Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

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

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby Serial_Worrier » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 16:10:46

Peak oil will happen in 2036! Everything is fine in CornucopiaLand where JIT delivery continues, suburban sprawl is wondrous and a new Outback steakhouse on every corner! Yum yum another bloomin' onion. BTW, there is no obesity crisis. A few extra LBs never hurt anyone! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
User avatar
Serial_Worrier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1549
Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 16:42:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Serial_Worrier', 'P')eak oil will happen in 2036! Everything is fine in CornucopiaLand where JIT delivery continues, suburban sprawl is wondrous and a new Outback steakhouse on every corner! Yum yum another bloomin' onion. BTW, there is no obesity crisis. A few extra LBs never hurt anyone! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


Look, Shannymara was nice enough to build a place where Doomers can go and not be bothered by anyone who disagrees with them.

So if opposition to your doom-fantasy turns you into a frustrated little child, why hang out here?
Carlhole
 

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby JohnDenver » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 19:02:43

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'O')h, I could beg to differ. What in the past seemed like simple exercises in engineering and political/public motivation now seem insurmountable to modern society. Given your signature, you'll perhaps relate to an obvious example I use often: the apparent inability to build a new complex of skyscrapers in the rubble of the World Trade Center.

Not entirely apt a comparison to mitigating peak oil, but what's the holdup? This is some of the world's most prime real estate, and an icon recognized the world over. Putting something new in there would be enormously profitable in the end for a whole variety of reasons, not just financial, yet it just isn't getting done.


I think you have a good point here, and I've come around to it. The US has no engineering credibility at all anymore. On the other hand, that's not an issue for "modern society". It's more of a local issue due to peak IQ to the US, and doesn't apply in a number of other countries.

China, for example, recently completed a plant to manufacture AP1000 reactor modules in *11 months*.

Image
AP1000 reactor containent vessel, under construction in Shandong

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his misapprehension that anyone who is cautionary on this subject by default believes we'll all end out our lives eating dog corpses is really irritating.


The idea that the food system is dependent on oil, and peak oil will cause food supply disruptions and die-off, is part of the mainstream of peak oil thought. That's why the majority of people reading this site are squirreling canned goods and moving to doomsteads. Just yesterday, Revi was predicting starvation in another thread.

I think it's quite fair to say that such people "believe we'll all end out our lives eating dog corpses". Maybe "dog corpses" is an unnecessary flourish, but that *is* the idea. After all, the people starving due to peak oil will be trying to eat something, won't they? Dogs are actually a pretty likely candidate.

Maybe you don't subscribe to the view above, but you've never really explicitly said so. And you're almost uniformly pessimistic, and generally argue on the same side as the people who do believe in food disruptions and die-off. So I think it's natural to make the default assumption that you actually do "believe we'll all end out our lives eating dog corpses". In fact, I'd be really interested to see your personal argument for why we won't be eating dog corpses (or dirt, shoes etc.) Can you briefly describe your position for me?
Last edited by JohnDenver on Mon 31 Aug 2009, 20:25:39, edited 1 time in total.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby shortonsense » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 19:37:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')Another issue is lack of tolerance to criticism. I've got the admin on that other site telling me she supports moderator bias, even when the poster who receives favorable bias is literally stating that climate scientists can't do unit conversions just so they can assume their result is maximally bad. People (d00m3rs and c0rni3s) can't expect to be taken seriously if they're literally making up shiz, or supporting made up shiz, as they go along.


Allowing in criticism, regardless of its factual correctness, is not conducive to what I believe is the unstated goal of a website which depends on an uninterrupted diet of the repetition of its niche beliefs for its existence/site hits/activity level.

Criticism simply does not lead to the sort of head nodding, mass agreement among a group which can find plenty of people to call them crazy, for all sorts of reasons, why show up with your internet "friends" and have the same thing happen?

The solution is to hygrate the membership. One way of doing that is to make sure that "believers" are safe to say whatever nonsense comes to mind, and then other believers recite it as a mantra and pretend it's fact, because of course, one of THEM said it. You can stack a set of encyclopedia's against that belief system and it makes as much sense as trying to convert the Taliban leadership to Christianity. Objective analysis of the information available is not the point.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby DantesPeak » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 19:38:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', 'L')ynch has made many predictions here. His forecasts on oil supply and prices turned out to be very wrong.

