Car culture will start to wither away when it becomes Too Much Work compared to whatever other lifestyle alternatives are available.

I wish people wouldn't just rely on us scientists to fix all of their problems so they can go on living without having to make any moral decisions that may make their lives harder.
AMEN!! Say it, brother!

There's a folk singer out of Boston, Dean Stevens (http://www.deanstevens.com/), who has a song called "Wise Men in White Lab Coats" (Eyes of Wonder album). He sings about a number of environmental problems, closing each chorus with the conventional wisdom that the "wise men in white lab coats" (or white hard hats, or white feed caps) will fix it back up somehow. For example:

They say it doesn't matter
If the factory smokestack
Fouls up this town's air.
If it's foresight that we lack
We can build a taller stack
Send it to the next town, next town.
Every which way round.

But they tell you, don't worry
Got to hurry, hurry, hurry.
There's a quick buck, money money now
And the wise men in white lab coats
Will clean it back up somehow.
His website also mentions a cover of "David Dodson's brilliant indictment of our fossil fuel addiction, Gasoline", but I haven't heard that one. In any case, highly recommended music, and very admirable person, from what I know of him. (He also does a lot of work with grassroots economics in Latin American communities.)

forget Peak Oil... prepare for y2k! when it hits it will be the end of civilization as we know it! No electricity, no food, no oil, martial law, panda-moan-ium.... Doomsdayers rule, no matter how many band wagons they jump on, that end up falling apart, they will always jump on one more.

BTW... we could generate power with out fossil fuels. It's called nuclear power, but no, if we try to build a plant environmentalist go crazy.

I don't think that oil will be easily replacable. Ethanol is an energy sink, meaning it takes more energy to create the energy in ethanol, than what it delivers. Coal peaks in about 35 years, so unless nuclear is used, electric cars will have a limited future. The biggest problem isn't so much what will replace oil- the problem is that our leaders have put off switching to alternative fuels for so long, a huge new infrastructure for alternative fuels/energy will have to be built in a very short period of time. That would be nearly impossible. Add this to the problem that the most promising new fuel, hydrogen, is still in its infancy as far as development is concerned. Hydrogen as a gas has to be stored at very high pressure and thus is difficult to store. Claus Hviid Christensen at the Department of Chemistry at The Technical University of Denmark (DTU) says, “Should you drive a car 600 km using gaseous hydrogen at normal pressure, it would require a fuel tank with a size of nine cars.”
Baby steps are being made in the development of a solid hydrogen fuel cell. However, we are not at the point where hydrogen is practical from an economic standpoint. Mazda is putting out a hydrogen car in 2008, but this car will cost about 200 grand. The current government being neo-liberal in its economic policy, would leave the market to solve the problem of decreasing oil availability, as opposed to taking action itself to insure a smooth transition out of the fossil fuel economy. Most experts say that if it is left to the market, it will be too late to avoid crisis. By crisis, I mean very expensive gasoline, which would raise the cost of everything. This could lead to severe inflation, which could ruin our ailing economy. I used to think that peak oil would just force us to change what we use to get around. Peak oil, however, could lead to economic crisis, which would affect us bikers whether we like it or not. If you really want to get good, current information about not just peak oil, but progress in the development of alternatives, and where our energy future is headed, the best thing is to get on the Yahoo Energy Resources Group. (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/) People in this forum post good current articles pertinent to where our energy future is headed.
As far as the doomsayers versus those who imagine a rosy world where peak oil will turn out to be as uneventful as y2k, I have this to say: the doomsayers are jumping to some pretty drastic conclusions- but with Bush in office now and a Republican sure to follow, things ARE likely to get bad in some way. Government could make all the difference in how this is handled. Nothing is certain at this point. However, America is putting itself in a very precarious position by foisting money into this war, and destroying our economic base by shipping manufacturing jobs overseas. Neoliberalism combined with peak oil could make the doomsayers scenarios come true.

The best indicator we have of the supply of oil in the foreseeable future is the price. The market does not believe that we are facing any imminent scarcity. At least, the market doesn't believe we are facing any imminent shortage of energy, as it anticipates-- correctly-- that alternative sources will be substituted for oil in many ways should oil become scarce.

The market can't foresee whether we are running out of oil, because oil companies overstate their reserves as a regular habit, according to the book, Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-4730836-0748727?url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=Hubberts+peak) by Kenneth S. Deffeyes

Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing. -Richard Bullock

I don't know the author of the following, but I think it makes sense.

