no immediate supply problem.
Even if there are supply problems over the next decade, we still have alot of discretionary consumption and (consumption in poor areas) that can be priced out by high prices.
Over the next 10 years while we have sustained high prices but no supply disruption, battery technology is likely to develop to such an extent that oil for land transportation will be thought of as obsolete. Of course we will still be using alot of oil for land transportation but the new infrastructure for an electrified future will be developing rapidly.
Once it is clear that oil will not be the critical resource of the 21st century, much of the geopolitical tension around the world will be eased, and a second peace bonus will allow America to address the deficit problems.

[namenick]

Threadbear wrote: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd that's just one of the reasons I pulled every cent out of Canadian oil funds a couple of years ago. I figured that the mega billions required for development of the oil sands may be hugely successful, but it could also be a serious flop. Plus, it's terribly damaging to the environment.