[VMarcHart]

Greetings! Newbie, here.

So many forums and topics. I don't know exactly where I belong. I'm big in conservation and this is the most popular topic. So I felt this was a good place to introduce myself. Feel free to bounce me to the right spot.

I'm a 14-yr veteran of the energy industry, of which, the last 4 1/2 in wind power development. I delivered 380 MWs of wind power, and just took a job with a fossil-fuel power developer. It will be interesting to be the sole treehugger.

Like I said, I'm big in conservation. Our electric consumption last month was 186kWh, we own one (small) car, walk to work, recycle to death, etc. I drive my wife up the wall. Death by conservation? Totally!

My best friend didn't complete high-school. His friends are at about his level of formal education. I asked at what $/gallon his friends would radically start conserving gasoline. He said $20/gallon. Simply put, the elite --myself and my peers-- is showing very little by example, and the people aspire to become the elite. Of course, gasoline is one of the dozens of resources being consumed at "there is no tomorrow" pace, but, at $4/gallon, it makes it a good topic to pick on.

I'm an economist and subscribe to Jevons. The compact fluorescent light bulb, the hybrid car, the hydrogen car, etc, is a hoax just postponing the inevitable. An improved technology will only make us consume more of it. The same best friend switched his 200-W driveway bulb for a CFLB, so, as he said, "I can leave it running all night."

The concept of conversation is so skewed, it makes me laugh.

Please stay in touch. Happy Memorial Day!

[jdumars]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')In fact, your argument supports the idea that the only significant reduction in consumption will come at gun-point, so to speak.

This exposes the myth of conservation as it applies to fungible commodities like energy. No reductions via conservation are possible, & only scarcity will actually lower consumption.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jdumars', '
')Everyone dances around the topic, but this is it. Every human system breaks down in the end because it is contrary to nature, not in concert with it.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jdumars', '
')Everyone dances around the topic, but this is it. Every human system breaks down in the end because it is contrary to nature, not in concert with it.

[VMarcHart]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jdumars', '
')Most "production" cannot be moved locally, because:

Specialized labor practices have almost completely removed such skills from the populace
Even those with the skills may not have the tools/energy required to use them
Local resources in arable regions (especially close to population centers) are typically the most degraded

[MrBill]

I was looking for someplace to insert this article (sorry no link), and I wanted to bump this thread up to the front of the queue again.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Asia Has Blown Its Chance to Destroy Oil Demand:

Asian governments are squirming.

With crude oil near $130 a barrel, their strategy to shield consumers from high energy prices is becoming a drag on national budgets. The unsustainable subsidies and price controls must go, say economists. The problem is with the timing of any such move.

The cost of living is soaring almost everywhere, pushed higher by food. Inflation expectations are hardening. In such an environment, policy makers will have to think twice before raising energy costs. A quickening of inflation is to be avoided, even if the acceleration is temporary.

A good time to act was last year, especially in the first half of 2007 when the price of crude oil averaged about $60 a barrel. Inflation wasn't as big a challenge in 2007 as it is now and authorities had ample leeway to start letting higher costs of petroleum products pass through into local prices.

They missed the chance.

A survey of 42 developing countries by the International Monetary Fund showed that as much as three-fifths of the extra cost of 2007 was absorbed by governments and refiners. Only eight nations fully passed on last year's 48 percent increase in gasoline prices to the retail consumers in their countries.

Indonesia, which was forced to increase fuel prices from May 24 after holding them steady for almost three years, is a case in point.

Indonesian Protests


Retail gasoline prices have been allowed to rise by more than a quarter. Even then, motorists in Jakarta are only paying 64 U.S. cents for a liter of gasoline, or $2.40 per gallon. In neighboring Singapore -- where there aren't any fuel subsidies -- the pump price is 2 1/2 times as high.

Who will explain this to protesters on the streets? As far as they are concerned, the cost of living is already very high.

But what option does Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono have? If he doesn't plug the large hole that energy subsidies are leaving in the government's budget, the rupiah might falter, stoking inflation and hurting the poor.

Indonesia's resolve in going through with the price increase is prompting analysts to consider the likelihood of similar action by China, India, Russia and the Middle East, which will together consume more crude oil in 2008 than the U.S.