Things thought "impossible" are sealed concepts, until a few people dare to think otherwise. once you realize that it's reachable, more and more people join in, gathering critical mass, and making it happen. but it starts with one. one insane person who has a vision. networking accelerates this type of process. news is heard in a flash, ideas get checked and re-checked, compared, compiled, discussed, and implemented. the impossible things are happening more quickly because we hear and see about them more often and at greater speed than ever before.

When we need an alternative one will surface. The only reason, i believe we haven't had one yet is purely monetar. Oil is cheap and effective. When it starts getting more expensive it will become worthwhile to explore alternatives. These alternatives will likely start out expensive but costs will go down as we become better at producing it. Just because we dont have a solution now doesnt mean we are dommed to destruction.

Anyways, if you are right about peak oil and if it is impossible to replace fossil fuels then there is nothing we can do we are doomed to the dark ages when when we run out. No matter what we do we will run out. What is the difference if we run out in 100 years or 150 years? The tragedy would not be the time frame but the fact that it is inevitable.

The market can't foresee whether we are running out of oil, because oil companies overstate their reserves as a regular habit, according to the book, Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-4730836-0748727?url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=Hubberts+peak) by Kenneth S. Deffeyes


I doubt that. It seems to me they would have much more to gain $$$ by understating the reserves. No matter what there will be a huge market for oil, even if we come up with a replacement energy source, oil will be used until it is gone or too expensive. They would have nothing to gain by overstating reserves except to keep the price artificially low.

When we need an alternative one will surface. The only reason, i believe we haven't had one yet is purely monetar. Oil is cheap and effective. When it starts getting more expensive it will become worthwhile to explore alternatives. These alternatives will likely start out expensive but costs will go down as we become better at producing it. Just because we dont have a solution now doesnt mean we are dommed to destruction.



Your thoughts are logical and on the surface they make sense, but what happens if the price of oil doesn't raise gradually, but sharply and suddenly? If oil prices continue to ease upwards slowly for a long period of time, then we will conserve and the market will demand - and get - alternatives. How good those alternatives are remains to be seen. But there is a real possibility for a sharp increase in price that the market wont be able to handle. A sharp decline from a field like Ghawar would surely send the prices soaring. But even a small annual decline has the potential to send prices very high because a lot of demand for oil is inelastic. And one other thing: energy sources and infrastructure can't be exchanged readily like lego blocks. If oil peaks and we need to turn to something else, it will take a long time to switch to whatever that "something else" is even if we have it. The interim period will be very turbulant. So if some of the optimists on reserves and production are correct and peaking is still some decades off, we should still be preparing right now.




Anyways, if you are right about peak oil and if it is impossible to replace fossil fuels then there is nothing we can do we are doomed to the dark ages when when we run out. No matter what we do we will run out. What is the difference if we run out in 100 years or 150 years? The tragedy would not be the time frame but the fact that it is inevitable.



All I've said is that it isn't possible to continue our way of life and the high rates of energy consumption that goes along with it. For many people this may sound like the end of the world, but that doesn't mean it's not possible to live happily using less energy than we do now. We don't necessarily have to slide back into something akin to the dark ages when it runs out either. You're right on with looking to the inevitability of it though, but instead of using years like 100 and 150 for running out, I would substitute time frames like 5 to 30 years for peaking - not running out. Peaking and running out are very different, sometimes used interchangably in these discussions of peak oil...but they're not the same thing.

As far your comments on the impossible, I think it's impossible for us to break the laws of Thermodynamics...

Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing. -Richard Bullock

I don't know the author of the following, but I think it makes sense.

Things thought "impossible" are sealed concepts, until a few people dare to think otherwise. once you realize that it's reachable, more and more people join in, gathering critical mass, and making it happen. but it starts with one. one insane person who has a vision. networking accelerates this type of process. news is heard in a flash, ideas get checked and re-checked, compared, compiled, discussed, and implemented. the impossible things are happening more quickly because we hear and see about them more often and at greater speed than ever before.

When we need an alternative one will surface. The only reason, i believe we haven't had one yet is purely monetar. Oil is cheap and effective. When it starts getting more expensive it will become worthwhile to explore alternatives. These alternatives will likely start out expensive but costs will go down as we become better at producing it. Just because we dont have a solution now doesnt mean we are dommed to destruction.

Anyways, if you are right about peak oil and if it is impossible to replace fossil fuels then there is nothing we can do we are doomed to the dark ages when when we run out. No matter what we do we will run out. What is the difference if we run out in 100 years or 150 years? The tragedy would not be the time frame but the fact that it is inevitable.

Hey, remember back in a previous incarnation on Easter Island, when you kept saying that the gods would surely recognize the wonder of our big head statues? That it didn't matter if we kept cutting the trees down, all you had to do was think big?

Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing. -Richard Bullock

I don't know the author of the following, but I think it makes sense.

