Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Joined: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 1203 Location: Left the cult
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:04 am Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
Omnitir wrote:
Yes but Jevon’s paradox is only relevant when there is abundant cheap energy, in other words – on the up slope. As soon as we hit peak and demand begins to outpace supply, any conservation effort does not free up resources to allow an increase of consumption, but will free up resources to meet demand.
Jevon’s paradox is not a physical law but a phenomenon based on observation. And logic should tell us that it does not apply on the down slope.
Your logic is wrong. Conserving when there is abundant energy has little effect on the price, so the effect is small. Conversely, conserving when supply is short will have a bigger effect on the price, so in fact the effect will be greater.
Quote:
The main point is that post peak, thanks to the massive amount of conservation possible in the current system, there will be a considerable time period between when the reality of the end of the oil age hits the mainstream, and when conservation efforts can no longer meet demand. Over this time period, there will be considerable motivation on all fronts to make a transition off oil.
You really don't get it do you? Demand reduces when price is too high. 'To meet demand' means reducing price, i.e. making it available to people who can't otherwise afford it. The only reason massive conservation will meet demand is because it reduces prices. Reduced prices will deter investment in alternatives.
Unless you are expecting the free market for oil to replaced with a command economy, which seems unlikely. _________________ It's all downhill from here
Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 791 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 7:08 am Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
Quote:
You really don't get it do you? Demand reduces when price is too high. 'To meet demand' means reducing price, i.e. making it available to people who can't otherwise afford it. The only reason massive conservation will meet demand is because it reduces prices. Reduced prices will deter investment in alternatives.
Unless you are expecting the free market for oil to replaced with a command economy, which seems unlikely.
Care to explain why a command economy is unlikely? If oil soars to $200 a barrel and commerce is brought to a grinding halt, you can bet your bottom dollar that the government will be doing something to solve the problem (even if it is truly unsolvable). I can easily see the government nationalizing all energy resources and doling it out via a rationing system, and finding a way to "recapture" the extremely high prices being paid for energy to meet the population's need for food, housing, etc.
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:12 am Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
Omnitir wrote:
In such circumstances described above (where we have no choice but to conserve), how many new comers can we expect?
Due to population demographics we can expect the population to continue to grow for 50 more years at zero population growth. Each couple has two kids.
Quote:
The main point is that post peak, thanks to the massive amount of conservation possible in the current system, there will be a considerable time period between when the reality of the end of the oil age hits the mainstream, and when conservation efforts can no longer meet demand. Over this time period, there will be considerable motivation on all fronts to make a transition off oil.
Maybe lots of motivation, but few jobs due to conservation, deflation, and a lack of capital for investment with less than zero for a savings rate. We would have to borrow from the Chinese to fund the transition or hyperinflate the currency by printing it. _________________ 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: Oct 14, 2004 Posts: 1203 Location: Left the cult
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:38 am Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
Byron100 wrote:
Care to explain why a command economy is unlikely? If oil soars to $200 a barrel and commerce is brought to a grinding halt, you can bet your bottom dollar that the government will be doing something to solve the problem (even if it is truly unsolvable). I can easily see the government nationalizing all energy resources and doling it out via a rationing system, and finding a way to "recapture" the extremely high prices being paid for energy to meet the population's need for food, housing, etc.
OK, you guys tell me. Is the USA ready to embrace socialism? _________________ It's all downhill from here
Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 791 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:45 am Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
Quote:
Maybe lots of motivation, but few jobs due to conservation, deflation, and a lack of capital for investment with less than zero for a savings rate. We would have to borrow from the Chinese to fund the transition or hyperinflate the currency by printing it.
Can you tell me why we wouldn't find a way to "recapture" the vast amount of monies going into the oil sector? I mean, that money does have to go somewhere, right?
But oil money or no, I think printing dollars to pay for massive alternative energy projects will be the way to go...inflation be damned. Solves the peasky problem of all those danged mortgage and debt payments, too. Another thing that I see that the US might attempt doing is convincing other major economies (Japan, Europe) to inflate their currencies in lockstep with ours, creating some sort of "false equibrium" that could enable the transition off of fossil fuels even in the face of global economic contraction.
