Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 1134 Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 6:35 pm Post subject: Collapse probably won't happen
Everybody probably agrees that our dysfunctional modern world will not change its energy consuming habits without an external force that will impose itself. It seems likely that this external force will be peak oil and the resulting economic and environmental havoc.
Passing the moment of peak oil will mean a slow drawn out decline of available fossil fuels probably for a couple of decades. The power down solution of conservation and cutting waste will certainly be a major corrective force along with a ramping up of a multitude of alternative renewables like biodiesel, wind, solar along with a revived nuclear energy industry. Shouldn't conservation and the combination of all the alternative energy sources taken together as a whole certainly be able to match the annual rate of fossil fuel depletion after the peak in the decades ahead? For this to work it assumes of course that there is a plasticity inherent in our society to evolve and to persevere in a powered down society. Change will be forced upon us as the years unfold and adapt we will. I think allot of people who only see collapse coming up ahead believe this principally because they assume that our modern society has lost this plasticity and ability to evolve and that we are in some permanent static state made up of a bunch of energy consuming parasites in a state of consumer zombification.
Objectivity in projecting into the future is always challenging because when predicting we are tainted by the reality of the moment. And it doesn't look good at the moment when you drive down any suburban boulevard or look at the current politics in America. We all agree that this American dream is an illusion, right? Unsustainable, right? If it is all such an illusion than why do we assume that it is so solid that our culture can or will not evolve out of it once the external pressures of Peak Oil are felt and we are forced to change? I think the reason many of us believe that our society cannot change is because we are witnessing the most unprecedented warped government that America has ever had. Our current administration wants to preserve the "American Dream" and will do everything including war to achieve this "static state" in our culture so that we don't ever have to change. There is no vision coming from Washington except one of domination and fear in dealing with the upcoming energy crisis. Why do I believe that collapse will not happen? Because a government who governs with fear and domination has no survivability (witness how America has plunged at an accelerated pace toward bankruptcy during the past 8 years). The only thing I see collapsing in the years ahead is this administration. You know that odd fact that the moment that Hubbert's peak happens is the moment that we are producing the most oil and that we only realize the peak happened looking back afterwards? That is a good analogy of our current government. The moment that our government seems the most incompetent, omnipotent and threatening is the moment looking back when we will recognize that it started to fall apart. I think we can look ahead to a radical shift in the American political landscape in spite of all the bad news out there. It wont be idealism that will drive this shift but the realism of dealing with the energy crisis (One could argue that the problem with our current administration is that they are driven by an unsustainable idealism!).
In predicting the future we project that we will just keep on this trajectory of consuming more and more. The upcoming energy crisis however will provide a catalyst for one of the most phenomenal transformations of our society since this crisis will put a quick halt to this unsustainable consumerism. The governments and societies in the future that will survive will be those that embrace this reality and start adopting policies to enable us to live more energy sustainable lives. A government that denies this will simply not survive.
We really aren’t consumer zombies, we’ve only been allowed to get away with it by living this illusion of the American Dream way past its sustainability. It will pass and we will be transformed. Everyone who already has woken up can be in their own way a catalyst in this process. Believing in a collapse and seeing only hopelessness is defeatist and excuses you from really taking on the task of being an agent of positive change. This actually plays right into the hands of our current government for they also don’t believe in change.
We assume that because our society evolved for well over a hundred years with an ever increasing availability of fossil fuels that we are somehow so addicted that we are incapable of adapting to living in a powered down society. This is probably a false assumption that leads many to believe in collapse. We have never been tested as a society in living with limited energy. I for one believe that the upcoming energy crisis will be a catalyst toward a more evolved society where other values than just consumerism will be promoted. Check out this link…..
If, after peak, oil production declines at 3% per year, I think there is a good possibility that the economic pie will shrink at a higher rate. We will be short on energy, so there will be no excess energy to use to make transitions.
If the population was 1 or 2 billion before we started eating oil, then it should wind up back near that level of pouulation, by the time we get out 30 years after peak where there will be no meaningful oil production. I don't know what you mean by collapse, but I think if any historians are around in 100 years, they will record this period of history as the collapse of western civilization.
Here today, gone tomorrow.
I just don't see that the world population will remain at 6+ billion and that we will just comfortably transition to some future garder of eden, just without the things that oil gave us.
