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: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:50 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
kublikhan wrote:
But oil price hikes is how we will see the shortage manifest itself. Example:
Cost of Oil is .25 units of GDP
Scenario 1:
50 units of oil for 100 units of GDP
oil bill = 12.5 units of GDP(1/8 of the economy goes to paying for oil import bill)
Scenario 2:
100 units of oil for 400 units of GDP
oil bill = 25 units of GDP(1/16 of the economy goes to paying for oil import bill)
Oil Price now doubles:
Cost of oil is .5 units of GDP
Scenario 1:
50 units of oil for 100 units of GDP
oil bill = 25 units of GDP(1/4 of the economy goes towards paying oil import bill)
Scenario 2:
100 units of oil for 400 units of GDP
oil bill = 50 units of GDP(1/8 of economy goes towards paying for oil import bill)
But you were talking of energy declines. You're now assuming that even though oil declines, economies will still be able to consume all the oil they want to. This doesn't make sense. Maybe some economies will be able to outbid others, but that means oil will decline faster in those economies that lose out. So it is the consequences of the decline that is the more important factor, or at least as important a factor. If far more gets done, for each barrel, than a few decades ago, then the consequences of a decline will be more severe than a few decades ago.
As long as an economy can afford to outbid others, and get the oil it wants, then that economy shouldn't suffer from declines, only from the cost. But as soon as an economy can no longer get hold of the oil it needs, then that economy should decline much faster than oil declines, because of the low energy intensity.
Is there a fault with this, in terms of decline, not cost?
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
ReverseEngineer wrote:
This type of cyclical economics tends to indicate that the trip back down off Peak Oil will take somewhere near the 100 years it took to climb the curve to begin with. Gradually decreasing the standard of living until the oil is truly gone for good, but maybe that 100 years gives time to readjust in energy intensity and utilize the knowledge gained in the trip up the curve to make life slightly better than it was in say 1750, before Oil came to rule the world and the Industrial Economy took over?
The trouble is, 100 years ago, the population was about 1.5 billion. So don't think the downward slope will be anything like the upward slope, either in timing or effect. We will, no doubt apply every smart technology we can think of, to keep up the production rate and increase the ultimate decline rate. I don't know if the increasing proportion of smaller fields can be successfully developed and produced for 100 years. And people's expectations, in increasing numbers of countries, are much higher now.
I agree that there will be boom bust cycles, on the way down, but only because we're not taking heed of what is happening, always believing the economy will recover to its former glory. If we took heed of what was happening, we'd be planning for a very different economy and society. Way before 100 years, I think enough people will "get it" to potentially cause a social unrest problem, unless that awareness is channeled into the right actions.
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:37 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
TonyPrep wrote:
As long as an economy can afford to outbid others, and get the oil it wants, then that economy shouldn't suffer from declines, only from the cost. But as soon as an economy can no longer get hold of the oil it needs, then that economy should decline much faster than oil declines, because of the low energy intensity.
Is there a fault with this, in terms of decline, not cost?
I think so. This is happening domestically right now. We import 2/3 our oil and the amount of money we're shipping out of the country to buy oil has just increased dramatically. This means less money available for other activity which will ultimately lead to a decline in GDP.
Unless of course we get smarter and figure out how to do more with less. This productivity is what drives a large chunk of our economy anyway and I have to believe people aren't suddenly going to go all stupid and forget how to do things better.
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
TonyPrep wrote:
I disagree. If people can get it through their thick heads that, at some point in the future, economic growth will have to stop (and I don't think you disagree with that, though I could be wrong), and that it's impossible to figure out exactly when that will be, then that realisation might prompt some planning for, and even purposeful movement towards, that future. On the other hand, saying we can maintain growth for some limited time, again an unknown time, would probably lead most people to postpone any action or planning for sustainability, and thus act as though growth was possible for ever.
I think you're projecting a false premise, the belief that growth is possible forever, onto people. We have clear signals via the economic system that growth in a given arena isn't going to proceed as planned due to price decades before we actually see that decrease in growth. That being said, while it may be that there is some optimal level of resource use to maximize odds of our survivability, we can't expect everyone to behave in that way. Some will only want to live for the day, while others will spend their time planning for something at some point in the future, and everything in between. The great thing about our society is that for the most part it allows for everything in between. We can go blow all our money on vices, or use it to purchase the goods needed for us to live in the middle of nowhere, away from anyone, or at least other groups of people, until we die. Either or. In any event, not you, nor I, nor anyone knows exactly when we will be forced to curtail overall growth. It could be tomorrow it could a million years from now, depending on a lot of things, including the overall rate of growth, resource availability, and behavior of society at the time, among others... We do at least know that limits to growth in specific arenas, and looking at our civilization as a whole, the sum of those limits, when present as a limiting factor, will be incredibly obvious IMO. I don't see how it couldn't be.
