I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:01 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
GreyZone wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
I believe our standard of living would rise as well in a world of balance. It's getting through the rebalancing that will be the challenge.
Explain, please. The biosphere is clearly in overshoot, for human population, with all sorts of varying estimations of the overshoot.
That doesn't look like a better standard of living to most of us posting here. It might, to whomever is still standing afterwards but that won't be most of us. Your phrase - "getting through the rebalance will be the challenge" - is a bit of an understatement, don't you think?
Oh, an understatement by far. Read my other threads and you see that elaborated on. But to answer you directly, yes, we will need to see a population reduction back down to a sustainable level. Most credible studies out the earth's capacity at 2 billion.
Would a world free of the rat race of wanton consumption and the rush hour commute generate a higher standard of living?
Of course.
Will any of us see it?
Maybe some, but not most. Welcome to peakoil. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:07 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
GoIllini wrote:
There won't be a die-off. The planet has a carrying capacity of 8 Billion if we get off the atkins' diet and switch to nuclear energy.
Please cite credible study to support this. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Mon Oct 31, 2005 9:15 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
GoIllini wrote:
But I think all of this is irrelevant. There won't be a die-off. The planet has a carrying capacity of 8 Billion if we get off the atkins' diet and switch to nuclear energy.
Making gratuitous statements about how nuclear power is going to save us again are we? And how do you know what the carrying capacity of the earth would be if we managed to switch to another energy source anyway?
Quote:
And if we wind up with the average family having 1.8 children, as in a lot of European countries, we'll probably head back on down to 2-5 Billion.
Posted: Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:44 am Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
"The planet has a carrying capacity of 8 Billion if we get off the atkins' diet and switch to nuclear energy."
I don't know where you pulled 8 billion. (in fact I can guess, but it's not pretty)
The only way nuclear would have any effect is if the government went totalitarian and pretty much made everyone work on farms. (Nukes don't grow food my friend) There's no way you'd have as many people as now though, let alone more.
In short our system has to change, I believe the Government knows this and is taking steps already. _________________ "One minute I held the key, next the walls were closed on me, and I discovered that my castle stands upon pillars of salt and pillars of sand."
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:05 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
Some might say I have grown rather pedantic in my elder years, but I think it is born more of tedious frustration in the face of mediocrity.
How many times must we rehash some of these issues?
Why are so many of the solutions proffered here of late almost completely dismissive of the entire life-cycle consequences they entail?
Specifically, I see many solutions proposed that just flat totally ignore population growth. No solution, whether it be a techno-fix or a powerdown that does not address population growth is not within the realm of reality...unless the only reality you care about is a selfish, short-term one, where you get yours and the hell with everyone else...much less future generations.
And the biofuels obsession that ignores ecology. The "waste" you wish to burn is food for something else. Period.
Conservation and efficiency solutions that ignore the need to make it a "global" effort to be effective.
Yeah, you are going to see me say Hogwash! a lot more until I see people doing their homework, or at least reading what has been hashed and rehashed ad naseum for years on here before they post these wild spurious claims.
Can we not raise the quality and level of the debate here?
Let's get out of the sandbox. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Apr 28, 2006 Posts: 2897 Location: East Texas
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
MonteQuest wrote:
that does not address population growth is not within the realm of reality...
And yet even the strong proponents of a planned population reduction do not present a plan that could bring the world's population down below a billion within a couple decades.
Quote:
Can we not raise the quality and level of the debate here?
Sure, but we'd have to agree on an objective first, and I think that is currently a large bone of contention. There are those whose objective it is to find ways to allow the continued use of at least 80 gallons of gasoline and 3000 kwh/month of energy (liquid+elec) per family forever, regardless of the cost to the environment. There are those who have for the past twenty years fought globalization and industrialization with every tool they could find, and Peak Oil is only the most recent tool they've found in the tool chest. There are of course the Apocolypse Seekers and Anarchists. And others too.
So we have all these incompatible objectives. If our objectives aren't the same then even having the discussion about solution X or Y is pointless. What seems like success to one, is the definition of failure to the other.
For instance, lets say Joe's objective is to accellerate a high energy economy for as long as physically possible in the hopes of acquiring fusion or real geothermal; and we know yours is to powerdown and reduce the population to sustainable levels using renewable energy sources, relocalization but still retaining much of our technical skills, and enhancing the value of local craftsmen, etc. The objectives are mutually exclusive. No solution exists that allows both outcomes, yet both can be considered as rational paths for human civilization.