He is also not above bashing others.

Check it out his record for yourself.
http://peakoil.com/peak-oil-discussion/ ... ilit=Lynch
How do we know that poster is actually Lynch?
George "Dubya" Bush

;)


'Spike' said he was Lynch, the moderators said he was Lynch, the site adminsitrators said he was Lynch.
It's already over, now it's just a matter of adjusting.
User avatar
DantesPeak
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6277
Joined: Sat 23 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: New Jersey
Top

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 20:12:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', ' ')One way of doing that is to make sure that "believers" are safe to say whatever nonsense comes to mind, and then other believers recite it as a mantra and pretend it's fact, because of course, one of THEM said it. You can stack a set of encyclopedia's against that belief system and it makes as much sense as trying to convert the Taliban leadership to Christianity. Objective analysis of the information available is not the point.


It's called "groupthink". And organizations who depend upon the valuable, independent thought of their employees steadfastly guard against it!

People seem naturally to want to band together under some common religion, myth or ideology, even when there is no definitive, hard truth in it. Why else would something like Christianity have become so popular?

A good example of groupthink can be read in the book "Fumbling The Future", which is all about how Xerox invented the PC, an operating system and the precursor to the Windows-style GUI -- and then utterly failed to capitalize upon the biggest business bonanza of the 20th century! How could that happen?

Well, I worked for Xerox for a couple of years and I know full well why it dropped the PC ball. The whole corporate culture there created Xeroid drones who don't succeed unless they mirror the company line in everything they do, think or say. The group that invented the personal computer, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, was seperate from the main corporate culture. They were the brilliant, creative ones who were left to invent and innovate. And they did! But the groupthinkers at Xerox could not see the potential of the personal computer. They thought it would flop. So they pulled the plug on their own invention! HA!

When it comes to a subject like peak oil, you always need debate and dissension. No way should PO.com ever become the bastion of one particular highly-biased group.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby yesplease » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 22:40:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DantesPeak', 'L')ynch has made many predictions here. His forecasts on oil supply and prices turned out to be very wrong.

He is also not above bashing others.

Check it out his record for yourself.
http://peakoil.com/peak-oil-discussion/ ... ilit=Lynch
How do we know that poster is actually Lynch?
George "Dubya" Bush

;)
'Spike' said he was Lynch, the moderators said he was Lynch, the site adminsitrators said he was Lynch.
If only we could establish identity just because some people on a forum said it was so!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby TheDude » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 22:40:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'I')n fact, I'd be really interested to see your personal argument for why we won't be eating dog corpses (or dirt, shoes etc.) Can you briefly describe your position for me?


In the case of the US ag is only 5% of sales of diesel, thus 149.2 kb/d. Low sulfur diesel (<5ppm) used in trucking is 2984 kb/d or 20.65% of total refinery output (from production and imports), no doubt much of that is tied up in distribution of food too; railroads consume 5.75% of diesel themselves. But when you add it all up it's nothing that couldn't be rationed if necessary, even with curtailed imports. Much fertilizer production has gone overseas but even so it accounts for 5% of global demand of NG. I really have my doubts about the Jeff Rubinesque imminent demise of shipping; bunker fuel is junk that can be made in any old refinery, indeed the simpler the refinery the larger percentage you wind up with long chain yields such as resid and asphalt, and bunker fuel is only 3.9% of US output. The food-for-oil scenarios are much more plausible than the OECD reverting to hauling carts full of night soil from city to farm.

Staniford's arguments about the efficiency of large scale ag carry more conviction than those of the eating fossil fuels we-must-return-to-the-land camp. Also, obviously I have a lot more faith in the potential of rationing, or any faith at all compared to many, that is. Some hand wave the whole idea away, saying starving hordes will derail trains to get at food, etc. This doesn't jibe with history, far as I can tell. In the face of shortages and rationing people will react accordingly and grow more of their own food as a hobby, too - see how this has gained in popularity in recent years, just from sluggish growth in the economy and a spike in fuel prices.