TonyPrep wrote:
I would consider planning for zero growth to be a better course of action than continually postponing it just because it might not be a problem for a while. You, on the other hand, might argue for the latter.
No I wouldn't. I think planning for many contingencies, including zero growth, is prudent. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the amount of time spent planning should be proportional to the the likelihood of the change as well as the likelihood of our survival due to the change when accounting for our time spent planning. _________________
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:40 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
TonyPrep wrote:
So what do you have to say about energy and GDp in the long term (let's say 50 years, rather than infinity). Do you think it likely that economic growth could be maintained for 50 years, with energy declining, or remaining flat, for those 50 years? I'm not talking about impossible, or about some measurement of probability, but likelihood.
I don't quite understand what you're saying. What's the difference between probability and likelihood? Are you asking for a qualitative assessment (eg it's very likely or barely likely that this or that will happen) or a quantitative assessment (eg there's a X percent chance of this happening and a "Y" percent chance of that happening)?
TonyPrep wrote:
I used 50 years because there is a good chance that my kids will be alive for that long and I want to know if they can assume that they can fulfil what has become a normal aspiration - to work hard and earn plenty of money to get their own houses, get their own cars, have regular vacations abroad, keep upgrading to the latest technological wizardy and eventually eye up a leisurely retirement, living on the proceeds of 40 years good income. If you think it's likely, I can pass that on to them, and they can carry on as normal.
Regardless of what will happen, I say prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Be it an asteroid impact, super volcano, the effects peak oil, or whatever catastrophe we have in mind. In these cases, a little bit of prep goes a long way. The more we prep, the more limited returns become, so building a survival bunker in Australia may not provide the best ROI. Otoh, there are some measures that are both advantageous in case of an emergency and sensible on a daily basis. For instance improving the efficiency so to speak, of a house will not only save money overall, but would also make it more livable in disaster where little to no energy commodities were available. Having a vehicle that is entirely mechanical (bicycle and/or old auto) would allow you to start it in the event of a significant EMP that would otherwise fry unshielded electronics. And the list goes on.... LMK if there's anything you're curious about. _________________
Joined: Oct 08, 2005 Posts: 46 Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
MonteQuest wrote:
You know, I think it's time use the ignore feature. No one wants to post admid your crap.
Wow. I never thought I'd see someone exhaust your enormous amount of patience. I can't blame you, though. He's so full of crap he'd make an outhouse jealous.
You hear that, yesplease? You have done the seemingly impossible. (Don't bother answering, though -- I've got you on Ignore as well. )
Now, let's get this thread back on track. _________________ I tread lightly as I can on the Earth.
MonteQuest, "Same thing."
yesplease, "What's the same thing?"
MonteQuest, "You and a troll."
_________________
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:23 am Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
NugBlazer wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
You know, I think it's time use the ignore feature. No one wants to post admid your crap.
Wow. I never thought I'd see someone exhaust your enormous amount of patience. I can't blame you, though. He's so full of crap he'd make an outhouse jealous.
You hear that, yesplease? You have done the seemingly impossible. (Don't bother answering, though -- I've got you on Ignore as well. )
Now, let's get this thread back on track.
Monty has claimed to have ignored me in the past as well, but if I point out something that's wrong or illogical regarding their statements, it's the same old same old. Maybe it'll be different this time, but I doubt it. Monty has a ton of "patience". As for the school child humor, I'd expect nothing less from someone with the corresponding Ego. _________________
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
MattS wrote:
But who will tend the nuclear power plants, windmills and solar collectors or plug in my Volt if everyone is tending gardens rather than maximizing and optimizing electrical generation?
Well, I hate to break this to you, but....we might have to say goodbye to electricity and stuff run ON electricity.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
Frank wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Is there a fault with this, in terms of decline, not cost?
I think so. This is happening domestically right now. We import 2/3 our oil and the amount of money we're shipping out of the country to buy oil has just increased dramatically. This means less money available for other activity which will ultimately lead to a decline in GDP.
I wasn't denying that cost was an issue but that wasn't the aspect that Kublikhan brought up and which I responded to.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
yesplease wrote:
I think you're projecting a false premise, the belief that growth is possible forever, onto people. We have clear signals via the economic system that growth in a given arena isn't going to proceed as planned due to price decades before we actually see that decrease in growth.
I don't see any evidence that the premise is false. Whether people believe in infinite growth or not is less important than whether they act as though they do. Do you see any evidence that people, in general, realise that growth will not continue for ever? Are they lobbying their governments for strategies to plan for its ending? Economists talk about economic cycles, so people expect downturns, from time to time.
yesplease wrote:
In any event, not you, nor I, nor anyone knows exactly when we will be forced to curtail overall growth. It could be tomorrow it could a million years from now, depending on a lot of things, including the overall rate of growth, resource availability, and behavior of society at the time, among others
True, but let's consider likelihoods, given our current behaviour, acting as though no resources are finite, or that resources can be equivalently substituted for ever. Tomorrow is far more likely than a million years.
yesplease wrote:
We do at least know that limits to growth in specific arenas, and looking at our civilization as a whole, the sum of those limits, when present as a limiting factor, will be incredibly obvious IMO. I don't see how it couldn't be.
I agree and it seems our fate is only to recognise those limits when we are forced up against them.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
I would consider planning for zero growth to be a better course of action than continually postponing it just because it might not be a problem for a while. You, on the other hand, might argue for the latter.
No I wouldn't. I think planning for many contingencies, including zero growth, is prudent. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the amount of time spent planning should be proportional to the the likelihood of the change as well as the likelihood of our survival due to the change when accounting for our time spent planning.
It's good that you would advocate a certain amount of planning for zero growth. How do you think that planning should manifest itself? Would powering down be one aspect?
So far as likelihoods are concerned. Limits are inevitable. 100% probability. So planning for limits, in my opinion, should be paramount.
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 2053 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:41 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
So what do you have to say about energy and GDp in the long term (let's say 50 years, rather than infinity). Do you think it likely that economic growth could be maintained for 50 years, with energy declining, or remaining flat, for those 50 years? I'm not talking about impossible, or about some measurement of probability, but likelihood.
I don't quite understand what you're saying. What's the difference between probability and likelihood? Are you asking for a qualitative assessment.
Qualitative.
yesplease wrote:
Regardless of what will happen, I say prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Be it an asteroid impact, super volcano, the effects peak oil, or whatever catastrophe we have in mind.
I don't think we should conflate events that we can do little about with those we can. I often see this kind of approach from those who want to remain in denial but can't deny that nature has limits. It goes like this: If we had to plan for every eventuality we'd never get anything done - or - Any catastrophe could occur, that we can't do anything about, so why bother preparing for catastrophes. I think we need to separate those things we can do something significant to prepare for, and those we can't. Maybe we can't reach sustainability but, if we don't, our society will crash. There's not much we can do about the other natural disasters you mention, in practice, but there is something we can do about natures limits - live within them.
So, why do you vehemently argue that a little bit of efficiency can keep our economies growing for some indeterminate period, in the face of energy declines? Even if it were possible to do it for a decade, what is the likelihood (qualitatively) it will happen for even 50 years? We need to be advocating managed power down and lobbying for very different societal arrangements, ones that take account of natures limits, not ones that assume those limits don't exist or can be continually pushed back.
Joined: Nov 06, 2007 Posts: 759 Location: Illinois
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: Re: Powering Down to Core Consumption
NugBlazer wrote:
Now, let's get this thread back on track.
Agreed, this thread is starting to stray.
MonteQuest wrote:
Without a major upheaval in society with regards to how we do things, just have far can we pare down and keep things a afloat?
Well to start off, I would say any increase because of "summer driving season" can be parred down. The numbers jump around a lot, but it usually is not more than a 5% jump in consumption, 10% for a few years. I could not find very good numbers for car pooling, so I'll just add that to the list as a suggestion. Also changing driving patterns, driving slower, chain trips together, etc.
More mass transit use. I don't think this will cause a major upheaval, but as car sales are parred back, that 1 in 6 jobs will have to par back as well and will increase unemployment.
Anyone else have any ideas? _________________ The oil barrel is half-full.
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
)
