[MonteQuest]

If you don't know it by now, peak oil means the end of cheap, readily available oil. This price increase will flow through our economy like a pandemic disease, causing higher commodity prices, economic decline and rising unemployment. But not just commodities; there will be inflation in the price of everything. We are seeing it already. The most dependent countries on oil will be the most affected, and the least affluent countries will bear the first wave of economic onslaught as they will be the least able to afford the higher prices. Affluent countries like the US will have conservation and energy efficiency to initially fall back upon, followed by a decline in the standard of living. The poorer countries will just do without, having no huge gluttonous fat belly to sustain them for the harsh winter of oil decline.

Foreign aid and subsidies will fall to the wayside, and there will arise conflict between the natives and immigrants, especially the illegal ones. Homes and jobs will be lost, spurring competition for the remaining occupations that manage to survive the downsizing. As unemployment rises, there will be a migration into the military for work to support families. Families will double up in one home, while others will take in boarders to help cover expenses. Marginal business will fail and the rising dissent amongst the people will be squashed.

I have been trying to think of what I would cut out of my budget when it gets tight. I think I would no longer eat out at restaurants. I'm curious as to what others would cut, and if we can see a pattern or consensus for what jobs would first go? I think most people will pay whatever price gas is, until they no longer can. The more affluent, and those more forward-thinking will buy more efficient vehicles. Maybe, like in the phrasing of James Howard Kunstler, there will be a "decanting" of the suburban population back into the city as the 150 mile per day commutes become foolish and totally unaffordable.

How chaotic will this transformation get? And remember, we are not talking about shortages yet, just higher prices. This transition period may last sometime, perhaps years, before we see the signs of a real die-off, and then it will be those who are the most weak and dependent upon others. I think more might die due to conflict than anything else. They sure fought in the gas lines I was in during the gas crisis of the 1970's.

The end of cheap fossil fuels is going to have some dire repercussions. I'm not sure how accurate mine might be, but it sure is a place to start a discussion. Let's try to focus on the near-term effects. We are seeing some of them already in inflation and rising interest rates. And let's assume we don't have a Murphy's Law event right away to start a domino effect that leads to chaos, ok?

[Elijah]

I think we'll be surprised how much we can conserve and how this will forestall the most painful effects of Peak Oil for some number of years.

I think most of us could easily cut our energy use by 10-20% without feeling significant pain. The effect on world oil supplies would be dramatic.

We do start doing things like carpooling, using public transit, switching to high MPG cars and motorcycles, even walking and bicycling more. Not to mention turning the thermostate down or up a few degrees, taking shorter showers, using low wattage bulbs and flat-screen computers, etc., etc. The opportunities are practically endless.

So much of the unnecessary energy we consume is used just because it is so cheap. When it's not so cheap, we'll adapt.

I know, I know, that will only get us a temporary reprieve, but I don't think we should underestimate its potential to buy time. Meanwhile economic activity will shift from SUVs and other high energy consumption goods and activities to energy-saving goods and activities, so it's not like the economy will crash, but it will transition in the near-intermediate term.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Elijah', 'I') think we'll be surprised how much we can conserve and how this will forestall the most painful effects of Peak Oil for some number of years.
I think most of us could easily cut our energy use by 10-20% without feeling significant pain. The effect on world oil supplies would be dramatic.
We do start doing things like carpooling, using public transit, switching to high MPG cars and motorcycles, even walking and bicycling more. Not to mention turning the thermostate down or up a few degrees, taking shorter showers, using low wattage bulbs and flat-screen computers, etc., etc. The opportunities are practically endless.
So much of the unnecessary energy we consume is used just because it is so cheap. When it's not so cheap, we'll adapt.
I know, I know, that will only get us a temporary reprieve, but I don't think we should underestimate its potential to buy time. Meanwhile economic activity will shift from SUVs and other high energy consumption goods and activities to energy-saving goods and activities, so it's not like the economy will crash, but it will transition in the near-intermediate term.

[Elijah]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'P')erhaps the opportunities are endless, but so is the population growth. I recently read that two physicists acknowledged that a 40% decline in our energy use would merely buy us 17 years before those savings would be consumed by new hungry mouths.
And what about the jobs that will be lost to this adaptation? What would you cut out? Who's job would you kill? Remember, millions of people make a living on our wastefulness.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Elijah', ' ')True enough, but 17 years is, well, 17 years.
As for people making a living on our wastefulness, people can also make a living enabling our conservation...supplying all those energy-efficient goods and services.
Transitions are always tough. I think economists it "creative destruction."
Long-term I'm a Peak Oil believer, but I think the transition will more slow and grinding than abrupt and apocalyptic.

