Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Dr. Albert A Bartlett Thread (merged)

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

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby joewp » Sat 30 Dec 2006, 22:53:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', '
')I believe we can do it. I don't believe it is a given that we will or won't. No doubt if we as a world population deny that major changes in the way we acquire and use energy are not required, them the future is indeed pessimistic.


Well, it seems to me that there's virtually nobody acknowledging the problem, certainly not with the urgency required. Even if there was a chance to continue living at the present world population, with growth stopped completely, I doubt we'd do it, it's against human nature. But I'm pretty certain we can't live at this population density on this planet.

We depend far too much on oil and natural gas inputs for our food supply. If haven't seen it, you should read Eating Fossil Fuels for an overview a big part of the problem. Then you might see why people here don't put much faith in biomass alternatives to "save us". A lot of us a well aware that decreasing amounts of fossil fuel will decrease food production, and who's going to be making ethanol from corn when people are starving? Dr. Bartlett makes a passing reference to this. I think that was a mistake by him, he should have expanded on that point.

Also, another thing you should read is Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change by William R. Catton, an absolutely chilling work from 1980 that puts your view of humanity firmly back into the planet Earth and its ecology. It shows you that we, as all species do, breed to fill more than the carrying capacity of our habitat. Here's a quote from the page I happen to be reading on my third read through right now: "By using still more enormous quantities of energy for new occupations unrelated to agriculture, we put off recognizing that our population had outgrown its maintainable niches. Had people understood the ecological implications of the Industrial Revolution, it might have been seen not so much as a great step forward for mankind, but as we shall make clear in Chapter 10, as a tragic transition to dependence on temporarily available resources." (Pg. 135)

These are tough concepts to take, and right now I recognize that you're in the bargaining/denial stage here. You've definitely assimilated that there is a problem, but you think that technology can "save us", when ecology and physics prevent it. That's o.k., I've been there, done that. Once you move into acceptance, you start to really appreciate all the amazing stuff that industrial society has created and start planning for your family's future locally, with emphasis on local food production and saving your local environment from insane development.

