by ian807 » Fri 24 Jul 2009, 11:23:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', 'I') can tell you didn't spend much time at that site since most of this stuff was adressed there.
Yes, it's "addressed" I suppose if you mean that someone came up with some sort of rebuttal. Rebuttals are easy, after all.
And you miss the point. Peak oil isn't about energy so much. It's about a failure of people.
Rome didn't have to fall. They could have consolidated their power more locally and kept out the Barbarians, Visigoths, et. al. The Mayans could have taken better care of their resources or switched food supplies to avoid salt contamination of their fields. The Haitians could have practiced soil conservation and not destroyed the ecology of their island.
The list goes on. Civilizations don't have to fall. There's no lack of solutions to their problems. We don't lack them either.
Will we implement them in time?
Petroleum is very tightly bound to one aspect of our civilization/system. Transportation. There are substitutes which require changing the world's infrastructure and transportation system which is really easy if you say it fast enough. If we don't do that soon, however, the "just-in-time" system of distribution fails. We can recover from this, slowly. The problem is, if it takes a few years to recover, there's no external food supplies to a lot of people for a few years. The consequences could be somewhat unpleasant.
So I'm not afraid of peak oil or peak energy so much as "peak stupidity" happily promulgated by optimistic politicians - the same ones who tell us that good economic times are just around the corner. Good luck with that, by the way.
FYI, my previous statements on decline are based on the assessment of oilfield engineers like this gentleman, for example:
http://www.oilfield.com/forcast.htmlhttp://www.utoledo.edu/as/envsciences/p ... ter-08.pdfI'd read both of these.