At the end of the day I do agree things are headed for a slow downturn, though; humans are rapacious breeders and consumers with little thought to the concerns of the environment, breeding potential Black Swans that could prove wholly calamitous. I've found that there's a tech solution to the issue of rising methane releases, for instance: reworking the bacteria in the stomachs of kangaroos, who release no methane, into cows. Ruminants, after all, release far more CH4 than hydrates at the moment. Or we could switch to eating joeys, or cut back on eating meat in the first place. But in case the hydrate release scenarios are as dire as some think, even the latter two cases might not prove enough. I don't have some unerring faith the first solution will work, either. And this is just one of a whole spectrum of problems humanity face.

Humans could ostensibly evolve into some new mechanized form that can exist in any environment, but that's beside the point for us sacks of meat.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby TheDude » Mon 31 Aug 2009, 22:54:49

China is running into a whole host of environmental issues on their own that don't line up with projecting them into the future as the new equivalent of the burgeoning 19th century powerhouses. This isn't sour grapes on my behalf. Price of Water Rises in China

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Chinese are water-poor. They are sucking their aquifers dry. It is particularly bad in the north of China. The groundwater under the North China Plains is draining away quickly. By some estimates, China will exhaust this water supply in the next ten years.

You probably know that the city of Venice is sinking a fraction of an inch per year. But that's nothing compared to what is going on in Beijing. Parts of Beijing are sinking 8 inches a year! According to Andrew Lees (The Right Game), it is the world's largest cone of depression (an underground hole created by a depleted water table) at over 15,000 square miles. The second largest cone of depression is around Shanghai.

So finally, many cities are raising the price of water. The WSJ points out several places where water prices could rise 25-48%. Shanghai, for instance, raised water rates 25% in June and plans another 22% increase next year.

The second event that caught my eye was the collaboration between China and India to monitor the health of Himalayan glaciers. This area is very important to both countries. They fought a war over it in 1962. So, the fact that they are getting together on the Himalayan glaciers is meaningful.

Here is why it is so important: Seven of the world's largest rivers, including the Ganges and the Yangtze, are fed by the glaciers of the Himalayas. They supply water to about 40 per cent of the world's population.

Well, those glaciers are shrinking. The Indian Space Research Organization, using satellite images, has studied the changes in 466 glaciers. It found they had lost more than 20% of their size between 1962 and 2001.

This melting increases the water flow at first, but eventually slows dramatically as the glaciers either melt completely or reform. These observations have given rise to a kind of "Peak Himalaya" where people wonder if we have not seen the maximum water flow from the mountains.


China could build a whole host of those reactors to desalinate billions of gallons of seawater I suppose. They are already engaging in monstrous engineering projects to relocate water.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby JohnDenver » Tue 01 Sep 2009, 08:27:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'C')hina is running into a whole host of environmental issues on their own that don't line up with projecting them into the future as the new equivalent of the burgeoning 19th century powerhouses. This isn't sour grapes on my behalf. Price of Water Rises in China


I don't see them as the new British Empire either, and it's true that they have a lot of problems. But one problem they don't have is an inability to carry out massive engineering projects. That may not be enough to solve all of their problems, but it's definitely going to give them a leg up on countries like the US which need a decade to build a paper bag.

Regarding your comments on peak oil and food: beautifully put. We have a lot more in common that I thought. I hope you'll post more often from that direction so we know where you're coming from. :)
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby BigTex » Tue 01 Sep 2009, 09:07:12

For a general note on how unpredictably doomer scenarios can turn out, think about what the doomers of 1918 must have been thinking.

There was a world war on, and the Spanish flu was unfolding as the greatest numerical human death event in history.

And yet a few short years later people had FORGOTTEN about the flu-induced mini die-off and WWI was in the rear view mirror as Americans were doing the Charleston and enjoying a Tom Collins at the bar.

No one could have possibly predicted that the doom of 1918 would pass so quickly.

My point is just that people tend to extrapolate the current trend, and that's rarely the way history actually unfolds.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby kjmclark » Tue 01 Sep 2009, 23:13:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '[')url=http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3481]Staniford's arguments[/url] about the efficiency of large scale ag carry more conviction than those of the eating fossil fuels we-must-return-to-the-land camp. Also, obviously I have a lot more faith in the potential of rationing, or any faith at all compared to many, that is. Some hand wave the whole idea away, saying starving hordes will derail trains to get at food, etc. This doesn't jibe with history, far as I can tell. In the face of shortages and rationing people will react accordingly and grow more of their own food as a hobby, too - see how this has gained in popularity in recent years, just from sluggish growth in the economy and a spike in fuel prices.