I believe that if you read Eating Fossil Fuels and Overshoot, you'll realize there's no argument, facts are facts. Good luck...
Last edited by joewp on Sat 30 Dec 2006, 23:33:48, edited 1 time in total.
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 30 Dec 2006, 23:06:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'h')ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3560433.stm#graphic
That gives a very coarse view of population growth and includes a lot of years that are in the future. What I've done is quote some figures for the last few years that would appear to indicate population growth is now constant, rather than decreasing. Yet you choose to believe that it is decreasing and will continue to decrease. Why is that? If you don't trust the figures I've given, please point to figures for actual population growth that you trust more, and please explain why.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I')t seems you are unimpressed with my points. That's ok as I remain unconvinced of your conclusions as I understand them.
What conclusions are they? You've made some suggestions, based on assumptions. I am merely questioning those assumptions. What's the problem?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I') have read on this thread that once we reach the peak, all the oil will be gone in 10 years. Really.
Is that some kind of argument? Most peakers well understand that oil will remain in the ground for decades, hundreds or even thousands of years (indeed, there will always be some oil in the ground). I don't think anyone seriously believes that all the oil will be gone in 10 years, though some may believe that, if peak is happening now, in 10 years there may not be much of a coherent society for an oil production industry to exist, but that is a separate issue.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'T')he timing of when we reach the need to replace oil with other energy sources or face the harshest consequence. In other words does it matter if that time is in the next 10 years, or could it be 30, 50, or more years in the future. So if the discussion is framed as "the oil is finite and will run out, so timing does not matter" then yes end of discussion. For me the timing issue does matter because if we are to transition, then the timing is huge in terms of suffering or lack thereof. So does timing matter?
In one sense yes, in another sense no. If we had great data and could more accurately predict the peak (assuming current consumption habits), then timing will be very important. It is also important if we choose to adapt to the reality of peak, because it can inform the strategy for moving to a society beyond oil. Given that we don't know when peak will be (if it has not already occurred) the timing is not too important because, using the precautionary principle, we should assume that peak is close and start acting as though oil will soon start to decline.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'W')hether the population rate of growth is declining or not. I posted a link that shows the rate of growth declining.
You posted a link that had a resolution of 1 decade. It doesn't have enough resolution to demonstrate tht the rate is currently falling. I have posted links which demonstrate the rate has remained roughly constant for the last 6 years, giving estimated figures for 2000 and 2006.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'w')ould it not be important if the rate of growth is indeed declining? If it turned out to be true that the rate of population growth was declining for reasons such as "better educated" and "more affluent" would it matter?
Of course it would. A declining population growth would be better than an increasing population growth. However, what we'd like and what is happening may be two different things. It's questionable that we could feed the present population of the world, once oil and gas start to decline. If population is still growing, it becomes more questionable that we will be able to feed the world population at the time of gas and oil declining. If it turned out to be true (and I don't know how one determines that) that the rate of population growth was declining due to education and affluence, are those factors likely to increase or decline, post peak?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 't')here has been many changes that have led to a declining per capita energy use. Building insulation, appliance and vehicle efficiency, recycling and other conservation measures all contribute. And it is obvious we can do much much more.
Is it obvious? Don't the measures you've highlighted have some upper limit? How much more conservation, recycling (which takes energy) and vehicle efficiency is there to coax out of the system?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'S')o here is the question - as we employ mathematical models to project the future should we consider declining per capita consumption of energy?Indeed we should. "Limits to Growth" has such scenarios.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'A')lternatives to oil. I posted about both an article that explored a a variety of alternatives, including coal to gas. The responses were that the alternatives to oil "all have EROEI's of 1 or less than 1"No; one response said that, not all responses.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I') still think there are many, many alternatives to oil that have not been develped because the oil was much lower in cost. I admit to not having done the research to know the EROEI of each of the alternatives is.So it's a belief that you have. I'm sure that many alternatives will be tried as oil starts to become scarce. But that doesn't mean that any of them, or that some combination of them, will be able to make up for the decline in oil and be able to eventually replace oil, whilst continuing to grow.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'B')ut when I posted about the large investment in CTL in Montana I did not recieve a satisfactory reason why that was not an example of an alternative the could provide a substantial amount of energy replacing oil.Look at the current production rates of coal and how much extra would need to be produced to get a substantial amount of extra energy from it. Are you saying that any amount of coal can be produced, at any rate, to be able to provide substantial amounts of liquids, that will make a dent in the decline of oil? If so, can you justify such a view?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I')f there were alternatives to oil that were available is sufficient quantities to sustain our energy needs for a couple of hundred years with a BOE (barrel of oil equivalent) cost in today's dollars of $50, $60, or $80 per barrel, would that matter?Of course, if you know of such alternatives, please post. If it is just hope and belief, why not acknowledge that it is just that?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'T')o me all of the above are relevant. Not because they are certain, but because they are uncertain.I agree that they are relevant but, given the uncertainty, how do you factor them in?$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I') believe we must focus on employing every means at our disposal to adjust to the situation. We should stop subsidizing energy to keep the cost down, instead we should use tax policy to make it more expensive.I agree.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'T')his will drive conservation and development of alternatives.I agree, but that is unlikely to be enough. People need to be convinced that drastic changes are needed in society, not just which energy source we use.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'W')e should force ourselves to use energy in a more environmentally responsible way - for instance employ the technology to burn coal without the devastating emmissions of acid and greenhouse gases.I agree, but from the point of view of sustainability, we need to phase out the use of all fossil fuels. Let's not wait until they are completely depleted (in terms of economic extraction).$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I') believe we can do it.I'm still not sure what you think "it" is. In terms of the subject of this thread, if "it" includes growth, it won't work.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby Buff » Sun 31 Dec 2006, 10:35:01

Joe - I read the essay by the "From the Wilderness" guy. I clicked on his footnote 2 to Duquense University to see the data - no page found. Several of the other footnotes refer to pages on "Dieoff" dot com - for me not an unbiased source.