Things thought "impossible" are sealed concepts, until a few people dare to think otherwise. once you realize that it's reachable, more and more people join in, gathering critical mass, and making it happen. but it starts with one. one insane person who has a vision.
Maybe the peak oilers and the sustainable economy/energy proponents are those very visionaries, and you're the one who hasn't caught on yet.

Just because we dont have a solution now doesnt mean we are dommed to destruction.

Anyways, if you are right about peak oil and if it is impossible to replace fossil fuels then there is nothing we can do we are doomed to the dark ages when when we run out.

It's not limited to those two choices.

Peak oil is a falacy not on the production side, but in that it assumes that consumption will continue to increase regardless of what market forces do to the price. That falacy was demonstrated with the Katrina/Rita price spike. Demand destruction did occur, and it occured at a paltry $3 a gallon.

The simple fact is that if total oil available on the market begins to decrease in a permanent fashion, the price will rise until the point at which demand matches the new supply. Maybe thats the equivalent of $5 a gallon for gas, maybe its at $10 a gallon; but at a certain point, demand will fall.

And look what $3 a gallon gas did to the sales of SUV's; suddenly they fell. People did the math, found that there still were 30mpg+ cars available, and shifted their interest. Imagine the next time it goes to $3 and stays there longer... Each time it happens, people will make appropriate economic decisions for themselves, and will choose to buy what they can afford to feed. And if the desire for high efficiency vehicles becomes a sustained consumer demand, the auto companies will be more than happy to churn out 35mpg cars instead of 13mpg SUVs; but only when there is true consumer driven demand.

ummmmmmm........rwwff, prices are climbing again, reason being its winter AND european imports of refined product stopped a few weeks ago, the last of the extra imports has just about worked its way thru the system, $3/gallon will be back before long

also, demand destruction can occur here, but consumption growth contnues elsewhere.....so whatever slack created when demand dropped briefly here, will be picked up elsewhere like China or India for example

world oil production of light sweet crude is roughly equal to world oil demand for it, however there is a huge abundance of heavy sour crude....its about $32/barrel right now

these numbers and info is readily available, try oil.com for daily oil updates

with an inelastic product in a captive market once supply starts declining at a rate that cant be compensated for alternatives sometimes are found sometimes not........sometimes civilzations die over it, and in reality, an open market and democratic govt is one of the least efficient ways to make the changes to something like this-------it doesnt react or move fast enough

The point that the peak oilers are addressing is that the total demand destruction possible, due to inflexibility of sufficiently available immediate alternatives, only has a certain capacity.

Beyond this capacity, the economy as we know it fails to function. US transportation fuel consumption is roughly 15% of global consumption of oil. If we double overall fuel efficiency, that saves 8% globally. If decline rates are on the order of 3-4% annulally, the outcome becomes unsustainable within only a few years due to no alternatives being ready in sufficient quantity and sufficient capacity already invested. In this manner, a whole manner of industries will become ineffective due to prices of oil-based production simply being too high. If there is a 10%, a number of global industries fail that depend on cheap oil. Assuming this leads to a collapse of the dollar, the worst comes to pass...the US no longer being able to purchase foreign oil.

At present, the US produces 5.5 million bpd and consumes 21 million mpd. By the time global oil peak occurs, our production is expected to be at 4-5 million mpd and demand at 24 million mpd.

This leaves us with only the oil that we produce domestically. Best case scenario in a dollar collapse (25% of oil demand is available)

On the energy grid, things are better, as we have substantial coal deposits.

Current energy production:
50% coal
20% nuclear
5% renewables and hydro
25% natural gas and oil fired thermal plants

With more than half of the nuclear plants up for replacement, and all natural gas/oil production going offline, that means that we will have some 60% of electric production on our hands.

25% oil and 60% electric seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

Only the government can solve this problem, if anyone. It may be too late, but the attempt must be made. The rest of us can get rich building powerplants now that don't depend on what we're running out of.

This goes well beyond cars. This will necessitate a change of lifestyle far beyond "car-free". It does not mean a return to the stone-age. It means planning our way out of this problem.

good post k6-III (amd processor I assume?)

from purely an economic standpoint it looks to be a real mess too, nothing we do handles contraction very well.......both the banking system and economic policies/standards are based on nonstop neverending growth on a finite planet with finite resources

when the change does occur and if it involves a world change in fiat currency from the dollar to something else, and this will likely coincide with some sort of spike or problem with oil supplies somewhere in the world........our massive debt load alone will be more than enough to cripple the US, the petrodollar is about all thats holding the whole quivering mess together right now

this probably belongs in the political forum but with Iran acting stupid they probably wont be able to open their oil bourse in 3 months as planned........if they do and it takes off, we are going to be in for a bumpy ride economically for quite awhile even with adequate oil supplies

The point that the peak oilers are addressing is that the total demand destruction possible, due to inflexibility of sufficiently available immediate alternatives, only has a certain capacity.