[eric_b]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', ' ')(...)How chaotic will this transformation get? And remember, we are not talking about shortages yet, just higher prices. This transition period may last sometime, perhaps years, before we see the signs of a real die-off, and then it will be those who are the most weak and dependent upon others. I think more might die due to conflict than anything else. They sure fought in the gas lines I was in during the gas crisis of the 1970’s.

[UIUCstudent01]

In the United States, it seems like everybody is buying up homes. And, I've seen new subdivisions put up near highways. Well, the thing that I've seen is that every family needs a house. And my older two brothers both have or will shortly have families - one will no doubt be very 'successful' as a doctor, but the other has $10/hour job at a music store and has had a few bands play gigs and such in Chicago. I think the most commonly thing we will see is that families will start bunching up in a single house like my brother has done (Even right now, this is relatively common, but I mean on the long-term - forced or co-erced by the energy/money shortage.)

Although, I think this is kind of interesting - it's kind of the first step towards the people understanding the macroscopic problem on a personal level.

People I think will blame it on the war on Iran in combination to the housing bubble. Oh yeah, we'll have alot blame on other sources. We'll blame everything but us.

[Madpaddy]

We have already reduced our excursions to restaurants and bars.

I will no longer buy useless plastic toys for my children. Wooden toys, books and jigsaws as well as exercise equipment like trampolines and swings are what the kids are getting from now on. Those boys need to be hardened up for the coming tribulations.

Stock up on essentials like CFL lightbulbs, bottled gas for cooking etc. while the prices are low.

Medium term I agree with Elijah that conservation and cutbacks will take a lot of the sting out of the tail. And I hope upon hope that world governments get together to stop population growth because this is the only thing that will make a lasting mitigating effect against the worst aspects of PO.

[CarnbY]

I agree with Elijah that conservation has great potential. What I'm worried about is the fact that the people who have a lot of 'slack to pull in' on their energy consumption, are also the ones that are well off. They're not gonna start cutting down until prices get really high. By that time the people who are already conserving (not because of energy shortage, but 'cause they have a hard time paying the bills) will be out on the streets. Add to that everyone who will lose their jobs in the travel and leisure industries. I doubt these millions of people are gonna sit around and accept the situation... Then again, Americans never cease to amaze me with the crap they put up with from their government

[Enquest]

I wouldn't cut now down on youre restaurant. Enyou while you can. You see when peak oil is there and the economy will be sputtering, then we will have money devaluating. That means that somebody who had 100.000$ would suddenly find out that he can't buy that much with 100.000$

I'm saving my money to buy some place just when the first crisis hits.

[Doly]

I have been trying to investigate the subject, and I'm convinced that what happened in the seventies is the best model for the near future. But I haven't been able to find any source that explained in any detail what happened to the economy in the seventies, apart from generic comments about inflation. Has anybody found more in-depth information?

[sventvkg]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Elijah', 'I') think we'll be surprised how much we can conserve and how this will forestall the most painful effects of Peak Oil for some number of years.
I think most of us could easily cut our energy use by 10-20% without feeling significant pain. The effect on world oil supplies would be dramatic.
We do start doing things like carpooling, using public transit, switching to high MPG cars and motorcycles, even walking and bicycling more. Not to mention turning the thermostate down or up a few degrees, taking shorter showers, using low wattage bulbs and flat-screen computers, etc., etc. The opportunities are practically endless.
So much of the unnecessary energy we consume is used just because it is so cheap. When it's not so cheap, we'll adapt.
I know, I know, that will only get us a temporary reprieve, but I don't think we should underestimate its potential to buy time. Meanwhile economic activity will shift from SUVs and other high energy consumption goods and activities to energy-saving goods and activities, so it's not like the economy will crash, but it will transition in the near-intermediate term.

[Riverside]

The first thing that would be cut at my house is satelite tv. Then the cell phones, then home phone and internet . last to go would be electric and trash service. We are already on a tight budget, so I don't have any "eating out" money to save.

How many layoffs will there be when DirecTV or Cingular feel the pinch of our collective pennies? How will those people adjust to having no job and no hope of finding another? The economic impact will be felt before an oil shortage. I can limit my driving more, saving the fuel budget for dh to go to work. I can turn off services, adding money if fuel prices spike. I can live well without cell phones or 500 channels of tv.

I wanted to add....hybrid cars are great, and so are flat screen tv's and monitors. So which of the advocates of these will buy one for me? If my budget is tight already, how can I afford to buy a new car, or even a new tv? Lightbulbs I can manage, thanks, lol. I must live well below the means of most people posting here, and so does everyone I know. I have to make do with what I have. Thinking about getting rid of my old but paid for vehicles is not an option.