I found the information about Eating Fossil Fuels very informative, yet not without an axe to grind IMHO. But for me, the changes will have more to do with energy/food becoming more expensive - I think rising costs will drive the changes needed to feed the world, albeit at a higher cost.

Tony - at least it now sounds more like a conversation. You at least allow that if some things were true, they are or might be relevant.

One thing you seem to be saying consistently is my views are based on "hope for" and "beliefs" while your views are based in absolute facts. We don't disagree on the absolute facts - fossil fuels are finite, growth is not indefinitely sustainable.

I think our views differ only on the unknowns. You seem to think your beliefs about the unknowns - when we will see the peak, when we will see the decline in the economy and how severe it will be, what lays in store for us in the areas of population growth, per capita energy consumption, and viable alternative energy sources are indisputable facts, not beliefs. Isn't just we have a disagreement about the unknowns, rather than your facts vs. my beliefs?
User avatar
Buff
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun 26 Nov 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby joewp » Sun 31 Dec 2006, 12:30:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'J')oe - I read the essay by the "From the Wilderness" guy. I clicked on his footnote 2 to Duquense University to see the data - no page found. Several of the other footnotes refer to pages on "Dieoff" dot com - for me not an unbiased source.

I found the information about Eating Fossil Fuels very informative, yet not without an axe to grind IMHO. But for me, the changes will have more to do with energy/food becoming more expensive - I think rising costs will drive the changes needed to feed the world, albeit at a higher cost.


If you had googled the title, you would have found this pdf at Duke U. There's also a copy at dieoff, does that invalidate the article's conclusions?

I'm wondering why you think dieoff is biased? Is reporting facts somehow a bias? Does Pfeiffer have an ax to grind? I don't know, did Churchill have an ax to grind when he was warning Europe about Hitler's intentions? Does Jay Hanson have an ax to grind? Maybe it's the same ax the guy on Easter Island had to grind when he was warning everybody not to chop down all the trees, and maybe there's enough people on the island now?

I mean, do you think Hanson, Bartlett, Pfeiffer, et al have some hidden motives for their work? Some hidden profit motive that's fooling those who read and hear their words for free on the Internet? What other reason other than informing people of the facts so they can prepare themselves for what probably is going to be a terrible era could they possibly have?

I would be more apt to question Simon or CERA's motives, since they only get paid if the growth machine continues, and they're attempting to convince people to play along in the growth game.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Isn't just we have a disagreement about the unknowns, rather than your facts vs. my beliefs?


I think it's more independent facts versus your unfounded hopes. In a declining energy environment, there's just no way 6.5 billion people could live on this planet.

Like I said, it's tough to swallow that the last 150 or so years of human history has been a one-time party that's coming to an end soon.

But facts are facts.
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 31 Dec 2006, 13:30:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', ' ') I have a belief that that a rising cost of enegy and fuels will stimulate the market in alternatives.


So do I. But that doesn't mean they can replace fossil fuels in the manner and scale we use them.

Think EROEI, energy density, scalbility and time.

Solar and wind combined are less than 1% of our current energy base.

Peak oil is tomorrow in planning terms.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 31 Dec 2006, 13:47:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', ' ')I find it plausible that we would not develop the infrastructure for CTL if the selling price for the boe fuel were less than $50 - Oil has been below that until just recently and could fall again. It makes sense to me that the infrastucture investments are enormous and would be too risky if the breakeven price were $40, $50 $70. But if we reach a point (when we reach a point) where oil stays above $50 per barrel, it would also make sense that these alternatives would be developed.


If you read Coal to Liquids in the Energy forum, you will see that CTL brings peak coal in 29 years. How do you sequester the C02 in the face of global climate change? How do you move the coal? We have a transport problem now in the US and must import coal to fule power plants. Think scalability and time.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') wonder what the total amount of energy arrives here on the planet every day from the sun and how that compares to the amount of energy we are using each day?


Solar Flux = 174,000 terawatts/day. Annual world energy consumption 14.5 Terawatts (85% fossil fuels). By 2050, it is projected we will consume 30 terrawatts.