Here is the crux of the problem that causes most of my skepticism in these particular doomsayers. They overreach when making very import foundational statements.

Here you use the word "possible" when the word "comfortable" would be more appropriate. The peak oil advocates insist on making the assumption that changes in behavior will not occur in response to market forces. My point isn't that the auto industry will find a way to allow Americans to continue driving 15,000 miles a year; but that at certain points in the price curve, Americans will reduce the miles being driven. Americans will find ways to drive fewer miles, and they will drive those fewer miles in more efficient vehicles; and the recent price fluctuations prove this to be the case, even when the fluctuation is very modest in a TCO sense. Allow the signal to become large enough, and you will get a large enough response. I have thought for a very long time, that the point where it becomes large enough is somewhere around the $5 a gallon range for the various refined products. Consumers will then react appropriately.

The second thing that bugs me a bit is when they say things like "nuke plants .. needing replacement.." ; when everyone knows what really will happen. The operating permits will simply be extended, engineering work will be done to adjust to their advancing age, and the government will provide insurance to protect companies that choose to build new reactors. So these existing plants are not going to be retired, they will be extended one way or another, and new plants will be built.

The third thing is this insistance of flying the boogy-man of a collapse in the value of the dollar. Strong dollar policies have advantages, but guess what, so do weak dollar policies. You realize, that the only reason it is cheaper to hire some guy in India to write computer programs is that the dollar is artificially, and vastly, overvalued at the present time. That is because a weak Rupi/RenMenB do indeed have advantages for India and China. The minute they allow the dollar to fall, they loose those advantages, and their exports into the US become much more expensive, while simultaneously bloating the profits of US exporters. A weak dollar would be in no way an end of the world problem. Granted, it would be a bumpy transition, but thats the way markets work sometimes.

RWWFF,well you do have some valid points, from my perspective based on history of our behavior in the past, it would just take about 3 or 4 years like 2005 and we'd be in trouble and way way behind in making the necessary corrections.

If 2006 - 2009 were to play out like 2005 and thats a big IF, I recognize that, we would be looking at oh I dunno, about $7-$9/gallon for gas in 2009 maybe sooner, and thats still dirt cheap. But it would be a fast enough change to really screw this country up, too fast to react to properly.

The problems with the value of the dollar are a little more far reaching than just where the labor is, and that takes time to change too. With the enormous debtload the US has accumulated being propped up by the petrodollar and our consumption a change in fiat currency alone would prettymuch kill the US if it happened fairly quickly.......fortunately for US the countries holding our dollars also need our business, but China,possibly India, and the oil producing nations could probably make the transistion with only a few years of turmoil.

If the rate of change remains small and manageable we will be fine, if it does like 2004-2005 very many times we wont be able to handle that very well, and once oil production worldwide starts its decline we wont have a choice and we can expect oil prices to increase in mulitples, not just a few % per year. That is when it starts getting interesting. Some civilizations have handled stuff like this quite well, most havent, most have collapsed, and few have gotten themsleves as dependent on one resource as we have.

If 2006 - 2009 were to play out like 2005 and thats a big IF, I recognize that, we would be looking at oh I dunno, about $7-$9/gallon for gas in 2009 maybe sooner, and thats still dirt cheap. But it would be a fast enough change to really screw this country up, too fast to react to properly.

Demand destruction will prevent any such rapid change. At those prices, there would be so much excess refining capacity that the futures market would rapidly collapse the price back down to something more sellable.

Middle class commuters might not knock on their neighbors' door to ask about carpooling at $3 a gallon. They absolutely will at $5 a gallon; and at $7 they might even take the park-n-ride bus. Definition: Demand destruction.

Peak oil is a falacy not on the production side, but in that it assumes that consumption will continue to increase regardless of what market forces do to the price. That falacy was demonstrated with the Katrina/Rita price spike. Demand destruction did occur, and it occured at a paltry $3 a gallon.
A blip...they didn't fill up for a week or two while waiting for prices to drop. Which they did. Had prices stayed high, they would have started to fill up at that price.

I think "demand destruction" is a polite way to say that if there's not enough oil to go around, the people who can't afford it can just do without. Demand destruction isn't a solution, it's just a scientific sounding way to describe the problem.

I think "demand destruction" is a polite way to say that if there's not enough oil to go around, the people who can't afford it can just do without. Demand destruction isn't a solution, it's just a scientific sounding way to describe the problem.