With little chance of a spectacular increase in supply, a reduction in petroleum demand in these nations holds the key to making oil affordable again. And these are precisely the countries where governments distort demand in a big way.

`Complex Web'


As Francisco Blanch, head of commodities research at Merrill Lynch & Co., puts it, ``the oil market is trying to find a demand destruction point.'' And it can't find such a point partly because of ``a complex web of subsidies and price caps.''

A report last year by McKinsey & Co. estimated that ending subsidies would prune demand for transportation fuels by 3 million barrels a day. Contrast this with the increase in crude- oil production promised by Saudi Arabia: 300,000 barrels a day.

It's never easy, politically, to remove subventions.

But it's especially hard now with runaway inflation.

With the Bharatiya Janata Party -- India's main opposition party -- winning control of the legislature in the southern Indian state of Karnataka in recent polls, the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will think twice about removing price controls on gasoline and diesel.

India, China


Indian refiners, such as state-run Indian Oil Corp., are together losing about $140 million a day because the government hasn't allowed them full cost recovery. The price of diesel sold at gas stations in New Delhi has risen just 4 percent since September 2006.

China, where inflation is at a 12-year high, has rejected as ``baseless'' speculation that it will allow heavily subsidized prices to rise.

China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec, is losing about $430 on each ton of products it sells even after receiving $1 billion in compensation last month from the government, more than for all of last year.

The Malaysian government estimates handouts to be 51 percent more expensive this year because of higher crude prices.

Out of the estimated $16.5 billion Malaysian subsidy, the biggest contribution will come from Petroliam Nasional Bhd., or Petronas. The state-owned refiner is forgoing profits by selling gas to power producers and other consumers below cost.

Malaysia, which last raised prices of gasoline, diesel and liquefied petroleum gas in February 2006, is also hesitant to allow another increase because of political reasons.

Political Compulsions


Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's government is in trouble. His predecessor, Mahathir Mohamad, wants Abdullah to quit for delivering the ruling coalition's worst poll performance. Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, emboldened by unexpected electoral gains, has threatened to topple the government by Sept. 16.

Taiwan, which relaxed controls on fuel and electricity prices this week, is in a better position. The decision has been taken by a new government, which -- unlike the one in Malaysia -- isn't running low on political capital.

Asian authorities should have shown greater alacrity last year in weaning their populations off cheap energy. For too long, they hesitated to do the right thing.

Starting in August 2007, they may have even begun to see such adjustments as unnecessary, hoping that a recession in the U.S. would cause petroleum prices to stabilize.

They were so wrong.

[skiptamali]

I'm really enjoying this thread. Nice posts, gg3 and Aaron. While I don't have time to read everyone's, these two lead me to wonder quite a bit about the future of consumption in light of $4/gallon gas, hybrid vehicles, biodiesel, and a greater disparity in the distribution of wealth between the richest and the poorest.

I fear that we've let the balance of power reach a level whereupon we cannot live in concert with nature. The drive to produce profit over the drive toward moral good and sustainability looks insurmountable. We can throw examples of societies that "worked" at one another, or we can study those and try to make ours work. The point that I keep circling is, "We're all in it together."

When I asked a retired astronaut if he believed in extraterrestrials (a whole new fun topic!), his tongue was obviously tied. I probed further into his opinion of the fate of the human race, and he said, "All I know is that we have got to realize that we're all in this together. If we don't make it, we don't deserve to, and I'm ok with that. Someone else out there will make it by working collaboratively."

Given that our "situation" may be considerably worse than some thought (oceans absorbing less CO2, Arctic Circle disappearing much more rapidly, etc), when are we going to organize on a global level with any efficiency? I think I'm preaching to the choir, given that you folks are interested and putting the effort down to discussion. We've done this before, when war was imminent in our countries and our livelihoods were at stake. Let's educate as best we can, bring others up to speed, and formulate and implement the same type of rapid planning as we've done time after time before. I feel that capitalism may not be compatible with such a movement, but I certainly don't want to be packed away for thinking like a "crazy commie." We have to keep sustainability and conservation very high on the priority list for everyone on this planet...

Haha, who wants to start? Thanks for reading my little rant.

[JohnM]

Wow, this is a long thread, but one of the most interesting one's here on PO.com, in my opinion. I'm reading through the whole thing and I'm only at page 16!

