by 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.