Well in the case of Katrina its fairly accurate methinks, temporarily anyway. But in other countries where its been a long lasting thing, the results have been ugly. North Korea is experiencing population decline and slow starvation as are many other countries with serious energy issues. About the only country Im aware of that has handled an abrupt drop in energy supplies pretty well is Cuba of all places.

Fact still remains unlimited growth w/o unlimited energy supply growth does not work under the current system, and the way we do things in the US is in no way shape or form even ready to think about the idea much less deal with it. There is huge amounts of slack in the system that can be removed, but even that has big consequences.

When we need an alternative one will surface. The only reason, i believe we haven't had one yet is purely monetar. Oil is cheap and effective. When it starts getting more expensive it will become worthwhile to explore alternatives.
That is not realism, that is "magical" thinking. By the most optimistic(pro-oil industry) predictions, world petro output will peak in a few decades and begin to decline slowly. The only thing that is certain, is that alternate forms of energy wil be (and continue to be) much more expensive. There are solutions, but they will continue to be politically impossible as long as the public is fed a steady diet of delusional "the market economy will save you" propaganda.

I think "demand destruction" is a polite way to say that if there's not enough oil to go around, the people who can't afford it can just do without. Demand destruction isn't a solution, it's just a scientific sounding way to describe the problem.

Thank you Platy, you have sumed that up very eloquently and succinctly.

Demand destruction is the problem. rwwff, what you are basically saying is that we will adapt. I don't disagree with you, and I don't think anyone else who has studied Peak Oil seriously would disagree with you either. But as Platy has described it, demand destruction is the problem and not the solution we should be looking for. Demand destruction is just a polite way of saying that the economy has gone into a recession large enough to curtail demand. People who don't have jobs don't need to buy gasoline because they don't have to drive to work. People who don't have jobs don't go on vacations because they can't afford them. They don't buy all the little plastic consumer items we all enjoy. Demand destruction pushed on us by market forces is the last way we should deal with this problem, but that's where we are headed.

The following is borrowed from Life After the Oil Crash (www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net)



"Won't the Market and the Laws of
Supply and Demand Address This?"


Not enough to prevent an economic meltdown.

As economist Andrew Mckillop explains in a recent article entitled, "Why Oil Prices Are Barreling Up," oil is nowhere near as "elastic" as most commodities:

One of the biggest problems facing the IEA, the EIA and a
host of analysts and "experts" who claim that "high prices
cut demand" either directly or by dampening economic
growth is that this does not happen in the real world.

Since early 1999, oil prices have risen about 350%. Oil
demand growth in 2004 at nearly 4% was the highest in 25
years. These are simple facts that clearly conflict with
received notions about "price elasticity". World oil demand,
for a host of easily-described reasons, tends to be bolstered
by "high" oil and gas prices until and unless "extreme" prices
are attained.

As mentioned previously, this is exactly what happened during the oil shocks of the 1970s - shortfalls in supply as little as 5% drove the price of oil up near 400%. Demand did not fall until the world was mired in the most severe economic slowdown since the Great Depression.


I have no doubt that changes in behavior will occur. James Kunstler often says that we will do what circumstances compel us to do, and he is right. But being forced to change our behavior doesn't mean that we will even recognize what the real problem is. Sure, people will drive less when prices are high, but how they view those prices will be critical in what happens in the long term, which is what I'm worried out. Will everyone accept Peak Oil is here, or will they blame the greedy oil companies? If they see the problem of high prices as a temporary thing they will only change their behavior for a short time. When demand destruction has lowered prices enough, they will go right back to their tried and true old wasteful behaviors. This is exactly what happened in the 1970's. Assuming we aren't hit with immediate high decline rates, it'll be like a rollar coaster. High prices cause a drop in demand. Demand goes down, so prices go down. Prices are low again, so demand picks up. Prices go higher. Rinse, wash, repeat. Then after a few years of steady decline, prices continue to rise or stay steady no matter how much consumers voluntarily curb their behavior.


And even demand destruction can only go so far. As KS-III pointed out, we will be looking at cumulative drops in supply after we peak. There is a lot of waste in our economy that we could cut out (even though most of us make a living off of creating that waste), but after we cut all the waste out and supply keeps falling, then what? How do we continue to destroy demand then? By destroying people's standards of living - the American way of life that Dick Cheney said is non negotiable, and the car culture that is part of it.

I think you're right about the nuclear plants going up for replacement. The sad fact is that environmentalism will probably be thrown away as we struggle to scale up alternatives to meet our energy needs.

Effectively, peak oil requires the construction of an entirely new kind of economy.