(Just trying to put an optimistic spin on things, is all )
Joined: Sep 08, 2005 Posts: 791 Location: Atlanta, GA
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:48 am Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
bobcousins wrote:
Byron100 wrote:
Care to explain why a command economy is unlikely? If oil soars to $200 a barrel and commerce is brought to a grinding halt, you can bet your bottom dollar that the government will be doing something to solve the problem (even if it is truly unsolvable). I can easily see the government nationalizing all energy resources and doling it out via a rationing system, and finding a way to "recapture" the extremely high prices being paid for energy to meet the population's need for food, housing, etc.
OK, you guys tell me. Is the USA ready to embrace socialism?
I think they will once they realize that the "forever growth" paradigm of the free-marketers is kaput. That's not to say that my hypthothetical Mr. L. Faire wouldn't ever be elected President, but if that were to happen, it's time to start singin' the doomer blues...
Joined: Sep 13, 2005 Posts: 276 Location: A land called Honalee
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:17 am Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
Quote:
However, I am not aware of any data suggesting that we will not be able to eat or to have a shelter and some clothe by 2050. Where is it?
Well, we can start with a report on historical crop yields per acre that's on the USDA website. I've got a copy of it and the URL on my laptop, but I don't have time to fire it up right now and configure it for my home network. I'll post it tomorrow if you can't find it.
Anyway, the data goes back to 1860 (when industrialization was already underway). What you see, especially when correlated with increased usage of nitrogen fertilizer (data also available on the USDA website), is that crop yields have increased between 400%-700% since that time. I've seen European data that was actually more telling, especially for Eastern Europe, but I do not know at this time where to find it again. IIRC, though, the crop yield increase there was substantial as a result of industrialized agriculture--roughly an 8-fold increase.
The correlation does not hold when looking at hybridization tables, or other such data. The reasonable conclusion, then, is that nitrogen fertilizer usage is primarily responsible for increased crop yields, and that once it becomes impossible for us to make those fertilizers artificially, our crop yields will decline significantly, leading to shortages of food and fibers for textiles.
Organic agriculture offers some hope on a small scale, but since I work in that industry, I can tell you that it's not scalable. It's impossible to farm large fields organically without the use of heavy machines and lots of under-the-table labor. One of the things that studies done on research farms don't usually tell you is that all of the well known farms have bunches of free labor in the form of students doing an internship. Without free labor, the farms would not exist as purely organic farms.
Getting the same yields through organic agriculture on, say, a 2 or 3 acre field is possible, but it is very difficult, and often it relies on leaving more to chance than is widely reported. Pesticides, especially, become important. If we posit that the really effective chemical pesticides will become unavailable sometime post-peak (as it seems reasonable to do), then we're left with using natural pesticides made of marigolds, tobacco, capsaicin, etc. Those work in a much more limited fashion, and in years with a heavy infestation of pest insects or fungi, crop yields must decline in Organic agriculture.
Not that I'm bashing organic methods. It's obvious that we must adopt them, and soon. But what we will find is that the promising studies to do with high crop yields were not done objectively, and that we will not be able to sustain the crop yields that we have now--especially when you consider the up-chain petroleum inputs. Biological controls do not occur naturally everywhere. On my garden, for instance, I'm getting ready to bring in some ladybugs from a distant source. They'll have to be shipped using petroleum. Once it becomes necessary to use such mechanisms to control pests on a wide scale, not only will we have immense difficulty finding enough of a given biological agent, we'll also have to ship it far and wide at great expense.
Nor will we be able to avail ourselves of clotches made of plastic, or of mulch fabrics made of the same, both of which are vital to high yield organic agriculture as it exists now. And there are plenty of other examples of vital inputs and devices that organic agriculture uses that rely on pretroleum. We won't have access to those at some point post-peak.
Quote:
Do you think this will happen in the next ten thousand years? If yes, why?
If no, why do you even care?
I don't know whether it will happen in the next ten thousand years or not. But I care about people, whether they're people I know or not. I care about the human race in general. Regardless of spatial or temporal separation from people, I care about what happens to them. Are you trying to insinuate that I should not?