As to myself, I would not be displeased if Monte's policy preferences come to pass, but I have to say, its looking pretty grim. The powerup guys have set the field and have left little wiggle room for change. Even if they did fall from power at this point, I don't see how the opposition could do anything but dress the same stinky pig up in a new set of clothes and call it change. For myself, I am truly only interested in figuring out what IS happening so that I can be ready to adapt to whatever set of conditions happen to present themselves. Couldn't care less whose fault something is, nor what shoulda, coulda, woulda been.
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:12 am Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
rwwff wrote:
Sure, but we'd have to agree on an objective first, and I think that is currently a large bone of contention... For myself, I am truly only interested in figuring out what IS happening so that I can be ready to adapt to whatever set of conditions happen to present themselves. Couldn't care less whose fault something is, nor what shoulda, coulda, woulda been.
The objective is to look at all the facts. To be candid, when I look at the professional level of discourse over at the Oil Drum, I am inclined to someway enact a higher level of posting here.
They debate the issues and not the "doomer" crapola.
But, I agree, it comes down to the world paradigm. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Apr 28, 2006 Posts: 2897 Location: East Texas
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:00 am Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
MonteQuest wrote:
The objective is to look at all the facts.
I think everyone already understands the facts. What they disagree about is whether the consequences of any particular item of fact are acceptable or unacceptable.
Quote:
To be candid, when I look at the professional level of discourse over at the Oil Drum, I am inclined to someway enact a higher level of posting here.
Seems about the same to me, though perhaps a little more leftist friendly in the posters' selection of adjectives... I like the format layout for appearance, but it doesn't display as well on my ancient, archaic browser.
Still plenty of the "King George II" stuff on there, which is hardly what I would consider appropriate in a professional conversation.
Quote:
They debate the issues and not the "doomer" crapola.
What???!?!!?! You don't want to talk about defending the Rural Fortress from the approaching Zombie Horde?
Or not even how the US is going to rule the world through militarily enforced dollar hegemony, only to eventually come apart at the seems in a glorious, debauched explosion of filth and excess?
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 9:35 am Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
rwwff wrote:
I think everyone already understands the facts. What they disagree about is whether the consequences of any particular item of fact are acceptable or unacceptable.
No, I don't think they do. Or they readily dismiss them as not relevant, but the rant of the eco-religion freaks or green "doomers."
Look at how many people still dismiss global warming, or that population growth is under control, as we are "projected" to stabilize at 9 billion people by 2050.
They posit this like adding another 2.5 billion people is not big deal. They also fail to grasp the fact that this decline in the birth rate is based and predicated upon the standard of living increasing in the developing world.
With the onset of peak oil, increasing the standard of living is going to be a bit of a challenge. A return to poverty will increase the birth rate and the population growth rate. We could see the high projection of 11 billion instead.
As a park ranger for many years, I am well aware of how uninformed people are with regard to ecology and environmental issues.
From my book Freedom Lost:
Montequest wrote:
Bridge Bay Marina lies in the northern end of Yellowstone Lake just west of the Yellowstone River outlet. Looking down on the bay stands Elephant Back Mountain. Across the lake to the northeast is the famous Fishing Bridge and the prime grizzly bear habitat known as the Pelican Valley.
Nearby stands the Yellowstone Lake Hotel, a magnificent old framed structure that was built in 1892. Within the large rambling hotel's dining room, the human horde is rattling silverware, discussing gas mileage, commenting on the cleanliness of the park's restrooms—which, incidentally seems to be their greatest concern overall—and feeding their face. Most of their conversation seems to be steeped in how far and how fast they have come to be here. Few, if any, seem to be concerned one way or another about what might be out there in this wild expanse of protected wilderness. But is it any wonder, really, when you stop to think about it?
Our civilization has grown increasingly alienated from the processes of nature, and therefore hardly knows where to begin thinking about the likes of ecology. To them the park experience is enjoying some scenery, gawking at a few geysers, roadside stops to set to Kodak the often seen elk or bison herd, and dealing with crowded campgrounds and slow motorhomes. In fact, it is viewed much like a trip to Disneyland, where wild animals should be kept locked up if they are dangerous.
The naiveté of our park visitors is quite evident.
One day, in front of the hotel, a woman was observed trying to photograph her grandchildren not ten feet from a 1500 lb. bison. When a ranger warned her to move away, that the bison was a wild animal and quite dangerous, she replied with obvious indignation, "Well! If they're so dangerous, why do you let them out?"