The present system of consumption will fail under peak oil. Socially, the new system must somehow glorify those that reduce consumption.

Given that present corporations are to be largely caught with their pants down, the only hope lies in government. Only government has the potential to do this. This does not mean that they will in fact participate.

I noticed above it mentioned that simply reducing our transporation consumption in the US can fix this. Assuming we quit using oil for transportation entirely worldwide, we will have cut global oil consumption by only 16%. As prices are determined globally, this will buy us some time. At 2-3% decline rates, that might buy us 5-6 years. This would buy us this time only if the economy magically stays intact and alternatives can be implimented instantaneously.

I look at it the following way:

The best case scenario is a second great depression, which we have the resources to bring to an end via resource transition.

Worst case means a great depression that never comes to an end, and grows only worse with time.

Effectively, peak oil will hurt. The only question is for how long and to what degree.

There are a number of technologies that can help pull us out the mess once we are several years in. The trick is getting everything lined up so that we can pull out of the economic collapse and prosper anew.

Some potential technologies that are almost there:

Space-based relay satellites for microwave or laser (Allows us to tap any geothermal site on the planet and transmit wirelessly to where we need the power)
OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Converter)

Further on the horizon, we have the following:

Nuclear fusion (deuterium-tritium, he3-he3)
Space-based solar panels (lunar based with local materials)
Space tethers (tap into planetary magnetic field)

The best that we can do is buy ourselves some time. Time will let the new stuff buy us even more time.

Another point worth mentioning.

The market can and will address many of these issues, but the question of living arrangement it can only do if the choice exists.

As government builds roads, lays utilities, and controls public transportation infrastructure, they decide the choices that developers can provide. In this case, the government still provides a leading role.

If public transporation does not exist, people do not have it as a choice. In a scenario of economic hardship, private capital would not exist either to build the system or to pay for tickets and its use.

A fair number of carfree people may be deliberately pioneering a new lifestyle. Optimists are always saying that peak oil will be solved by private innovation. Well, okay, this carfree thing is our innovation and our contribution. People can laugh it off, shout "Hey Lance" and toss garbage at us, but in the long run what we're doing as individuals to debug a lower energy lifestyle may have more lasting value than the billion$ and trillion$ that will be poured into increasingly desperate corporate and government energy projects.

I have to disagree with a lot of folks here; demand destruction is not the problem, its the answer. As in all things economic, people make choices in the marketplace based on whether a product is, to them, worth what it costs. Using as much oil as one might wish to is not a right guaranteed by the constitution; if you can't afford it, or it isn't an acceptable value to a particular consumer, they can do without. Lots of people buy fancy coffee at high prices; while others do not perceive the product as being worth its cost and so buy cheap coffee or choose not to buy coffee at all. I don't find that offensive.

By believing that a market driven change in energy consumption habits of Americans will cause some catastrophic disruption, one is simply empowering the notion that the individual car is necessary. If the price is high enough, people will find alternative ways of doing what they need to do.

In addition, today I took some stuff over to my parents by bike, a 21 mile round trip, and was thinking how nice it could be if all these huge expanses of concrete and asphalt were dedicated to bicycle traffic; not as a result of some social engineering experiment, but simply as the result of consumer choice in the marketplace.

This provoked a question in my mind... how long would it take for the average US consumer to go from sweating and hating it, to feeling the health improvements while noticing they can suddenly eat anything that doesn't fight back to hard and still maintain a healthy weight.

By believing that a market driven change in energy consumption habits of Americans will cause some catastrophic disruption, one is simply empowering the notion that the individual car is necessary. If the price is high enough, people will find alternative ways of doing what they need to do.

That's the "soft landing" scenario. But some market adjustment events are catastrophic, like the Great Depression, or the tulip mania (http://www.ricedelman.com/planning/investing/tulipbulbs.asp) etc. Oil isn't just for cars, in fact that's the most frivolous use. Home heating and air conditioning, agriculture, and manufacturing are all going to be affected.

edit: and the tulip mania also challenges your assumption that people spend rationally.

I have to disagree with a lot of folks here; demand destruction is not the problem, its the answer. As in all things economic, people make choices in the marketplace based on whether a product is, to them, worth what it costs. Using as much oil as one might wish to is not a right guaranteed by the constitution; if you can't afford it, or it isn't an acceptable value to a particular consumer, they can do without. Lots of people buy fancy coffee at high prices; while others do not perceive the product as being worth its cost and so buy cheap coffee or choose not to buy coffee at all. I don't find that offensive.

By believing that a market driven change in energy consumption habits of Americans will cause some catastrophic disruption, one is simply empowering the notion that the individual car is necessary. If the price is high enough, people will find alternative ways of doing what they need to do.

