by shortonsense » Tue 11 May 2010, 20:37:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'S')horty, if you think unconventional, renewables, and gas will swoop in and save the day, fine. I don't completely discount these things, but the devil's in the details. The EROEI of unconventional.
The devil is always in the details...and he knows that EROEI is a joke distraction as well as I do.
"Swoop in and save the day" is a characterization which implies speed. Certainly I didn't say anything about "swooping" being necessary, or even a "saving of the day" which implies a short, quick event at the last minute.
I can make a decent argument that the US has been transitioning since the energy shocks of the 70's, which were certainly a wake up call to those of us who experienced them.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mps6507', '
')But let's take your scenario for granted. Step back. Now we, at least for the next 30 years or so, have enough energy to allow BAU to continue. Now we're left with increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, the continued impact of global warming and overall environmental collapse under the weight of 8-10 billion of us.
Certainly the resource estimates allow a time span of centuries, not 30 years, I never claimed that the continuation of BAU is necessary or beneficial, and climate change has nothing to do with any of this. Humans weren't wiped out when the world warmed 10,000 years ago....I see no reason to assume that anything will happen any different this time. Last time the ice melted, we got New York City. As the glaciers melted then, they have been melting now, and it has been taking place before the pyramids (or coal fired power plants) were someone's wet dream.
As far as environmental collapse, or any causal relationship to a particular population level, we've been hearing that one for a few centuries as well, most recently from the likes of Ehrlich. Such things have been predicted so many times, for so long, that it isn't even a surprise when it turns out to be wrong anymore.