Joined: Sep 13, 2005 Posts: 276 Location: A land called Honalee
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:19 am Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
Quote:
Ashurbanipal, I hope you'll try to get a copy of "Permaculture: a Designers' Manual" by Bill Mollison, which gives a detailed template for a different way of life not so dependent on energy, but with a high quality of life. I think you will find it very encouraging, and also may answer someof your questions about what we can do. I really recommend this book to everyone. If you can't afford it (it's rather expensive) try to get a copy through interlibrary loan.
I used to have a copy. For a variety of reasons, it's not practical for me to use his methods completely, but for others in different situations, he's definitely got valuable input. I recommend him as well; it's just not practical for my situation.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13174 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:25 pm Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
ashurbanipal wrote:
Getting the same yields through organic agriculture on, say, a 2 or 3 acre field is possible, but it is very difficult,
Not according to those who have studied the work of Masanobu Fukuoka, who achieved yields comprable to those in mechanised agriculture, using no- till "organic" methods.
Why would you need pesticides in organic agriculture? _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
Joined: Sep 13, 2005 Posts: 276 Location: A land called Honalee
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:34 pm Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
Quote:
Not according to those who have studied the work of Masanobu Fukuoka, who achieved yields comprable to those in mechanised agriculture, using no- till "organic" methods.
I'd have to actually look at one of the studies to comment, but I'd be willing to bet that they suffer from at least one of the flaws I pointed out. No till agriculture is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned unless Fukuoka is doing something truly revolutionary. Again, it's not scalable.
Quote:
Why would you need pesticides in organic agriculture?
What a weird question. Obviously, you can't use chemical pesticides in organic agriculture and still call it organic, which is the first part of the point. The second part of the point is that pests destroy crops. Surely you understand the implication.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13174 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
Many practitioners of organic agriculture do not experience problems with "pests" and in fact don't recognise insects as "pests" but instead as indicators of unhealthy plants. Eliot Coleman has organically farmed successfully for decades in Vermont and Maine without use of pesticides.
You seem to expect these methods to somehow translate to industrial agriculture scale. Why? With less petroleum, industrial style agriculture won't be possible, probably. Our manner of growing food will simply have to change. This doesn't seem a bizarre concept to me, especially since people here on PO continually point out that in order to avoid the worst effects of peak oil our culture will have to drastically change. A basic part of our culture is how we grow food. Don't you think that would have to change too? _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 12:54 pm Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
My parents stopped growing corn when they couldn't keep crows out of the corn in their organic garden.
Also as oil prices increase, you'll have a more difficult time ordering biological pesticides.
I think organic gardening is the only way to go in the future but it simply will not yield as many vegetables in the future. It'll cost more too and the vegetables won't be as attractive as the vegetables we see in store now.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13174 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 1:55 pm Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
deafskeptic wrote:
I think organic gardening is the only way to go in the future but it simply will not yield as many vegetables in the future. It'll cost more too and the vegetables won't be as attractive as the vegetables we see in store now.
Well, that's just not true. The Biointensive method yields are higher than industrial ag yields for vegetables.
These comments are very frustrating and make me sad. I feel you are well-meaning, caring people, but you are so set in your ideas, you won't accept information which is contrary to what you think you know.
Crows can be a problem with corn, they always have been. That didn't keep people from growing corn in the past. Personally, I have a lot of trouble from armadillos. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:10 pm Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
Thanks for the link. I think my parents have used some biointenisve methods (double dug raised beds and composting) and thanks for the link. There's a lot I need to learn. This looks like it'll work very well.
I am open to a lot of stuff as I'm aware there's a great deal I don't know.
I wonder if crows prefer prefer the supersweet kind of corn to the regular corn grown for corn bread and grits and such.
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13174 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 2:14 pm Post subject: Re: Conservation, Doom, Madness
I wasn't able to grow sweet corn because racoons ate it, but I had no major "pest" or varmint problems growing field corn (specifically Tohono O'odham 60-day corn).
I hope that link will help some other folks. If I were able to help people learn more about growing food, I'd feel I was doing something of value. But here at PO.com, it doesn't go over very well, usually.... _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
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
)