Sure, we have a lot of sun enegy hitting the earth every day. Question is, how do you access it? There is a lot of gold in the ocean, question is, how do you access it?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd is it not true that nuclear energy would also be available for quite a while (I have zero knowledge about uranium supplies)?


The projected short fall for uranium is 400 million lbs from 2005 to 2014. This has driven the cost of uranium from $21.75 last April to $72.00/lb today. I hold little hope for a nuclear comeback. Like Lovins says, "it's like defibbing a corpse, it will jump but it will not revive."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ne more question - actually a couple of related ones. (ain't a pain?) Is the amount of energy we use per capita going up or down? I am interested in the trend both for the US and industrialized West as well as globally.


US per capita use has gone down as we exported our industrial base and it's energy consumption to devleoping countries like China and India.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 31 Dec 2006, 13:57:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'T')o me it appears there is a lot of bias here towards negativity. And yes it is based on the data as you see it.


Then it isn't negativity, but reality.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat I mean is if I suggest that a declining growth rate in the population is an important part of the conversation, you say something like "yes, but that has its own problems".


Well? Doesn't it? If the decline rate is based upon increasing standards of living, then I question it's validity into the future. It also brings on a lack of consumers for economic growth and to fund retirement and infrastructure.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f I say that it appears there may alternatives that would meet our energy needs much farther into the future than what is implicated in the PO aftermath collapse due to energy running low, you say something like "yes, but that just puts off the inevitable".


It most certainly does. Have you read? Peak Oil: The Tip of the Iceberg

Is our current system sustainable? I think not.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 31 Dec 2006, 14:02:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', ' ')I stand by my statements that the rate of population growth is declining, and that the statistic is relevant to the timing of what will occur. I believe we will see a continued drop in per capita energy use and that that statistic is also relevant to the timing of what will occur.


If you continue to ignore why the growth rate is declining, and it predicted to decline, then I hold no hope for you.

Per capita energy use decline in the developed world is largely do to exported industrial bases. And in the end, conservation is a self-imposed recession that curtails economic activity.

Conservastion and captialism are like oil and water, they do not mix.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 31 Dec 2006, 14:08:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I')t seems you are unimpressed with my points.


And you ignore ours.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 31 Dec 2006, 19:48:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Buff', 'I') think our views differ only on the unknowns.
If we concentrate on the knowns, we know that fossil fuels are finite. We know that (almost) all of earth's societies are dependent on fossil fuels. We know that alternatives to fossil fuels are also finite and, as far as we can tell, can't replace fossil fuels on the scale we use them for all the uses we put them to.

For me, the only question about peak is the timing, though we know (based on 90% of the estimates) that it will happen well within the lifetimes of most people alive today. We can speculate until peak about the effects of this, that or the other strategy (e.g. conservation) on the timing. We can speculate until peak on whether population growth will diminish and what the effect of that might be, if it occurs. But speculation doesn't help us, since those factors remain unknown. None of the things you've talked about might have much influence over timing, or they may have an influence. Other human behaviour may offset some gains, or it may not.

What should be crystal clear is that, as Albert Bartlett has so clearly demonstrated, growth is unsustainable. That should be the message we take to heart, and go from there.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sun 31 Dec 2006, 19:54:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')ure, we have a lot of sun energy hitting the earth every day. Question is, how do you access it?
Most (all) of it is currently accessed by plant life and climate systems. I wonder how much of that can be diverted for our use, without disrupting those other users too much.

Just a thought.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 01 Jan 2007, 01:25:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')ure, we have a lot of sun energy hitting the earth every day. Question is, how do you access it?
Most (all) of it is currently accessed by plant life and climate systems. I wonder how much of that can be diverted for our use, without disrupting those other users too much.

Just a thought.


Like I have pointed out before, 40% of NPP goes to human consumption already. I think the question is, "how much solar energy can we access quickly via wind/solar systems?

At less than 1% of primary energy, not much...especially with demand rising for the forseeable future.

Think scalability. Megawatt solutions in a terrawatt world don't go far.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby LateGreatPlanetEarth » Wed 31 Jan 2007, 00:59:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gazzatrone', '
')Its plain to see that within 5 years we can remove close to 160gb barrels of oil from the 1000gb.