This is a peeve of mine. Stuart assumed a smooth transition, but there's no particular reason to assume it will work that way. As to "This doesn't jibe with history, far as I can tell.", it looks to me like you're also assuming a smooth transition. You only have to look to WW1 in Germany to see food riots in a society facing war, rationing, import problems, and eventually disease.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')t sea, Britain used its superior fleet to impose a blockade on the German ports. Germany suffered shortages and, by the end of the war, food riots had occurred in a number of German towns. - BBC
Image$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Food Riots
The aftermath of food riots in Berlin, Germany, during World War I. The widespread shortage of dairy products and bread (through the loss of wheat imports) provoked massive demonstrations in the city. The German government regarded these events as politically motivated, and its initial response was to urge restraint in consumption, intimating that the sacrifice symbolized support for the war effort. - Farlex
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ood also became a major concern for the war effort. German agriculture was very good, but required fertilizers and animal supplements from other countries. This would become a major factor in the ability to continue the war. By the end of 1914, the German government began to control the food production of the country. Special laws were passed that limited how farmers could produce and slaughter animals.

During the winter of 1914, the German people began eating K-Bread (Kriegsbrot - war bread). This type of bread replaced wheat with potatoes as the main ingredient. The best food was sent to the front lines to ensure the soldiers had enough energy to fight. This meant that the civilian population had to do without.
...
Even with all the attempts to manufacture food from almost nothing, by 1916 serious food shortages were appearing all over Germany. It was at that time that one of the worst winters in European history hit the country. The winter of 1916 became known as the "turnip winter." A premature frost destroyed the potato harvest that year which had become a major source of food for the people. Instead the turnip, which did not suffer from the frost, became the main source of food for the country.
...
As the Great War entered its last year, food and materials had reached a breaking point within Germany. One example of the shortage of food during this time came with the substitution of finely ground sawdust as a flour substitute in bread. Soldiers on leave would return home to see their children undernourished, short of heating fuels and wearing old threadbare clothing. With all the best food going to the frontlines, civilians paid a heavy price for the war effort. Even the troops in the frontlines began to suffer from the lack of foodstuffs available during 1918. Allied food, discovered during trench raids and offensives, was a highly sought after prize. - History 20
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')bout 750,000 German civilians died from starvation caused by the British blockade during the war. - Wikipedia$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')ermany - Civilian deaths exceeded the pre-war level by about 700,000. The primary causes were famine during the war (424,000 deaths) and the Spanish flu (200,000 deaths). The figures of civilian war related deaths are from a study published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 1940, based on analysis of German government data.[17,78], there were an estimated additional 100,000 civilian deaths during the blockade of Germany after the armistice from November 1918 until June 1919 which are not included with war losses. - Wikipedia
User avatar
kjmclark
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby kjmclark » Tue 01 Sep 2009, 23:28:11

But did they eat dogs? I have no idea, and I'm sure anyone that did eat a dog didn't go around talking to a historian about it.

People seem to easily forget that the horsemen include war and disease as well as famine. Can anyone here really predict the next major war? Can anyone really predict the eventual death toll from H1N1? H5N1? Can anyone tell me what happens next with UG99? They're concerned now that it may spread into Afganistan, Pakistan, and perhaps India next year.

I liken oil resource decline to a community with failing food supplies. What will happen to them? Will they just agree to ration until they can find another food source? Will a bout of measles wipe out a quarter of them and temporarily solve the problem? Will they decide to fight with a neighboring community for their food? How do you know what will happen? I really don't know, and don't see how anyone can. However, anyone counting on slowly starving people to continuously and smoothly make rational decisions, or for a world community in a similar position to also make a smooth transition, strikes me as a bit too optimistic.
User avatar
kjmclark
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby JohnDenver » Wed 02 Sep 2009, 01:12:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kjmclark', 'H')owever, anyone counting on slowly starving people to continuously and smoothly make rational decisions, or for a world community in a similar position to also make a smooth transition, strikes me as a bit too optimistic.


And there you have it, just like clockwork.