Joined: May 14, 2005 Posts: 2125 Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:42 pm Post subject:
Whew! What a relief!
Thanks, Ibon. I feel better now ... _________________ “Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 1134 Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject:
gego wrote:
I just don't see that the world population will remain at 6+ billion and that we will just comfortably transition to some future garder of eden, just without the things that oil gave us.
You are right if you assume that there will be 6+ billion people with the same consuming habits of today. But that is a false assumption. We will evolve in this energy crisis toward another value system. And we may not be able to sustain current populations. 3 or 4 billion living sustainably would certainly represent a positive social evolution than 6+ billion living like we do today. To get there from where we are today however does not preclude a collapse.
he upcoming energy crisis however will provide a catalyst for one of the most phenomenal transformations of our society since this crisis will put a quick halt to this unsustainable consumerism. The governments and societies in the future that will survive will be those that embrace this reality and start adopting policies to enable us to live more energy sustainable lives
This should be the way to think about the future. It will require a sincere exposition of the facts by the goverment(s) to all the people involved. They key is for everyone to recognise the problem as soon as possible and participate in the common goal of a peaceful "powerdown". If after the peak, global energy production goes down by 2-3% per year, a society that wants to survive should ensure that its energy use of fossil fuels and the population goes down by the same (and even higher amount). Note that is some countries (mainly from the EU) this is bound to happen peak oil or no peak oil. I quote from: http://fesportal.fes.de/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/IPG/IPG1_2002/ARTHEWITT.HTM
Quote:
Between 2000 and 2010, several industrial nations, including Germany, Japan, Austria, Spain, Italy, Sweden, and Greece, will for the first time in modern memory experience a contraction of their working populations. The century’s second decade will see the EU and Japan enter a period of population decline lasting into the indefinite future. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, by 2030 the EU can expect to have 14 percent fewer workers and 7 percent fewer consumers than it does today. In Japan, over the same period, the number of workers and consumers are poised to decline by 18 percent and 8 percent respectively.....America’s population is projected to be 46 percent larger by mid-century.
Recall again that in an underdeveloped country, the average woman must have 2.2 babies in her lifetime in order to maintain a stable population. In a developed nation it’s 2.1
By the UN estimate, total fertility rates in developed regions have fallen in the last six years from 1.7 to 1.5 babies per woman. Clearly, developed nations are dying. It estimates that this will drop farther in the next decade to about 1.4. This means there will then be 3 people dying for every 2 babies being born in the Western World.
.
A global assessment of population is given in the following maps
1) Birth Rate
http://www.alsagerschool.co.uk/subjects/sub_content/geography/Gpop/HTMLENH/stats/fer.htm
2) Death Rate
http://www.alsagerschool.co.uk/subjects/sub_content/geography/Gpop/HTMLENH/stats/dea.htm
which pretty much says that the third world is going to be screwed really hard when the PO hits us. They will be unable to compete for the remaining oil (unless the 70s repeat themeslves and OPEC (or Chavez) stops exporting to the Western world; in that case all bets are off).
The following web site lists the situation as it will be per EU country in 2050
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10001271.shtml
(apparently they have not taken PO into account) but it is instructive to notice that most of the countries will have seen a drop in their population by 2050 IRRESPECTIVE of PO. Granted the drop is small but if people wake up, they could even vote for adoption of Chinese type of measures (IUD after the first birth, sterilization after the second) could speed up the whole process. Maybe a 10 year ban on births? (In that case, I will move to Europe and get married .... no brats! it is the law!)
Almost sounds to me like you are bargaining with death now instead of denying dieoff.
OK, so we won't have 6+ billion, but we will have 3-4 billion living not at today's standard of consumption.
6+ billion to 3-4 billion in 30 years would be one hell of a population decline, but I personally think you ignore the way systems unwind. The World Trade Center took years to build, in an orderly fashion, one floor at a time. It fell in an instant compared to the time to build it. This is the way systems collapse.
It may have taken 600 years for Western Civilization to climb up, floor by floor, but when the foundation gives way look out below.
Systems do not unwind the same way they were wound up to begin with. Look at an individual life cycle; a long slow progression up to a peak, and then the last years are steep decline. Look at the stock market crashes; slow study buildup with an excited climax, followed by collapse. Look at sex; a slow study buildup with an excited climax, followed by collapse.