Carla

[No-Oil]

The comments about people making a living out of our wastefulness are spot on the money & part of the problem. Surplus makes more surplus, so if we cut back on our surplus spending, whether by design or necessity, then we free up those surplus workers. To help this make sense, in 1979 when I left school I could not get a job, because there was a recesion & there were no jobs to be had. People stopped planning babies because money was tight & there were no prospects for their offspring etc.

After 25years of fairly continuous growth & a migration of many millions of people around the world to fill the low paid jobs in the western world, that the locals did not want to do. The locals have had kids again, but the birth rate has never really recovered from the 70's & 80's economic shocks, even with a more promiscuous society. What did change was the cash surpluses, such that many new niche & fringe jobs were created. The problem with recession & depression, is that there is no answer as to what to do with the unemployed when the surpluses that fuled their existence has evaporated.

There will be massive clamp downs on immegration to all modern western nations. In the USA I'd expect the Mexican border to become a free fire zone line the Berlin wall was. Instead of nice border guards arresting or trying to discourage people from crossing in to US, there will be armed guards in watch towers shooting perpetrators.

This is likely to be followed up with forced repatriation or deportation of both illegal & legal perceived "non local" persons, this will free up remaining low end jobs for the unemployed locals. When you have choices you make them, when you have none you take what you can get !

After a couple of generations, the surplus bodies will either be dead or exported to die. An alternative would be work camps or labour camps, based loosely on "slavery". In the uK there used to be work houses, which were basically camps where destitute people were sent or voluntarily entered. They were given basic needs accomodation & fed in exchange for work. They provided worse conditions than todays prisoners are subject to.

The best option would be for the government to control/stop immigration & enforce birth control this would allow natural attrition (as our global corporates are fond of) to free up work space for the unemployed. If as noted above, the cuts could add 17years to to the time frame, a static population could experience resonable population decline if very limited births were permitted & no immigration !

Reduced spending on expensive healthcare for termally ill patients & a major reduction in foreign aid would solve a lot of the population problems in other parts of the world. It is interesting to note that the third world still has increasing populations, primarily fuelled by our handouts & assistance.

I'd expect to see corporal punishment become the nor rather than incarseration with a major step up in the application of the death penalty. The would not add significant deterent to crime, but would greatly reduce overheads in running prisons !

As the Honda advert goes "can hate be good, can hate be great" the answer is a definative yes when applied to population reduction. For 2 or 3 generations we will have surplus bodies running around, then the birth reductions will kick in & we will see less & less young people, that will in turn lead to more job losses on the childcare, education, clothing etc & so it goes on. A deep downward spiral.

If the cuts etc gain 17years & it starts in 2 or 3 years, then that will suit me fine, as I'll be to old to care by then

[sventvkg]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('No-Oil', 'T')he comments about people making a living out of our wastefulness are spot on the money & part of the problem. Surplus makes more surplus, so if we cut back on our surplus spending, whether by design or necessity, then we free up those surplus workers. To help this make sense, in 1979 when I left school I could not get a job, because there was a recesion & there were no jobs to be had. People stopped planning babies because money was tight & there were no prospects for their offspring etc.
After 25years of fairly continuous growth & a migration of many millions of people around the world to fill the low paid jobs in the western world, that the locals did not want to do. The locals have had kids again, but the birth rate has never really recovered from the 70's & 80's economic shocks, even with a more promiscuous society. What did change was the cash surpluses, such that many new niche & fringe jobs were created. The problem with recession & depression, is that there is no answer as to what to do with the unemployed when the surpluses that fuled their existence has evaporated.
There will be massive clamp downs on immegration to all modern western nations. In the USA I'd expect the Mexican border to become a free fire zone line the Berlin wall was. Instead of nice border guards arresting or trying to discourage people from crossing in to US, there will be armed guards in watch towers shooting perpetrators.
This is likely to be followed up with forced repatriation or deportation of both illegal & legal perceived "non local" persons, this will free up remaining low end jobs for the unemployed locals. When you have choices you make them, when you have none you take what you can get !
After a couple of generations, the surplus bodies will either be dead or exported to die. An alternative would be work camps or labour camps, based loosely on "slavery". In the uK there used to be work houses, which were basically camps where destitute people were sent or voluntarily entered. They were given basic needs accomodation & fed in exchange for work. They provided worse conditions than todays prisoners are subject to.
The best option would be for the government to control/stop immigration & enforce birth control this would allow natural attrition (as our global corporates are fond of) to free up work space for the unemployed. If as noted above, the cuts could add 17years to to the time frame, a static population could experience resonable population decline if very limited births were permitted & no immigration !
Reduced spending on expensive healthcare for termally ill patients & a major reduction in foreign aid would solve a lot of the population problems in other parts of the world. It is interesting to note that the third world still has increasing populations, primarily fuelled by our handouts & assistance.
I'd expect to see corporal punishment become the nor rather than incarseration with a major step up in the application of the death penalty. The would not add significant deterent to crime, but would greatly reduce overheads in running prisons !
As the Honda advert goes "can hate be good, can hate be great" the answer is a definative yes when applied to population reduction. For 2 or 3 generations we will have surplus bodies running around, then the birth reductions will kick in & we will see less & less young people, that will in turn lead to more job losses on the childcare, education, clothing etc & so it goes on. A deep downward spiral.
If the cuts etc gain 17years & it starts in 2 or 3 years, then that will suit me fine, as I'll be to old to care by then