I actually had my first "Oh! I really GET IT!" moment in nearly a year.

[BlisteredWhippet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')Nature is going to force our hand whether we like it or not: there will be an "economic contraction" because the number of humans on this planet will drop off to about 1 - 2 billion within the next century or at most two centuries. It's going to be an ugly ride down the slippery slope.

In the face of this, there is a darwinian advantage for those who have learned to live well with fewer resources.

In the past, "be fruitful and multiply" conferred an advantage. In the future, "be frugal and subtract" will confer the advantage.

[sparky]

.
A Cuba future isn't the worst
It would be quite possible to get the Kmers rouge style of society

There seems to be a relationship between the price of available energy and the price of labor ,
possibly through the food production cost .
At face value society would rewind the historical movie ,

Two world wars , the end of the last one being fought with horse cavalry ,
then the plunge out of industrial societies

there is however some long lasting progress who would skew this scenario toward new forms , big hydro dams and the odd nuclear plant and of course one hundred year of rubbish heap and cities to be mined .


.

[jimk]

Here is a super simple example of how Jevon's paradox can work. I.e., we can end up using more petroleum when we get more efficient in our use of it.

Suppose we have two possible processes by which to make some widget.

In process A, we use $16 of oil and $2 of abrasive to make a widget. In process B, we use $4 of oil and $10 of abrasive to make a widget. So process A costs $18 per widget, and process B is $14. So we use process B.

Now, suppose we figure out how to improve our efficiency and can cut out oil usage in half.

Now, process A will use $8 of oil and $2 of abrasive per widget, i.e. a total of $10. Process B will use $2 of oil and $10 of abrasive, i.e. a total of $12.

When we improved our efficiency, process A became the less costly process, so we will switch to that. Now we are using $8 of oil per widget, instead of $4. We improved our efficiency by a factor of two, but our consumption went up by a factor of two!

[sparky]

.

Thanks for this clear explanation ,

If I'm not mistaken it could apply to a better jet engine which though more expensive and requiring more energy to make would make flying more affordable to a great numbers ?

.

[jimk]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')make would make flying more affordable to a great numbers

[zeke]

Had William Stanley Jevons had access to things like the intertoobs, cable tee-vee and a couple or three chat rooms, he might have refined his "theory" to something a bit more like this:
Case A: Increased efficiency leads to increased consumption, except in Case B

Case B: When increased efficiency leads to a cubed increased self-satisfaction and hubris of the consuming parties, then the Universe, as bound by the rules, regulations and stern gaze of the Church of Elvis Presley, must, as a matter of the inevitability paradigm,* return fresh resources in the amount of the cube square of the product of smugness factor and resource consumed (in metric tons) to the consuming parties. This is in direct relation to Einstein's implicit continuational theorem of the parallelities of sympathetic, multi-phasic universes which states that a dimple in one dimension equates to a thrice-high pimple in the other, inverse dimension.

In other words, the sooner we slurp down that last oil well, then marvel at ourselves for how efficiently we did it, the sooner those underground oil wells will fill back up. thank you and happy motoring!

* the inevitability paradigm holds, simply: HECK yeah, fool! It'll BE!!!

[zeke]

Oh, and it will multiply the returns by 4 times 10 to the 59283rd power if you recite these words:

When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires will come to you

If your heart is in your dreams, no request is too extreme
When you wish upon a star as dreamers do

(Fate is kind, she brings to those who love
The sweet fulfillment of their secret longing)

Like a bolt out of the blue, fate steps in and sees you thru
When you wish upon a star, your dreams come true

zeke
-------------------------------------------------------
Writer: Leigh Harline; Lyrics: Ned Washington

[Daphne64]

Um... OK.

You might want to cut back on whatever you were imbibing when you penned that.

[JustaGirl]

Nope. He'd be much more interested in what the sun is currently doing, or should I say not doing.

[bratticus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]"The paradox down here is, if you don't grow, you don't get money for conservation," Pattison said.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bratticus', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]"The paradox down here is, if you don't grow, you don't get money for conservation," Pattison said.

[mos6507]

If you're going to build something like this, it's a wise idea to pick ground zero of the housing crisis. That place is really close to where my mom's house is so I signed onto their mailing list. This is probably the last shot the US will have for a Masdar here before TSHTF.