I think that your looking for a continuation of life for the many is wishful thinking. You both ignore the way systems build and unwind, but you also ignore the statistical principal of "return to the mean." The human population has statistically varied from the mean long term value (1 billion) by more than three standard deviations. It must return to the mean and the process of return will not be some orderly step by step transition, but rather a chaotic negative explosion.
Your view of a smooth transition is not likely in my view.
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:23 pm Post subject: Re: Collapse probably wont happen
Ibon wrote:
Passing the moment of peak oil will mean a slow drawn out decline of available fossil fuels probably for a couple of decades.
It could, or it could be fast. No one knows what the rate of depletion will be. It could be 3% as most hope, or, like the North Sea, 17%.
Quote:
The power down solution of conservation and cutting waste will certainly be a major corrective force along with a ramping up of a multitude of alternative renewables like biodiesel, wind, solar along with a revived nuclear energy industry.
And when will this start? With our exponential population growth, any conservation efforts will be consumed within a few years...not to mention Jevon's Paradox.
Quote:
Shouldn't conservation and the combination of all the alternative energy sources taken together as a whole certainly be able to match the annual rate of fossil fuel depletion after the peak in the decades ahead?
Commmon sense and the numbers say otherwise. They must not only match the rate of depletion, but they must also match the rate of demand for economic growth which is about 3%. Do the math.
3% decline + 3 % demand =6% 1st year
6% decline + 3 % demand =9% 2nd year.
9% decline + 3% demand =12% 3rd year. and so on.
We are having trouble meeting demand pre-peak using fossil fuels. Even if we can meet these goals, the price of that energy will not be cheaper than current fossil fuels. And that is the crux of peak oil; the cheap energy upon which our society has been built and subsidized will end, even if we can find a way to meet demand with alternatives.
Quote:
For this to work it assumes of course that there is a plasticity inherent in our society to evolve and to persevere in a powered down society.
And it assumes we have the time. When the price of something goes up, people buy less of it. But the nature of our demand for oil means we don't decrease our consumption very much as prices rise; economists describe our demand as inelastic. Millions of Americans drive to and from work every day, with few other options for getting there. Obviously we can and do cut consumption when oil prices rise, but in the short term we don't cut it very much, nor can we without major socio-economic upheaval. The "waste" that many suggest we can cut out provides "jobs" for millions.
Quote:
We assume that because our society evolved for well over a hundred years with an ever increasing availability of fossil fuels that we are somehow so addicted that we are incapable of adapting to living in a powered down society. This is probably a false assumption that leads many to believe in collapse.
Not addicted, dependent. If you believe the rise in population that accompanied the advent of fossil fuels is not dependent upon them, then yes, a collapse may not happen. But that belief is not rooted in reality, science, the empirical data, or just plain common sense.
Are we capable of adapting to living in a powered down society? Yes, of course. But will we?...without fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo first? And even if we chose to, it would not take place without a collapse of the society we have now and a massive reduction in the population.
Quote:
Believing in a collapse and seeing only hopelessness is defeatist and excuses you from really taking on the task of being an agent of positive change.
I believe a collapse is inevitable and yet I don't preach hopelessness, nor do I have a defeatist attitude. From my many threads, it is quite apparent that I strive to convey a rationale for that belief rooted in science and ecology. A periodic rebalancing is the way the world works. I have always been an agent of positive change. That is one of the reasons I devote and volunteer my time for peakoil.com. I don't see helping to provide an education in the reality of limits as a hopeless endeavor. _________________ 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: Jun 12, 2005 Posts: 4189 Location: 1st territorial capitol of AZ
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:32 pm Post subject:
I can sure see that, a 3% a year decrease, nice and smooth.
But to our system anything but growth is death. Our economy and monetary system is set up on a grow-or-die basis. You'll have to study this.
Now, add to that nice smooth 3% a year decrease, an attack on a pipeline, an attack on the US mainland, etc any damn thing that can happen when much of the world hates you, and "nice and smooth" can turn into "rough and bumpy" quickly.
IMO, if the decline is about 3% a year, I don't see it being particularly
economically painful for a long period of time as long as most of the
decline is funded by energy reduction and increase in renewables.
If a large portion of the decline is by switching to other depletable energy
sources and we don't take the pain in small doses, then the eventual
result will be much worse.