In addition, today I took some stuff over to my parents by bike, a 21 mile round trip, and was thinking how nice it could be if all these huge expanses of concrete and asphalt were dedicated to bicycle traffic; not as a result of some social engineering experiment, but simply as the result of consumer choice in the marketplace.

This provoked a question in my mind... how long would it take for the average US consumer to go from sweating and hating it, to feeling the health improvements while noticing they can suddenly eat anything that doesn't fight back to hard and still maintain a healthy weight.


Well, history would disagree with you. This isnt the first time a civilization has been faced with running out of a resource they depend on for survival. Historically, most civilizations experience some very very serious consequences. Market forces are one issue, human nature on the otherhand is another.

In big sections of china right now for example fuel and electricity are being rationed due to chronic shortages. People have cars, but no fuel to run them. People have a/c but no electricity to run them. Yet despite all that, they are moving forward and doing everything to consume even more assuming at some point supplies will catch up. They run rivers completely dry while polluting others beyond belief.......thats human nature too, use everything up then look for a solution.

Even our own bodies themselves and our vary nature is designed to do the exact same thing. We hoard and over consume food, its our nature. Like all other animals we do so instinctively, even when faced with a shortage, even one that may cause deaths from starvation.

Man despite centuries of being aware of it, still hasnt learned to grasp a very simple equation---geometric doubling and exponential growth.

I'd never heard of the tulip mania before. Interesting stuff. I think that's the perfect story to explain what a bubble is.


This provoked a question in my mind... how long would it take for the average US consumer to go from sweating and hating it, to feeling the health improvements while noticing they can suddenly eat anything that doesn't fight back to hard and still maintain a healthy weight.

This is an interesting question, and for many Americans I think the answer would be: never. Commuting by bike isn't an option for the people who have to commute an hour each way in their car right now. The distances are too great, so they'll never have an opportunity to give it a chance unless they move. As for people who don't have to drive such great distances and can give bicycles a try, we'll see. One thing that worries me about it is that people in general do not enjoy things that are forced upon them, so they may ride a bike because it's practical and they can afford it, while forgetting the benefits and secretly wishing they could still afford to drive that SUV.

I think cooker touched on something that you're not taking into account completely: the only use of cars isn't for oil. This is something I myself was completely oblivious to before I found out about Peak Oil. A couple of months before I read about Peak Oil, I read a story on CNN saying that many geologists were predicting that global warming would never happen because we don't have enough oil to ruin the climate, and that we would be running out of oil sooner than expected. That was in November of year before last. I thought, "Great! Now we'll switch to other things like wind and solar, and stop polluting the environment." A few months later in February I was reading Life After the Oil Crash for the first time, and they put that CNN story in the context of Peak Oil.

When gasoline for everyone goes up, it will affect even people who don't own cars. Virtually everything in the US is transported across the country via trucks or planes that require large amounts of oil. The prices of the things (everything) that are transported via will increase as the price of oil increases.

You're right. Demand destruction will decrease the demand for oil. The market will work itself out somehow, and the demand for oil will ultimately come into equilibrium with the supply. But when we're talking about demand destruction, it's not just going to be acheived by individuals choosing to conserve by carpooling, riding a bike, or using mass transit. It's going to be acheived by the biggest recession any of us have ever seen in our lifetimes, leaving people not only unable to drive their cars, but pay their mortgages and heat their homes too. I don't think that's any more of a solution than putting thousands of people in the Superdome and not sending them food or water was for Katrina.

People who live a very long distance from their work will find ways to commute without using an individual car. Park'n'Ride bus, train, or whatever is cool at the time. Nice thing about Park'n'Ride type busses, the little infrastructure they require can be put down very fast when there is a will to do so and a definate market demand for the service. My opinion is that when gas hits the $5 a gallon mark, people out in the suburbs will begin to express that demand.

A little interesting math..
at $2 a gallon, the IRS gave an estimated cost of about 35 cents per mile. For an average 20mpg vehicle, only 10 cents of that cost is for gas. At $3 a gallon, the cost was 41 cents, with 15 cents of that cost for gas. At $5 a gallon, I'd imagine well be in the 55 cent per mile range; which, I think, is enough to get the attention of most middle class people living in the suburbs. Its nowhere near high enough to stop them from driving their car to the park'n'ride lot; but it is quite high enough to stop a lot of people from driving 30-40 miles to a distant job. They'll still get there, but they'll go by bus.

This is an opportunity for us to convince them that they no longer need a car!!!