[Ebyss]

Near term...

Well, I think the rising prices in oil will cause alot of drivers to say "F*** that, I'm not paying a fiver a litre" and they'll jump on the bus/train to get to work. So public transport use will increase dramatically. People will also get walking and get their bikes back out.

Recently, bin charges were introduced into our area. We previously had our waste taken away and dumped in a landfill miles and miles away for free. Then bin charges were introduced. Expensive charges; it costs €360 approx. per year per house. People were outraged initially. They protested and wouldn't pay, they got letters summoning them to court, so they paid up pretty quickly. The government also introduced recycling bins, you were not charged for this service, but people didn't really bother. The incentive of a cleaner planet didn't really inspire them. Then, the Council introduced pay-by-weight charges, and that's when it got interesting. Everybody recycles as much as they can now. Anything that can't go in the recycle bin, gets taken to the local recycling centre. People all of a sudden realised that they don't have to pay for the weight if they recycle! It gets better, people are looking for every possible way to reduce the weight of their bins to avoid paying the charges. Everyone wants a compost bin, and the government has even been good enough to subsidise the purchase of compost bins.

The point of that story was to emphasise that until people feel the pinch in their pockets, they're not going to do anything. They don't care about PO, or the environment, or global warming or war, they care about their MONEY. It's as simple as that. Convince people that they will save money by doing XYZ, or that they'll get more for their buck if they do XYZ and they'll go for it. Don't tell them though, let them figure it out by providing all available data, and let them think they're cheating the system. People love thinking they're smarter than the big guys. If food becomes expensive and the government says "You can only have X amount of food per family", the first thing people will do is say "Screw you" and grow their own food, all the while thinking "Only have so much food, yeah?.. wait'll I show you... wait'll you see the amount of tomatoes I get this year". Gardening will become the new tax evasion.

I think public transport use will go up. The government may introduce a grant scheme for green energy for individual houses, and people will think they're getting a bargain (everybody loves a bargain right?). I think locally grown and produced food will become more attractive as it becomes more and more expensive to import foods due to incresing oil prices. I think people will turn to cheaper fuels very quickly to heat their homes, coal, wood etc. People will look to save whereever they can, my friends have a payphone in their house because the phonebill got too big. They got a coin-op electricity meter, so that when they want to use something, they have to pay for it right then and there; they end up using less electricity of course.

[Pops]

Macro political / technological events are, IMO, so difficult to predict reliably as to be essentially worthless for more than idle conversation. But if the question is “How will I cope with the obvious effects of rising energy costsâ€

[AdzP]

As a discussion point...if you are saying high energy prices will happen, so much so that they hurt `ordinary` folks, then how will the new/alternative goods and services be made? What energy will people use to make these new goods/items etc?

What industry is going to emerge to make all these new goods using what source of energy?

Surely if energy is X times as expensive making a wind turbine/bicycle for ten/recyclable range of hats will be Wind turbine/bicycle10/recyc-hat x $X...

[Ebyss]

Good point AdzP. I suspect the answer to your question is "man power". It's what we made the gun with, the bicycle with, the car with, the boat with, the first windmill with... I imagine it's what we'll fall back to if needs be. Yes, it means mass production can't be sustained. That's why I always say, it'll go back to localised communities. You'll have a boat builder in your local seaside community, a bicycle maker etc etc. Where will we get the metals and materials from? Well.. Pops old car that he can't sell might make good scrap metal for bikes. There are ways around most of these things, but not all of them. We're just going to have to let some things go.

[tokyo_to_motueka]

speaking of vehicles, i would want to get a pre-electonic fuel injection era vehicle (i.e. one with an actual carburettor) so that i can learn to do my own engine maintenance. modern cars require all this fancy equipment to work on, not like 30-40 years ago when everyone fixed their own cars. it would need to be smallish so it still got good mileage per gallon.