IMO, if the decline is about 3% a year, I don't see it being particularly economically painful for a long period of time as long as most of the decline is funded by energy reduction and increase in renewables.
From the numbers I stated, the decline may be 3%, but the shortfall will be 6%, and since those numbers grow each year, how can you say it won't get increasingly more painful with each passing year?
Energy reduction will come in the form of job losses and income loss as consumption wains. Where will the energy come from to ramp up the renewables? From the conservation gains?
Where will the energy come from to provide new jobs, housing, clothing and a basic livelhood for the new comers? Or to service the debt? From the conservation gains? Sounds like conservation and the American standard of living are going to bear the brunt. I think this will be very painful...for a long time...probably forever. _________________ 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 05, 2005 Posts: 2407 Location: South of Atlanta
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 1:08 am Post subject:
I have said this before and I'l reiterate it here again. The sole point most difficult to grasp about the idea of peak oil is the loss of the ability to maintain the world's or any single countries economy. Once the decline begins we won't be able to maintain a viable economy to allow the change to a powered down way of life and full blown production of alternative forms of energy. I see this as the hardest concept for folks to get. I have seen this from the beginning. Exploiting what resources and technology we have AFTER oil becomes too costly will be a problem with no easy or quick solutions.
Just take a look at the US Oil Shale endowment. It's undoubtedly very large, but how on earth are you going to exploit it when companies who would do the work can't survive due to the high cost of oil? The average person (employee) won't be able to afford to fill up his car/truck to go to work. The ability to build the infrastructure and ramp up the production required will be contained by the growing economic crisis. It's a catch 22 in a way.
Unless we had started programs years ago to address this dillemma I think it will be very difficult and PAINFUL at best to attempt to bridge the gap between cheap oil and alternatives. Monte has hit the nail on the head here. I think he sees what I fear, we just won't have the TIME, it's already too late.
I seriously considered writing a letter to my MP demanding that the UK power-down in accordance with the decline in North Sea oil (or possibly global oil producation). Then I realised that in the same letter I would have to mention that capitalism would have to be changed (for a system that could survive without constant growth) and the relocalisation of food production implimented. After writing the first paragraph I gave up as I could just see him laughing uncontrollably at it.
First of all it is important to stress while geology ultimately limits the amount of oil physically capable of being pumped at any given time, it is us humans that will actually dictate how much actually comes out.
Case in point, the US-48 production grew, peaked and declined at a nice even rate. We were constrained by geology then and still are now.
The soviets/now russians peaked in 1987 and declined at steeper rate than geology would determine due to economic turmoil brought on by their 87 peak. Because they fell from their peak faster than the geology would limit them to, they were able to start increasing their production again in the late 1990's. This production of course will hit that geological ceiling and start declining.
Iran grew real rapidly in production until they peaked at 6 million BPD. This peak however was a political one and resulted in a number of low production years, where oil was pumped far below their geological limits. Now production has once again increased until it hits its eventual geological ceiling.
Three different countries, three different curves. Economics and Politics are just as important as geology when it comes to oil production. Just because the US-48 peak was orderly, doesnt mean the global peak will be.
Furthermore, when it comes to a gradual powerdown, it would take unprecedented cooperation AND a complete re-working of the economic system. Heck it would take a mindset change from growth to steady-state to make the process orderly. The odds don't look good for this.
Here is my prediction: Peak Oil will give us anywhere from one to three years of managable decline. Barring an open panic, each year of declining oil supplies will be met with easy demand destruction (frivolous sectors of the economy) increased efficiency and marginal increase in alternative energy. Then we will hit a breaking point. Something will inevitably happen to speed up the supply decline and trigger a panic. THis panic, in combination with a collapsing natural gas supply, increasing shortages will likely do in the growth-economy, bankrupting millions.
Finally it should be noted only 1.2 billion people consume large quantities of oil. Most are "energy wannabes" as Simmons calls them. _________________ UNplanning the future...
http://unplanning.blogspot.com
Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 1134 Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:01 am Post subject: Re: Collapse probably wont happen
MonteQuest wrote:
I believe a collapse is inevitable and yet I don't preach hopelessness, nor do I have a defeatist attitude. From my many threads, it is quite apparent that I strive to convey a rationale for that belief rooted in science and ecology. A periodic rebalancing is the way the world works. I have always been an agent of positive change. That is one of the reasons I devote and volunteer my time for peakoil.com. I don't see helping to provide an education in the reality of limits as a hopeless endeavor.
I look at the same science and ecology, which is also my back ground and I can do the math and I agree with most all of your points. Having read many of your posts you do succeed in being a catalyst for change. A periodic rebalancing of things is the way the world works and I totally agree that this is what will unfold but I dont see a total collapse happening. I see the rebalancing as part of the transformation of our culture. I think you underestimate the potential for this transformation as this energy crisis will unfold because you are stuck in the mindset that has been caste in stone having watched for over 30 years our global economic system have a total disregard for the environment and energy issues. Environmental issues have always been marginalized and or politisized (look at Kyoto) and the current administration represents the extreme in denial. It can almost drive one crazy to see how precarious we are and yet see the denial still so entrenched. It can also make you project into the future and assume that government, industry and the public at large will continue this grand illusion and denial and fight tooth and nail to keep the status quo going. This last point though is where I disagree.
Of course the real wake up call happens when oil gets over $ 100 a barrel and our economy suffers a real recession. In America republicans and democrats alike will lose jobs along with Europeans, Asians and the whole world. This will take on the likes of a national and global emergency and suddenly energy issues leave the politisized arena and become everyones problem. I see this happening within the next 5-10 years. Looking at our current administration I guess one assumes this will lead to an all out global war for energy. Maybe. But more likely not. Once the energy issue is out in the open it will become obvious that expanding a global war for energy will be as futile as trying to win a nuclear war during the cold war. Nobody can win this war since the economic cost of the war machine will cripple any country trying by force to dominate the worlds resources (its already happening). Not only will America have no allies in this war but will be dependent on global cooperation. This may actually be the issue that will break this neo-conservative administration. Their solutions are dead and will be poignantly so once the global energy crisis becomes everyones problem.
A global energy crisis will cause a huge recession but there is still going to be alot of energy around when this happens. Following this we will see an astounding movement on the part of governments, educational institutes and industry to mobilize resources toward conservation and advances in energy technology. Even the way we live will change, suburbia will not be the same. I think we forget that once people wake up from this american dream illusion many will actually be happy its over. People today are in a frenzy, stressed out and trying to keep this dream alive. It will become increasingly difficult to pull off and we can already see an existential crisis effecting modern consumerist culture. Powering down will start the process of community building. A national energy emergency can spark things like victory gardens or an army corp of engineers like we saw during the depression of the 30's or WWII. This could all happen and the strange transformation that will emerge from this is that people will find themselves happy and less isolated than they are today with all their toys.
Between here and there however is a painful and bitter process. This is part of the rebalancing of things as you mentioned. I agree that it will not happen without human suffering but I really dont think a collapse will happen because our current value system will not stay static and fixed as this crisis unfolds.
Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 1134 Location: Seattle, Wa.
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2005 3:13 am Post subject:
AirlinePilot wrote:
I have said this before and I'l reiterate it here again. The sole point most difficult to grasp about the idea of peak oil is the loss of the ability to maintain the world's or any single countries economy. Once the decline begins we won't be able to maintain a viable economy to allow the change to a powered down way of life and full blown production of alternative forms of energy. I see this as the hardest concept for folks to get. I have seen this from the beginning. Exploiting what resources and technology we have AFTER oil becomes too costly will be a problem with no easy or quick solutions.
Just take a look at the US Oil Shale endowment. It's undoubtedly very large, but how on earth are you going to exploit it when companies who would do the work can't survive due to the high cost of oil? The average person (employee) won't be able to afford to fill up his car/truck to go to work. The ability to build the infrastructure and ramp up the production required will be contained by the growing economic crisis. It's a catch 22 in a way.
Unless we had started programs years ago to address this dillemma I think it will be very difficult and PAINFUL at best to attempt to bridge the gap between cheap oil and alternatives. Monte has hit the nail on the head here. I think he sees what I fear, we just won't have the TIME, it's already too late.
It is too late to find any viable alternatives to keep our current economic system intact and our current consumer culture and value system intact. Both will change as this crisis unfolds and change dramatically. I guess some will call these changes a collapse. I prefer to see them as part of the process of transformation. I don't see ghost towns 50 years from now in Tokyo and New York. I see a powered down society more in balance than today. And yes getting there will not be easy for many.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 34, 35, 36Next
Page 1 of 36
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