Peak oilers believe, essentially, that we'll all end out our lives eating dog corpses. It's not a stereotype, it's a fact.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby TheDude » Wed 02 Sep 2009, 02:08:33

By coincidence I was just reading about WWI Germany and the Kriegsbrot. At the front lines food was stockpiled and being thrown away when it rotted, while people in the cities were mixing in potatoes etc.

I'd have my doubts about anyone out-blockading the US Navy, which is one point where WWI analogies with Germany would fall down. Also consider the whole notion of food-for-oil; we have a monstrous bounty of food in the US, while a nation like KSA has almost nothing to offer but oil. And I think I've shown that the US could be wholly independent for food production, barring the need to import fertilizer; and we could rebuild our production of that if pressed, too. Other obvious fat that could be cut is the massive amount of corn fed to feedstock cattle; ranchers would raise hell and beef prices would spike, but that would be about the end of it.

I also don't think very sharp declines in crude production are in the cards; fields can completely keel over but major producing nations tend to decline gradually, having a range of fields by default. Mexico is the poster child for decline, having gone down 9.05% for 2008, but other countries with sharp declines (Yemen, Italy, Chad) tend to be minor producers in the first place. The aggregate for the world would be that much more gentle in the first place. HL suggests this will be the case as well, fwiw.

How nations will react to the news of peak oil is another matter entirely, of course. I'm more concerned about that than the logistics of providing basic staples such as food, it being of more immediate import. How the renewable EV and fossil fuel ICE markets will coexist is something else I'm more interested in at the moment than how I'll get enough veggies to eat in 5 years; if that really becomes an issue and society hasn't adjusted somewhat beforehand it'll likely end in as dire a fashion as you're suggesting. Things like the new CAFE standards are steps in the right direction.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby kjmclark » Wed 02 Sep 2009, 07:34:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kjmclark', 'H')owever, anyone counting on slowly starving people to continuously and smoothly make rational decisions, or for a world community in a similar position to also make a smooth transition, strikes me as a bit too optimistic.
And there you have it, just like clockwork.

Peak oilers believe, essentially, that we'll all end out our lives eating dog corpses. It's not a stereotype, it's a fact.

Geez, John, now you can't even be bothered to read what someone wrote before jumping to your favorite misconception.

This peak oiler thinks, essentially, that we don't know what the future will hold, but it is likely to be discontinuous, not as pleasant as the recent past, and include military action. I think of it as like the early cold war, but with declining world energy supplies thrown in. In those conditions, there are a wide range of possibilities, and some of them are fairly bleak. As I've said before, the range includes a shining era of cooperation and increased nuclear power, but it also includes a world resource war and large scale violence, famine, and disease.

I think there's a higher probability than usual that repeatedly having less oil than desired, with the resulting repeatedly increasing energy costs, will result in more strife and dislocation. I count the Iraq war in that, as well as the trigger for the housing crash.
User avatar
kjmclark
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby kjmclark » Wed 02 Sep 2009, 07:57:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'I')'d have my doubts about anyone out-blockading the US Navy, which is one point where WWI analogies with Germany would fall down.

So the US is the only country this website reaches? I think you mean to say that this is one point where WW1 analogies comparing the US to Germany run into trouble. We're not the only country in the world that could be blockaded over resources. Besides, you have to assume continued US predominance for the foreseeable future to still reach that conclusion, don't you? As Kennedy pointed out, military overreach is what typically brings down great powers. They also usually have to be pushed out of the predominant role, though as a democracy, that's a little less clear in the case of the US.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'H')ow nations will react to the news of peak oil is another matter entirely, of course. I'm more concerned about that than the logistics of providing basic staples such as food, it being of more immediate import. How the renewable EV and fossil fuel ICE markets will coexist is something else I'm more interested in at the moment than how I'll get enough veggies to eat in 5 years; if that really becomes an issue and society hasn't adjusted somewhat beforehand it'll likely end in as dire a fashion as you're suggesting. Things like the new CAFE standards are steps in the right direction.

How nations will react to the reality of declining oil availability is entirely the point. The rate of decline is important, but the smooth nature of it is pretty much irrelevant. One thing the deniers have right is that above-ground factors trump geology. I think they're clearly wrong in thinking that means we will have as much oil as we desire, but the reverse side of that is that politics and military action, or "how nations will react", have a large effect on supply availability, of any exported resource.

