[MonteQuest]

So, you are saying it is impossible for 300 million people, living in a country the size of America, with all it's resources, to survive post-peak oil? I don't mean have their lifestyles survive, I mean they can't find the bare minimum amount of food, water, etc. to stay alive?

Nope.

Hunter/gatherer is not an option for Americans. Besides, the abundance of wild nature is gone.

No more buffler' on da range.

We don't find food, water, clothing, shelter, etc...we buy it.

With money from a job.

How are people going to access these needs?

Millions can barely find "the bare minimum amount of food, water, etc. to stay alive" right now...in the best of times with the most oil ever.

36.5 million Americans — roughly one in eight — live in poverty.[ii] Despite relatively strong economic growth since 2001, poverty has remained stubbornly high, and today’s poverty rate is higher than it was during the last recession. That the poverty rate is still above its recession level is especially distressing given that poverty usually declines during recoveries and rises during recessions. If the economy goes into a slowdown or recession in 2008, poverty likely will only increase further.

15.4 million Americans live in extreme poverty. In other words, their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or less than about $10,000 a year for a family of four.

Tens of millions of low-income Americans have serious difficulty paying for basic necessities like food, shelter, and medical care. Some of these problems have grown demonstrably worse in recent years. In the most recent year for which these figures are available:

Food: Some 12.6 million households, containing 35.5 million people, lacked access to adequate food at some point during the year because they didn’t have enough money for groceries.[iii] About 4.6 million of these households faced the most severe problems, with household members skipping meals or taking other steps to reduce the amount they ate because of a lack of resources.

Shelter: 16 million low-income households either paid more for rent and utilities than the federal government says is affordable or lived in overcrowded or substandard housing. Six million of these households were especially badly off: they paid more than half of their income for rent and utilities or lived in severely substandard housing. [iv]

Nearly 2 million poor households were unable to pay their full rent (or mortgage) at least once in the prior year. Nearly 3 million poor households fell behind on their gas, oil, or electric bill.[v]

By the end of 2007, an estimated 1.5 million homeowners will have received foreclosure notices, more than twice as many as in 2006. About half of them have “subprime” mortgages.[vi] Lower income and minority homeowners hold a disproportionate number of subprime mortgages. [vii]

Medical care: 47 million Americans — more than one in every seven — were uninsured. [viii] The number of uninsured Americans has risen for six straight years. Nearly 9 million children are uninsured, and the number of uninsured children has risen for two straight years.

More than 40 million adults — roughly one in five adults aged 19 and older — did not receive at least one type of needed health care (medical, dental, mental health, prescription drugs, etc.) in the previous year because they could not afford it.[ix]

Millions of Americans are having trouble surviving pre-peak.

[MonteQuest]

Do you really believe you and every other American will have access to their acre?

Much less know what to do with it when they get there.

Living off the land has killed more than it has saved.

Agriculure allowed more people to live in an area than the area could support.

Fossil fuels allowed more people to live in an area than the earth could support.

[yesplease]

Like I said, correlation is not causation. You need a lot more to prove the demographic transition is only possible via cheap, readily available fossil fuels as well as define standards of living and show how wealth is only viable via fossil fuels and not alternatives.

So, you posit that developing countries can become industrialized and urbanized, like the developed countries have, without cheap, readily available energy?

I didn't posit anything. That memory of yours, it doesn't seem to be serving ya too well, you may want to take a trip to a nuerologist (I kid!). In any event, as a refresher, I stated...

Like I said, correlation is not causation. You need a lot more to prove the demographic transition is only possible via cheap, readily available fossil fuels as well as define standards of living and show how wealth is only viable via fossil fuels and not alternatives.

In order to prove your statement/s of course.

The economic growth isn't going to happen

Don't just say it, prove it.

I have to prove to you that business as usual is not going to continue post peak? LOL!

You didn't say business as usual isn't going to happen, you stated "economic growth isn't going to happen". And, like I said before, don't just say it, prove it.

[MonteQuest]

Like I said, correlation is not causation. You need a lot more to prove the demographic transition is only possible via cheap, readily available fossil fuels as well as define standards of living and show how wealth is only viable via fossil fuels and not alternatives.

So, you posit that developing countries can become industrialized and urbanized, like the developed countries have, without cheap, readily available energy?

I didn't posit anything.

Your demand of proof begs that question, doesn't it?

[MonteQuest]

You didn't say business as usual isn't going to happen, you stated "economic growth isn't going to happen". And, like I said before, don't just say it, prove it.

Troll tactics?

I have to prove to you that economic growth as usual is not going to continue post peak? LOL!

[yesplease]

I wouldn't fall into that trap if I were you.

Which trap, please?

The assumption that things will remain as they are.

Sure, one windmill, or even a few, isn't sustainable, but once sufficient power from different sustainable methods comes online, it is.

By the time fossil fuels are totally depleted, and in order to meet our then-electrical demand alone, we'll need a dozen wind turbines in every county from coast to coast, plus solar panels, geothermal plants, hydro, etc, etc. I sincerely doubt we can power all the infrastructure to build renewable energy plants on renewable energy and meet budgetary and schedule constraints.

But there is already a technology in place; the index finger. Just turn off that light switch.

What is our then-electrical demand going to be? Including of course the demand side management you alluded to. Looking at this country, I doubt we'll expand hydro, so wind will make up ~10-30%, or however much it can, w/ nuclear baseload increasing proportionally to coal's decline and solar thermal taking up what most of what used to be NG. Back of the pad calcs indicate that a 50% renewable and 50% nuke grid would take ~1% of the GDP/year over the next fifty years, not counting externalities, which would only drop that. Our military spending alone is almost five times that, so I think we can scrounge up the cash somehow. That being said, switching over to alternatives isn't exactly lucrative for the fossil fuel industry, so expect a lot of resistance similar to what we've seen so far.

[yesplease]

Like I said, correlation is not causation. You need a lot more to prove the demographic transition is only possible via cheap, readily available fossil fuels as well as define standards of living and show how wealth is only viable via fossil fuels and not alternatives.

So, you posit that developing countries can become industrialized and urbanized, like the developed countries have, without cheap, readily available energy?

I didn't posit anything.

Your demand of proof begs that question, doesn't it?

No. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. I demanded nothing, merely asked you for proof of your statements in order to determine whether or not I think that they are valid and logical. You don't have to provide proof of anything, and can maintain that the moon is made of cheese if you like, regardless of what anyone asks you. It's up to you whether or not you want to use reasonable evidence and logic to back your statements or not.

[mos6507]

Living off the land has killed more than it has saved.

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't with Monte.

[yesplease]

You didn't say business as usual isn't going to happen, you stated "economic growth isn't going to happen". And, like I said before, don't just say it, prove it.

Troll tactics?

Only on PO dot come would asking someone to provide logical proof of their statements consitute trolling. Damn doomcopians! I guess M King Hubbert was the king troll of the PO cult... Damn him for logically assuming the Earth was finite and then using reasonable evidence and that pesky logic again to produce a pretty good educated gues as to when the lower 48 would peak, and also when the world, barring economic incidents, would for that matter!

I have to prove to you that economic growth as usual is not going to continue post peak? LOL!

Nope. I'm asking you to provide proof that economic growth, not as usual, just economic growth, is not going to happen post peak, since that's what you stated, that "economic growth isn't going to happen". If you don't feel like using reasonable evidence and logic to prove your claims, you don't have to. No one's putting a banana to your head.

[MonteQuest]

It's up to you whether or not you want to use reasonable evidence and logic to back your statements or not.

Asked and answered ad naseum.

Google Demographic Transition.

[yesplease]

GPD vs Oil Consumption. Oil consumption goes down so does the economy.

I think it's the other way around for the most part. The vast majority of oil use is for grossly inefficient personal transportation and as such is sensative to economic downturns where individuals will use more efficient vehicles and/or drive less. In fact, according to you graph, from 1979 to 1983, oil consumption dropped ~23-24% while GDP grew ~2-3% percent, so clearly it's not that oil consumption drives the economy, and more likely that the economy drives oil consumption.

[yesplease]

It's up to you whether or not you want to use reasonable evidence and logic to back your statements or not.

Asked and answered ad naseum.

Google Demographic Transition.

You have not used reasonable evidence and logic to provide proof of your claims, and I'm sorry to disappoint you but telling someone to google a term doesn't provide reasonable proof and/or logic either.

P.S. How's the cheese up there?

[MonteQuest]

You didn't say business as usual isn't going to happen, you stated "economic growth isn't going to happen". And, like I said before, don't just say it, prove it.

Troll tactics?

Only on PO dot come would asking someone to provide logical proof of their statements consitute trolling.

You didn't ask for proof, you resorted to semantic games.

I'm asking you to provide proof that economic growth, not as usual, just economic growth, is not going to happen post peak, since that's what you stated, that "economic growth isn't going to happen".

I said that the economic growth and the subsequent rise in the standard of living, that developed industrialized countries have experienced over the last 40 years via cheap, readily available fossil fuels, which resulted in a drop in fertility, is not going to happen in the developing countries as fossil fuels decline.

And since economic development is key to a drop in fertility, the world's birthrate is not going to drop as projected due to Demographic Transition.

[MonteQuest]

You have not used reasonable evidence and logic to provide proof of your claims, and I'm sorry to disappoint you but telling someone to google a term doesn't provide reasonable proof and/or logic either.

No, you have to actually go there and read the data.

[MonteQuest]

In fact, according to you graph, from 1979 to 1983, oil consumption dropped ~23-24% while GDP grew ~2-3% percent, so clearly it's not that oil consumption drives the economy, and more likely that the economy drives oil consumption.

That drop was the result of industry efficiency gains and not from less car use.

[yesplease]

You didn't say business as usual isn't going to happen, you stated "economic growth isn't going to happen". And, like I said before, don't just say it, prove it.

Troll tactics?

Only on PO dot come would asking someone to provide logical proof of their statements consitute trolling.

You didn't ask for proof, you resorted to semantic games.

How soon you forget.

Do you have anything in the way of proof for your contention?

I said that the economic growth and the subsequent rise in the standard of living, that developed industrialized countries have experienced over the last 40 years via cheap, readily available fossil fuels, which resulted in a drop in fertility, is not going to happen in the developing countries as fossil fuels decline.

It happened in Cuba, which has reduced fossil fuel energy consumption while it's population seems to be peaking. So no, a drop in fertility does not require fossil fuels, just an increase in wealth, which can be measured many different ways. Clearly, the wealth Cuba has, such as better education, medical care, and longer lives for it's citizens, is different from the wealth the US has. But it is still wealth and it still results in the projected demographic shift. In fact, according to one of the links you posted earlier

The next graph documents that wealthy countries are more urbanized than poor countries.

And clearly, as oil and personal transportation becomes more expensive, there is likely to be a trend towards increased urbanization and wealth.

[yesplease]

In fact, according to you graph, from 1979 to 1983, oil consumption dropped ~23-24% while GDP grew ~2-3% percent, so clearly it's not that oil consumption drives the economy, and more likely that the economy drives oil consumption.

That drop was the result of industry efficiency gains and not from less car use.

Do you have any proof of this?

[yesplease]

You have not used reasonable evidence and logic to provide proof of your claims, and I'm sorry to disappoint you but telling someone to google a term doesn't provide reasonable proof and/or logic either.

No, you have to actually go there and read the data.

I did, and there is nothing to validate your claims, the first link made no mention of fossil fuels, and the second stated "Fossil fuels made possible the rapid growth of population as transportation cost were reduced and human productivity increased greatly", however neither mentioned that the current decline in fertiity seen couldn't be seen w/o fossil fuels. Perhaps I missed something? In any event, you may want to include quotes that support your statements rather than simply posting links that don't appear to support you position.

[kublikhan]

There are 400 million acres of arable land in the United States (USDA) and thus just over 1.3 acres per person. USDA also claims 1 acre is required to feed one person. So yes, there is a bit of a safety margin. However, your 1.3 acres is probably hundreds if not thousands of miles away, is at least partially irrigated, fertilized and biocided with petroleum. The resulting food is collected, packed, trucked, processed, packaged, and retailed in a system completely dependent on petroleum. Do you really believe you and every other American will have access to their acre?

There are 300 million acres of arable land in China. With 1.3 billion mouths to feed. That is .2 acres per person. Or if everyone got an acre, that means 1 billion would be missing their acre. Do you think 1 billion are going to die in China? How many do you think are going to die in the US?

So, you are saying it is impossible for 300 million people, living in a country the size of America, with all it's resources, to survive post-peak oil? I don't mean have their lifestyles survive, I mean they can't find the bare minimum amount of food, water, etc. to stay alive?

Nope.
Hunter/gatherer is not an option for Americans. Besides, the abundance of wild nature is gone.
No more buffler' on da range.
We don't find food, water, clothing, shelter, etc...we buy it.
With money from a job.
How are people going to access these needs?
Millions can barely find "the bare minimum amount of food, water, etc. to stay alive" right now...in the best of times with the most oil ever.

What is your estimated carrying capacity of the US post peak? Since carrying capacity is determined by it's weakest link, what is the weakest link in the US? Food production? Water? What do you estimate the unemployment rate to be?