_________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Apr 28, 2006 Posts: 2897 Location: East Texas
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
MonteQuest wrote:
rwwff wrote:
I think everyone already understands the facts. What they disagree about is whether the consequences of any particular item of fact are acceptable or unacceptable.
No, I don't think they do. Or they readily dismiss them as not relevant, but the rant of the eco-religion freaks or green "doomers."
I probably should have restricted my group to policy makers, wonks, and advocates. Its that group that can make things happen one way or another.
Quote:
As a park ranger for many years, I am well aware of how uninformed people are with regard to ecology and environmental issues.
Quote:
{yellowstone observations
Ah. You mean them. My observation about them is that their attention span to any issue is miniscule. Anything you teach them is lost within a week or two. They also split their vote in very peculiar and unpredictable ways, almost always resulting in a meaningless 50/50 split. I suspect they base their votes upon what they had for breakfast that morning.
On the other hand, to be honest, Yellowstone has turned itself into a theme park. Its not true wilderness, where you can throw on a pack, pick a direction, and start walking, and no one cares whether you come back alive or fall, die, and rot on some hillside. If Yellowstone was wilderness, the ranger in your example might have got out a camera to catch the inevitable result of the woman's stupidity inorder to place it in the running for that month's Ultimate Darwin Award. No, Yellowstone reminds me most of those staged saffari's where the animals are in their spots, and people are in their spots, and both develop some really really bad habits. I am a two hundred pound medium weight predator with extreme short and mid range lethality, (just with natural tools found in the woods), there is no way in h*** it should be natural for a deer to let me get within 50 ft. In national forest wilderness areas, it takes real skill and patience to get anywhere near such an animal without sending it running; which is at it should be. At Yellowstone I get the sense these elk are wondering "Dude!, where'd you leave the truck with they hay on it." Bison are unfathomable to me, I have no idea what they're thinking when I look at them.
Them reminds me of last time I was at Yellowstone in the winter.. I spotted an Eagle perched on a tree branch at the outer limit of the lense I had with me. So I set the tripod up quickly and quietly, and do the best I can to resolve the Eagle and get the shot. Content that I'd seen at least one animal acting like it should, I go back to the snowcrawler van, and get in. A woman saw me taking the shot, and her comment wasn't about the asthetics, framing, technicals, or even how I thought it would come out given the distance... Nope. It was about how I could sell pictures like that.
Kinda lame I know, but: (1/8th second exposure and 300mm lense)
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
Monte wrote:
Can we afford cost-saving energy efficiency?
This is the question posed by the ecological economists Mathias Wackernagel and William Rees. They write (1997):
Quote:
The answer is 'yes' only if efficiency gains are taxed away or otherwise removed from further economic circulation. Preferably they should be captured for reinvestment in natural capital rehabilitation.
Many economists of all persuasions seem to agree that improving energy efficiency through technological means will, by lowering the implicit price, result in increased, not decreased, energy use. Energy efficiency gains can increase energy consumption by two means: by making energy appear effectively cheaper than other inputs; and by increasing economic growth, which increases energy use. This certitude is the result of almost 150 years - since Jevons in the 1860s - of theoretical discussion on resource use, and empirical evidence from historic analysis of energy use in economies.
I don't understand your interpretation Monte. The quote clearly states that Jevons paradox can be bypassed if you prevent the price from dropping.
That is possible by taxation.
Take my natural gas bill for instance. We have two tariffs. The lowest tariff is for an average efficient household. When you surpass that tariff (you have a energy inefficient household) you pay the higher tariff.
The money that is collected by these taxes is redistributed in the form of subsidies. For instance when you buy a efficient heater, floor insulation or double glazing for your house you get a subsidy.
The program has been evaluated early this year and it shows that since the program was launched 10 years ago it has led to a 22% decrease in household consumption. As electric heating and oil heating is absent here that is entirely caused by increased efficiency, not by people switching.
And as far as I'm aware off it has not led to a negative economic impact. Al the money that has been extracted is returned to the economy.
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
smiley wrote:
I don't understand your interpretation Monte. The quote clearly states that Jevons paradox can be bypassed if you prevent the price from dropping.
That is possible by taxation.
Or by raising the price as efficiency increases. I don't know why you are confused. I have been quite consistent in my position on this.
Quote:
And as far as I'm aware off it has not led to a negative economic impact. Al the money that has been extracted is returned to the economy.