This doesn't seem a lot, but when you add a further 5 years increase to that we are getting close to 400gb

By 2015 we will have used close to half of the worlds amount, thats in 10 years time.



fossil fuel demand is elastic (by price) so the supply will last longer.
LateGreatPlanetEarth
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue 13 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Cypress, CA
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby Gazzatrone » Mon 05 Feb 2007, 17:31:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LateGreatPlanetEarth', 'f')ossil fuel demand is elastic (by price) so the supply will last longer.


Not want to band my own posts around here, but this post of mine raised many arguments but ultimately point to the fact that demand is based entirely on population and more importantly, economic growth, regardless of price.

See people still buying fuel at $80 in summer 2005.

The reasons for the problems we will ultimately face are down to the amount of energy we have being spread more thinly over an ever growing population. And possibly more importantly two nations wanting what they will rightfully see as their slice of the global economic pie, namely China and India
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby joewp » Fri 16 Feb 2007, 11:53:02

I was thinking about the Vail lift ticket prices chart in the lecture:

Image

and got to wondering if Vail was keeping up with the seven-percent/ten year doubling trend as in the above chart.

So I checked...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('USA Today', 'T')he Aspen Skiing Co. hiked its single-day lift ticket price to $82 the week before Christmas, making it — for a while — the highest priced ticket among United State's ski resorts. Vail countered, jumping its price from $77 a day to $85, according to the Aspen Daily Times.


Yep, pretty much on schedule. Isn't exponential growth amazing?
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby Gazzatrone » Mon 19 Mar 2007, 08:48:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', 'Y')ep, pretty much on schedule. Isn't exponential growth amazing?


More amazing is how many people are unable to see or more dangerously refuse to accept it.
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby joewp » Mon 19 Mar 2007, 11:59:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gazzatrone', '
')More amazing is how many people are unable to see or more dangerously refuse to accept it.


And since they refuse to accept it, everything they're going to do will only make the problem worse. The response I've seen from people I've explained PO to is the main reason I'm so doomerish. If people accepted this problem and started doing something about it, we'd have a chance for a "soft landing". Forget that.
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby Gazzatrone » Tue 20 Mar 2007, 09:06:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', 'A')nd since they refuse to accept it, everything they're going to do will only make the problem worse. The response I've seen from people I've explained PO to is the main reason I'm so doomerish. If people accepted this problem and started doing something about it, we'd have a chance for a "soft landing". Forget that.


Most people I speak to refuse to accept or probably more correctly put, refuse to believe anything to do with oil depletion. The fact that the way of living they have got so used to throughout their lives is not a constant just doesn't make sense. Then denial kicks in.

Even worse is that people react to you like you are some nut-job conspiracy theorist out to shake the status quo. And I can see why with absolutely NOTHING being done by ANYONE in positions of power to say to people "This is serious".

I don't blame you for being doomerish. I'm one myself. Though not because of oil depletion, simply because Mankinds unwillingness to do anything or more importantly get to society to wake up to itself.
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 20 Mar 2007, 13:06:27

The Vail lift ticket prices are very instructive for a number of reasons. I don't know if you've ever been there; the place is all about conspicuous consumption. The higher the price, the more prestigious and exclusive it becomes. Sure, it's good skiing, but come on.

That's why I don't think we are going to see the end of Hummer sales any time soon. Those who buy these monsters are not trying to be frugal--they are trying to make a point that they can pay through the nose for the vehicle as well as for the fuel. The higher the pric of fuel, the higher the value of this message.


Doom is the word. Doom is the way we are feeling! (To be sung to the melody of "Grease.")
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: A Short Tale About Simplicity:Dr Albert Bartlett

Unread postby joewp » Sun 25 Mar 2007, 15:13:10

As an aid to help people understand the lecture a little more, I created a calculator that will take the statement "[Some resource] will last us 500 years! [at current rates of use]" and shows how even a small percentage growth rate severely lowers the "500 years" life expectancy.

Click here
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests