Joined: Jun 20, 2004 Posts: 250 Location: California
Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:08 pm Post subject: 100 more years of fossils
I don't think the dieoff will be quick. My back-of-the-envelope calculations show that we could run our entire civilization off of oil alone for 15 years, coal for 60 years (and that doesn't even count the coal that is considered "uneconomical" now). If you throw in natural gas, and factor in that about 20% is going to continue coming from renewabls (mostly hydro) and nukes, you can easily go out 100 years with the fossil-dominated status quo. Yes there are some disruptions because you can't easily substitute coal for oil, and of course this assumes zero growth during those 100 years. But it does seem as if we could scrape by without mass starvation for the rest of the century. Of course then global warming, top soil loss, aquifer depletion, or war could precipitate matters, but energy alone won't. I'll have a better idea of what's possible when I get around to building a more complete model of depletion that includes the other fossil sources as well as what's possible with alternatives and conservation.
I'm not so sure that the effects of peak oil will be THAT disastrous for regions like Africa. I wonder whether the impact will be as great as it will be on the industrialised West. Peasants involved in subsistence farming form three-quarters of the population in Africa. The folk in the cities might well suffer, and certainly those people in famine prone areas will be at greater risk through lack of food aid. But given that much of Africa is pre-industrial, I don't know if the impact will be as disruptive as in say the US or Europe.
That is a good point. I gather that Afica will be affected mostly in the vast reductions in food aid and other support.
Certain areas of Africa are prone to tribal warfare. One of the only things keeping things calm is foreign intervention and foreign aid. There is also a huge AIDS epidemic that will likely explode even faster as foreign aid becomes even more limited.
I would put just about the entire world ahead of France.
But the funny thing is, France is probably best prepared for peak oil. They are massive exporters of electricity due to their massive Nuclear plant capacity. 78% nuclear. They export the equivalent of one nuclear power plant of electricity just to England. A bunch goes to Spain also.
Because the French gov't is trying to privatize part of the power utilities, the unions keep cutting power to certain areas. They are now threatening to cut off power to England.
Posted: Sat Jun 26, 2004 4:06 am Post subject: A quick die-off
A quick die-off could be better than the alternative from a long term perspective. I think a quick die-off is most likely since the whole system is so complex and interconnected, full of positive feedback mechanisms, multiplying the effects. A 3% yearly oil decline drop could very well translate into a 15% "GDP" decline...
My guess is for the next WW to really get momentum around year 2010 when the global recession should already be in force. As the war escalates it will cause rebellions, revolutions and harsh leader responses, turning most of the world into harsh policestates (what they are preparing for now all over the world).
Only the most naive, disregaring history for lessons, would assume that we could decline in an orderly fashion with a society hooked on growth.
Without growth the society collapses. We have truly become a cancer!
I would not be surprised by a 50% die-off within the next 20-30 years...
Votes?
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 9:05 pm Post subject:
To Old To Worry, The glass is half full? I think its half empty. I am rather pessimistic I guess on the issue of deletion at least. The information to be found from further reading of this site and others will lend merit to fossil fuels depleting.
It’s impossible to know how much oil will be available to produce food in ten years or 20 or 30. Old technologies do still exist. They have not been totally forgotten. Ropes are still tied by Boy Scotts that were tied 300 years ago. All is not lost if old knowledge hasn’t been totally forgotten.
People will survive. I can’t give numbers but I believe people will survive. Knowledge and ability will be needed to pull through.
So we have half a glass of water. What do we do next?
Learn now so we can pass on knowledge to survival of as many as possible.
Peace Out! Link
]I think a quick die-off is most likely since the whole system is so complex and interconnected, full of positive feedback mechanisms, multiplying the effects.
Yes I agree. This is what concerned me most when I was first looking into the prospect of peak oil. I tried to be optimistic however, and racked my brains trying to find ways that we could have a soft landing. I've never been satisfied with any suggestion I've heard. You think you can see how a gentle powerdown might work, but then you take a step back, and take a look at the bigger system, and some interconnecting variable shows it's weakness.
Mainster wrote:
]"A quick die-off could be better than the alternative from a long term perspective."
When I resigned myself to the idea that a fast die-off was likely, I started to seriously think what such a future would be like (after fast die-off). To my surprise, it was the brightest of all. Overshoot is followed by correction, and often, this correction is over-correction. Translation - Resource abundance. Except survivors would know what happened, and be driven to understand it. If the popular understanding did include the concept of 'resource depletion' (there would presumably a lot of mis-information/confusion around), then the poeple would be ready to change their expectations from economics etc. to build a better world. Such a world would be very exciting - rebuilding a better world.
On the other hand, imagine a slow die-off/gentle powerdown. Every year less resources to go round. Worse medical treatment. No govt. pensions etc. Banks defaulting. Conscription for resource wars... I'll take the fast die-off any day. Of course, you've got to survive it! But if you made it through... it would be the best future I can imagine given all this peak oil stuff. Resource abundance AND people who may understand that self-regulation of resource use is essential to avoid catastrophe...
I'm concerned that like Shell (and now BP?) who've restated downwards their reserves that the problem is more widespread, particularly in oil producing nations and that what is happening is an extension of the oil production plateau...which will lead to a oil production cliff (vertical drop). In other words, decline won't be 2-3% per year but a rate an order of magnitude greater.
If this turns out to be the case then the resulting dieoff might happen within 15 years and resource scarcities across the board will happen quickly, particularly as society collapses and the rule of law becomes a fond memory.
Having said this, another part of me is wary of self-fullfilling prophesy, or that the stories we tell will become manifest as a result of our telling them. So I still cling to a modicum of hope that humankind will transcend the old ways (of consumption/waste/mandatory growth/haves and have nots) and work towards a new way of organizing ourselves that is sustainable and just.
People don't die of a lack of oil. They never did and they never will.
The few massive die-offs in history have been caused by the following reasons.
1) (Civil) War
2) Diseases
3) Food shortages
I don't see diseases as a natural outcome of peakoil.
Food shortages are possible. But unlike the Great Famine in Ireland, which struck virtually overnight, the oil decline is a relatively slow process. Governments have plenty of time to prioritize food production, transport and distribution. That leaves the war scenario. I've been wondering lately how peakoil is going to reach the people. It won't be an announcement in the paper saying "peakoil today".
I suspect it will be bluntly denied by the politicians and officials in the first stages. Most probably they will say that the high prices are caused by speculation and that the low production is actually a drop in demand. Or they will talk about the tons of shale oil that will become available any minute now.
But at a certain point the problem is self-evident. I guess that the awareness will spread pretty fast, maybe in the time of weeks. One article in the right magazine at the right moment could do the trick.
Then my vision becomes a bit blurred. The problem is that I have no idea how a mass of people are going to react on this kind of news.
I guess it also depends at what stage the people are going to find out about peakoil. If it happens just after the peak, people got time to adapt to the idea, before the high decline rates hit. It doesn't change the problem, but people won't panic.
If it happens when you're already paying $6/gallon at the pump and your energy bill starts reaching for the stratosphere. If you here then that the production is dropping by 3% per year, then a mild panic would be the most favorable outcome.
When people are confronted with bad news and panic they usually react by finding someone to blame and punishing him.
But who will be the scapegoat here: politicians for not telling the truth, the Saudi's for not providing accurate reserves, the USA for consuming 'all' the oil, your neighbor for stashing petrol in his garage?
There could also be a degree of paranoia about countries 'withholding' or 'not sharing' the oil In such an atmosphere anything is possible including (civil) wars. But I still don't see it as a natural outcome, merely as a distinct possibility.
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 4:45 pm Post subject:
How about a controlled die off. If we simply stop providing foreign aid to impoverished countries that are unable to sustain themselves, then many people will die of starvation. Since they have overshot their regions carrying capacity, the population would collapse again to sustainable levels. This would allow us to lighten the massive die off once "crunch time" came, as a large percentage of the people likely to die off will have already done so. This may not be the most humane solution, but it is by far the most effective. No foreign aid equals no food, no food equals no life. I feel that a controlled die-off is the best way to do this, it is far better than it happening at random. _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
How about a controlled die off. If we simply stop providing foreign aid to impoverished countries that are unable to sustain themselves, then many people will die of starvation.
That doesn't lessen our problems since these people don't use much oil. And it's not like we're such benefactors to the third world. What we call aid are in fact our agricultural surpluses. Things we don't need anyway.
I thought most of the US foreign aid was in the form of weapons...no?
Yeah, you're probably right. There is a nice documentary about giving food to poor countries; it's called "Life and Debt." Jamaica might be different than other countries, but the process of currency devaluation, debt, and economically destroying local agricultural markets seems like a textbook loan sharking operation by the powerful agriculture businesses.
Though it is a life saver for many people, there are many cases where food distribution is as corrupt as any other kind of institution, and if there are some times where businessmen might miss an opportunity for whatever reason to make themselves a bit more powerful, much of the distributed food ends up in the possession of the people that aren't suppose to have it, kind of like in Somalia. I'd say that food distribution is a profitable business, while it also gives some bonus points for public relations.
Quote:
But who will be the scapegoat here: politicians for not telling the truth, the Saudi's for not providing accurate reserves, the USA for consuming 'all' the oil, your neighbor for stashing petrol in his garage?
Why, the Jews, of course. I'd think on a national level(in the US) people will blame anyone but themselves, since one of the many aspects about culture around here is the tendency to deny responsibility. I think most people will end up blaming people with SUVs, which I think has been happening for a while, and the oil companies, while completely ignoring their own wasteful habits. It is much easier to find a simple scapegoar rather than a thorough self-evaluation. The world, however, is most likely to blame the Americans. Many people already are aware of the consumption habits of the country, and as soon as the world becomes much more noticeably unstable, I can only forsee disdain being intesified. The US government is doing a great job making fun of themselves to many people, and as they do even more kooky things, it'll get worse every where, even stateside.
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