And again, I'm not suggesting something dire. I'm pointing out that dire things are coming back into the range of possibilities. You and JD suggested that dire things aren't really possible, and I'm pointing out that it's a big world, with many countries in disparate circumstances, in a time of greatly increased stress. That strikes me as decreasing the odds of smooth prosperity, and increasing the odds of tumultuous problems.
User avatar
kjmclark
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby JohnDenver » Wed 02 Sep 2009, 08:36:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kjmclark', ' ')And again, I'm not suggesting something dire.


You are suggesting something dire. Let me quote from your previous post:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'f')ood riots... food riots... Food Riots... food riots... widespread shortage of dairy products and bread... loss of wheat imports... Food also became a major concern... the civilian population had to do without... serious food shortages... destroyed the potato harvest... food and materials had reached a breaking point ... the shortage of food... substitution of finely ground sawdust as a flour substitute in bread... children undernourished... suffer from the lack of foodstuffs... civilians died from starvation...


I fail to see how this differs from the usual peak oil = starvation rhetoric.

Now, if what you're trying to say is that bad things might happen, I heartily agree with you. Anything is possible.

But I don't think a few cut&pasted cases of malnutrition from the past really say anything about how peak oil will pan out. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of famines over last millenium. You could start with your lead-in "the transition might not be smooth" and finish with 1000 pages of heartbreaking narrative about real people starving to death... and it still wouldn't constitute any kind of rational argument for the *probability* of that outcome.

I find TheDude's argument more compelling simply because it has some rational content. Yours just goes in one step from "Who knows?" to "food riots... food riots... food riots... etc." And then to "I'm not suggesting something dire."
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Reading Peak Oil Deniers Is a Waste of Time

Unread postby kjmclark » Wed 02 Sep 2009, 11:11:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kjmclark', ' ')And again, I'm not suggesting something dire.

You are suggesting something dire. Let me quote from your previous post:

I fail to see how this differs from the usual peak oil = starvation rhetoric.

Now I think you're being intentionally dense, and it's really beneath you. TheDude said, "Some hand wave the whole idea away, saying starving hordes will derail trains to get at food, etc. This doesn't jibe with history, far as I can tell." I pointed out an example in history that shows that it does happen at times.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'N')ow, if what you're trying to say is that bad things might happen, I heartily agree with you. Anything is possible.

Yet you just called me a liar for saying that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'B')ut I don't think a few cut&pasted cases of malnutrition from the past really say anything about how peak oil will pan out. There have been literally thousands upon thousands of famines over last millenium. You could start with your lead-in "the transition might not be smooth" and finish with 1000 pages of heartbreaking narrative about real people starving to death... and it still wouldn't constitute any kind of rational argument for the *probability* of that outcome.

I agree, but I don't think pointing out the amount of oil used in US agriculture and the efficiency of large agricultural equipment say much about the the probabilities of future outcomes either. My point was simply that how society ends up responding to declining availability of a very important energy resource is the concern, the range of possibilities does include resource wars, famine, and resulting disease, and I think the falling availability of that important resource argues for a more turbulent time and a greater probability of poorer outcomes.

To counter, please come up with an example of a society that was deprived of a key energy resource, and at the time simultaneously had a smooth and pleasant social and economic situation. No, you don't get to cite examples of societies that reduced use of that resource voluntarily unless the reduction was forced and they chose to reduce it voluntarily. Next, look at the range of societies in this situation and their situations at the time. Do societies tend to deal with this situation well? Finally, is there any example of a situation where the major power in the area was individualistic and imperial, by most measures addicted to this energy resource, and the situation still went well? I would argue that in the cases of Rome, World War 1, World War 2, and the 70s we have examples. Though WW1 may not have started as a resource war, I think it ended as one. Quite a bit of the fighting in WW2 was jockeying for resources, particularly oil. The 70s was fairly peaceful, though that's when Carter made it clear that the US would not stand for having it's oil supply infringed.

I would argue that these situations tend toward turbulent and unpleasant outcomes. It doesn't have to be that way, so there are plenty of possibilities, but the probabilities shift toward more unpleasant situations.
User avatar
kjmclark
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests