[kublikhan]

A report from the non-governmental organisation Global Witness – famous for its exposé of so-called "blood diamonds" – pointed to an impending supply shock that could be so severe that many of the world's poor countries would simply be shut off from the world of energy by sky-high prices.

Two years in the preparation, Global Witness's report, Heads in the Sand, accused governments of ignoring the fact that the world could soon start to run short of oil. This would lead to huge consequences in terms of price shocks and much higher levels of violence around the world than last year's food riots.

"There has been a decade of dithering and it is now too late to avoid the consequences unless the authorities move like there is no tomorrow." Dr Jeremy Leggett, author of books on peak oil and convenor of the UK Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security, said: "A steep premature descent in global oil production would be worse than the credit crunch in terms of economic impact. Unlike the credit crunch, however, the peak oil risk assessment involves big companies sounding the alarm alongside organisations like Global Witness."

Oil prices hit high but report warns of supply crunch

Governments and multi-lateral agencies have failed to recognise the imminence and scale of the global oil supply crunch, and most of them remain completely unprepared for its consequences. The report calls for governments to officially acknowledge the crunch and to shift urgently into safe sustainable energy alternatives.

"The world's governments have been asleep at the wheel. Their collective failure to recognise the imminent end of the oil age means we have lost a decade in which action could have been taken to develop alternatives and avert the worst outcomes of a dramatic drop off in the supply of oil," said Simon Taylor, Director of Global Witness. "Recognition of the oil supply crunch would have injected a sense of urgency and increased ambition for safer emissions reduction targets, both of which are sorely missing in the lead up to Copenhagen."

Government failure to acknowledge the looming oil supply crunch threatens the climate and risks international conflict

Heads in the Sand(pdf)

[Pretorian]

Any hope that the supply crunch will reduce number of children women have in these... "poor" countries to at least 3 or 4?

[SeaGypsy]

Where to draw the line on 'poor'? Poor countries? What about poor people? How about he 'rich' countries who have been buying their oil on a maxed out credit card?
Asia is paying world parity for oil, subsidies are either gone or being phased out.
My thinking is that the oil will go where the least amount achieves the biggest bang for the buck$ it costs. Number 1 reason the European economy is looking so much better than the USA's currently is the formentioned 50% better efficiency (This figure is increasing to due far faster uptake of alternative energy projects).
The assumption that a 'poor' country won't be able to afford it ignores the production/ efficiency/ consumption equation. Remembering that capital credit will increase to the areas with the best productivity per barrel (in crude terms/ pardon the pun) the reversal in oil supply could hit places like rural and regional (marginal) USA/ Australia/ India/ China/ Africa while continuing to support economic development in productive areas within these same places.
Globalism means the death of nationalism; in the truest sense.
A language will evolve to describe the 'new reality' as the creature evolves; I think the nationalistic framing of these kind of dicussions is nearing it's 'use by' date.

[Pretorian]

The assumption that a 'poor' country won't be able to afford it ignores the production/ efficiency/ consumption equation.

there are a good number of countries that live off international hand outs and export of slave labour exclusively.

[SeaGypsy]

The assumption that a 'poor' country won't be able to afford it ignores the production/ efficiency/ consumption equation.

there are a good number of countries that live off international hand outs and export of slave labour exclusively.

Egg Zachery Pretorian; the new status quo.

[mos6507]

Any hope that the supply crunch will reduce number of children women have in these... "poor" countries to at least 3 or 4?

Nope. But fewer of them will live to adulthood.

[Pretorian]

Any hope that the supply crunch will reduce number of children women have in these... "poor" countries to at least 3 or 4?

Nope. But fewer of them will live to adulthood.

well at least something to look forward for (to?)

[Pretorian]

The assumption that a 'poor' country won't be able to afford it ignores the production/ efficiency/ consumption equation.

there are a good number of countries that live off international hand outs and export of slave labour exclusively.

Egg Zachery Pretorian; the new status quo.

what is that, an aborigenese joke? i didnt get it

[evilgenius]

Any hope that the supply crunch will reduce number of children women have in these... "poor" countries to at least 3 or 4?

It would be nice to think that the supply crunch could do anything like that. Sadly, the most likely impact of a supply crunch on children in those countries will be to increase infant mortality.

Now, if you want to talk about what could bring down the number of children born, for that you need to talk women's rights and or empowerment.

[WildRose]

Now, if you want to talk about what could bring down the number of children born, for that you need to talk women's rights and or empowerment.

That's it in a nutshell, along with education.

[Pretorian]

Now, if you want to talk about what could bring down the number of children born, for that you need to talk women's rights and or empowerment.

That's it in a nutshell, along with education.

I heard a simple surgery can do the same perhaps much more effectively?

[WildRose]

Now, if you want to talk about what could bring down the number of children born, for that you need to talk women's rights and or empowerment.

That's it in a nutshell, along with education.

I heard a simple surgery can do the same perhaps much more effectively?

You mean vasectomy, Pretorian?

[davep]

Now, if you want to talk about what could bring down the number of children born, for that you need to talk women's rights and or empowerment.

That's it in a nutshell, along with education.

I heard a simple surgery can do the same perhaps much more effectively?

You mean vasectomy, Pretorian?

I'm not sure that's really necessary for some of the posters here. Their personalty being the best contraceptive known to man

[Fishman]

So the questions is, who will suffer most under another cost(supply) problem? Who suffered most last year? The developed countries struggled, the poorest countries struggled the most.
Sorry, vasectomies don't affect population nearly as much as tubals. Vasectomy reducing populations as much as tubals assumes longstanding monogamy.

[Pretorian]

Now, if you want to talk about what could bring down the number of children born, for that you need to talk women's rights and or empowerment.

That's it in a nutshell, along with education.

I heard a simple surgery can do the same perhaps much more effectively?

You mean vasectomy, Pretorian?

No I mean tubal ligations of course. How in the world a vasectomy would reduce a number of children born by a woman I wonder?

[Pops]

Keep it on the topic please

[americandream]

The EU's performance, in comparison to the US, worker for worker, is much better for no other reason than American investors were first on the China boat. Consequently, European companies have yet to exploit the cost advantages of moving manufacture to poorer regions.

Admittedly, West European companies have been exploiting the comparative advantages of moving manufacture into the lower cost East European zone. Dividend for dividend however, the American investor is better off having gained an advantage in China. In due course, EU manufacture will have to exit the zone if it is to ensure competitiveness and it's long term survival and that is when I suspect you will see a loss of the European workers wage premium.

These discussions of who will or will not be more wretched, poorer etc are consequently premature. Global capital is, as we post, gearing up for the next wave of labour cost mitigation and Europe is in its radar.

Where to draw the line on 'poor'? Poor countries? What about poor people? How about he 'rich' countries who have been buying their oil on a maxed out credit card?
Asia is paying world parity for oil, subsidies are either gone or being phased out.
My thinking is that the oil will go where the least amount achieves the biggest bang for the buck$ it costs. Number 1 reason the European economy is looking so much better than the USA's currently is the formentioned 50% better efficiency (This figure is increasing to due far faster uptake of alternative energy projects).
The assumption that a 'poor' country won't be able to afford it ignores the production/ efficiency/ consumption equation. Remembering that capital credit will increase to the areas with the best productivity per barrel (in crude terms/ pardon the pun) the reversal in oil supply could hit places like rural and regional (marginal) USA/ Australia/ India/ China/ Africa while continuing to support economic development in productive areas within these same places.
Globalism means the death of nationalism; in the truest sense.
A language will evolve to describe the 'new reality' as the creature evolves; I think the nationalistic framing of these kind of dicussions is nearing it's 'use by' date.

[SeaGypsy]

The EU's performance, in comparison to the US, worker for worker, is much better for no other reason than American investors were first on the China boat. Consequently, European companies have yet to exploit the cost advantages of moving manufacture to poorer regions.

Admittedly, West European companies have been exploiting the comparative advantages of moving manufacture into the lower cost East European zone. Dividend for dividend however, the American investor is better off having gained an advantage in China. In due course, EU manufacture will have to exit the zone if it is to ensure competitiveness and it's long term survival and that is when I suspect you will see a loss of the European workers wage premium.

These discussions of who will or will not be more wretched, poorer etc are consequently premature. Global capital is, as we post, gearing up for the next wave of labour cost mitigation and Europe is in its radar.

Where to draw the line on 'poor'? Poor countries? What about poor people? How about he 'rich' countries who have been buying their oil on a maxed out credit card?
Asia is paying world parity for oil, subsidies are either gone or being phased out.
My thinking is that the oil will go where the least amount achieves the biggest bang for the buck$ it costs. Number 1 reason the European economy is looking so much better than the USA's currently is the formentioned 50% better efficiency (This figure is increasing to due far faster uptake of alternative energy projects).
The assumption that a 'poor' country won't be able to afford it ignores the production/ efficiency/ consumption equation. Remembering that capital credit will increase to the areas with the best productivity per barrel (in crude terms/ pardon the pun) the reversal in oil supply could hit places like rural and regional (marginal) USA/ Australia/ India/ China/ Africa while continuing to support economic development in productive areas within these same places.
Globalism means the death of nationalism; in the truest sense.
A language will evolve to describe the 'new reality' as the creature evolves; I think the nationalistic framing of these kind of dicussions is nearing it's 'use by' date.

This is sure to be a real test of the resilience of the E.U. Protectionism being the enemy of capital flight. What will the European man on the street say when a bunch of untouchable beaurocrats starts forcing the demise of protectionist policies? Are the countries already signed up to cooperation to an extent they can't get out of it? Will we see a few nationalist revolts successfully exiting any of the key economies from the Union? There is certainly a groundswell of protest. How far will the so far untested real authority of the Union go to quell mass civil unrest?
How will Citizens of the USA respond to a people's movement being successfull in one of these key countries? Certainly 'interesting times'.

[americandream]

The MSM will ensure that the masses only vent to the extent that they feel "empowered". We can't have the rabble killing the goose thats laying the golden egg now, can we? Certainly, you will have impotent displays of survivalism, anarchism, national socialism and all that hooeey. We see these things in the US today where radicalism never, ever addresses the real issue. If China is ascendent as a sovereign competitor, why are the American elites cheerleading their own demise. This subject is often swept under the cover whilst the angry masses patrol the border seeking out "illegals" and others in an equally dire predicament, amongst some of the things we see passing for political activism. The TPTB will only break ranks when the system can no longer sustain itself and it's then I expect to see real conflict within the global capital community. This will obviously be a precursor to all sorts of barbaric conflicts and a significant "die off" in human numbers. Not yet though. The rhetoric is all feel good at the moment with warm fuzzies and other globalising discourse.