And therein lies the rub. This money cannot be returned to the economy if it provides an increased ability to consume elsewhere. The money has to be spent to further reduce consumption, not allow for more.
You have to think the subsidy flow through.
Is there a net reduction in overall household energy use, or just gas consumption? Does the money and energy spent on insulation or other efficiency measures negate the gas savings or actually increase energy use?
Even if it shows a gain, what happens to the money that is spent on insulation and other efficiency measures? When the contractor is paid, does it he spend it on futher conservation measures, or does he buy a new Hummer?
If he spends it on a Hummer, then you are back to square one.
Conservation tax subsidies must only be spent to further reduce consumption forever to be effective. Otherwise, you have just shifted the sector of consumption from natural gas to Hummer purchases. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
Ludi wrote:
Since I make physical objects for a living, I don't understand the "service economy." I don't understand how there can be an entire economy based on not actually doing or making anything.
The entire economy can't be service-based; service industries are by and large totally dependent upon manufacturing. Without manufacturing, few service industries could exist. Someone has to make the computers which IT services rely on, and we can't all massage our neighbours for a living.
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:30 am Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
Quote:
Even if it shows a gain, what happens to the money that is spent on insulation and other efficiency measures? When the contractor is paid, does it he spend it on further conservation measures, or does he buy a new Hummer?
If he spends it on a Hummer, then you are back to square one.
LOL ..... Vehicles are taxed on a weight basis. The vehicle tax for a Hummer H1 is $320 per month. For comparison a light hatchback like a Peugeot 205 costs you about $12 per month. So your contractor (i)needs to make a lot of money and (ii) must be very desperate to own a big car.
By implementing progressive taxing on all major components of the energy use you can prevent the spillover effect you describe.
Quote:
Is there a net reduction in overall household energy use, or just gas consumption?
Gas is a such a big component of our energy use, so I would say that overall energy consumption is dropping.
However electricity use is increasing despite a similar program. This is mainly due to the increased market penetration of dishwashers, flat screen TV's and computers. I guess the gas program is more effective since everybody already had a heating system.
On the bright side the generation by alternative means (solar, wind) is also growing due to subsidies. It is now at 13% of the total electricity generation.
These programs are not far-reaching enough to do anything about Peakoil, and I wonder whether you will ever get the political backup for a program that does. But I think they prove the principle of using taxes to steer public behavior.
IMO a solution to PO must contain three elements.
1) Population reduction
2) Eliminating unnecessary consumption
3) Increasing the efficiency of those things we need to do.
Now you can appeal to the public and corporate conscience, to do something about it, but I think we both agree that is not a viable option.
You have to understand what people do listen to. I am of the opinion that the quickest way to get the peoples attention is via their wallet.
What you do is you make some kind of benchmark. That is how you want people to behave. Then via selective taxing you punish those who fail to reach the benchmark, reward those who are doing better than the benchmark, and help those who want to improve their behavior.
Taxation does not equal to killing the economy, that is a corporate fairytale. A fairytale that has been told so many times and with so much persuasion that unfortunately those who actually strive for sustainability are starting to believe it.
Posted: Sun Jun 25, 2006 10:46 am Post subject: Re: Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation
smiley wrote:
Taxation does not equal to killing the economy, that is a corporate fairytale. A fairytale that has been told so many times and with so much persuasion that unfortunately those who actually strive for sustainability are starting to believe it.
But, we must kill the economy as we know it. That is the goal.
From Dr. Albert Bartlett:
Quote:
First Law
Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.
A) A population growth rate less than or equal to zero and declining rates of consumption of resources are necessary conditions for a sustainable society.
B) Unsustainability will be the certain result of any program of "development," whether or not it is said to be "sustainable," that ignores the problem of population growth and that does not plan the achievement of zero or a period of negative growth of populations and of rates of consumption of resources.
C) The research and regulation programs of governmental agencies that are charged with protecting the environment and promoting sustainability" are, in the long run, irrelevant unless these programs address vigorously and quantitatively the determination of optimal population sizes that can be carried indefinitely and unless the programs study in depth the demographic causes and consequences of environmental problems.
D) Societies, or sectors of a society, that depend on population growth or growth in their rates of consumption of resources, are unsustainable.
E) Persons who advocate population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources are advocating unsustainability.
F) Persons whose actions directly or indirectly cause increases in population or in the rates of consumption of resources are moving society away from sustainability. (Advertising your city or state as an ideal site in which to locate new factories indicates a desire to increase the population of your city or state.)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