There is one other point to recall, despite the fact that we do import a vast amount of oil, it is also true that we produce a vast amount of oil; its just that oil is so cheap right now that we do really silly and extravagant things with it. The point of this, is that I believe the amount we produce, and the amount we have in currently off-limits areas (FL, CA, OR,AK, Arctic Sea), pretty much guarantees a relatively soft landing. For countries like Japan, it won't be nearly so pretty. As the price begins to move in significant amounts, US producers aren't going to stop, they are going to do everything they can to maximize production in order to take advantage of a price spike. There is also the strategic patroleum reserve, which, if used carefully, can prevent the very short term market disruptions that would result in an out of control Depression. Which is why I think the tulip and great depression examples can not be realistically applied to the current situation.

For countries like Japan, it won't be nearly so pretty.

No man - or country - is an island (except Australia). You're dreaming if you think the USA will be buffered from the effects of a worldwide economic disaster.

"relatively soft landing. " were the words I chose. Relative, in normal English, means in comparison to one's peers. Compared to Japan, China, and India, we are going to look wonderful; we'll probably be a bit better off than parts of Europe. Russia and some others will look pretty good compared to us; oil exporters will of course be singing chorus hyms... "we're in the money, we're in the money...."

Personally, I'm having a hard time finding anything particularly bad, in a large scale sense, about a supply / demand equilibrium at $5-$10 a gallon; its certainly more realistic. Sure, I'll grouse about it along with everyone else, but in the end, I'll drive even less, I'll count the virtual dollars and smile as I ride my bike to Walmart. Once, every couple weeks, I'll take the truck out and fetch a quarter-ton of stuff I couldn't bike with; and in the end, I'll have spent less and be in better shape. Even more people will look with calculating interest at the panniers, lights, computer and gps on my bike, and a few of those might just say, "hmmmm, maybe so.."

The US has only 2% of the world's proven oil reserves. We already have 8% of global production. Pumping it any faster doesn't help the situation any. We peaked our production at 11 million bpd in 1970. We're now at about 5.5 million mpd. Assume you want to pump all these restricted zones. By the time all of this infrastructure is up, existing fields will be pumping 4-5 million, at existing decline rates. You'll slowly ramp up production from new fields, as old fields decline. Thus, best case scenario, you'll create a second peak at 6-7 million bpd, that will quickly decline thereafter, much like the North Sea.

As for consumption, we consume presently 21 million mpd. Of this, only 60% is for transportation. That amounts to appx 12 million mpd. Even if you didn't have any cars, trains, buses, or trucks running anywhere in the country, you still need 9 million bpd to keep the economy running. We cannot produce enough for ourselves.

That means industry will no longer be able to produce. Mechanized agriculture will fail. The list goes on. Hell, plastic widgets of all sorts will become expensive.

All we do is raise the peak and make it happen a bit later, in exchange for a worse fall. Consider this: The higher we raise the peak, the higher it'll be to get out of this depression, and the harder the landing will be.

Remember, oil prices are set globally. We buy at the same prices as every other country, with the exception of the net producers and their friends.

I said earlier, if we alone cut our fuel consumption and the rest of the world does not, it will barely have any effect on delaying oil peak. The only way that politicians now see this is fuel economy improvements via CAFE standards. That'll buy us 1-2 years, tops, if done immediately. That'll bring a global change of consumption down by 3-5%, enough to cover a little decline. If China and India just buy up what we're not, because they decide they can still afford it, we will not have helped any.

The best that can be done is the following:

Get all infrastructure ready for post-peak
Once critical infrastructure is in place to allow people to transition, force demand to decrease

Analogy: All in all we are deciding if it will be bad next week or a whole lot worse the week after. We can live in luxury for another week, but will starve to death if we do.

"relatively soft landing. " were the words I chose. Relative, in normal English, means in comparison to one's peers. Compared to Japan, China, and India, we are going to look wonderful; we'll probably be a bit better off than parts of Europe. Russia and some others will look pretty good compared to us; oil exporters will of course be singing chorus hyms... "we're in the money, we're in the money...."

Personally, I'm having a hard time finding anything particularly bad, in a large scale sense, about a supply / demand equilibrium at $5-$10 a gallon; its certainly more realistic. Sure, I'll grouse about it along with everyone else, but in the end, I'll drive even less, I'll count the virtual dollars and smile as I ride my bike to Walmart. Once, every couple weeks, I'll take the truck out and fetch a quarter-ton of stuff I couldn't bike with; and in the end, I'll have spent less and be in better shape. Even more people will look with calculating interest at the panniers, lights, computer and gps on my bike, and a few of those might just say, "hmmmm, maybe so.."
Your analyis of supply/demand in your previous post is perfectly reasonable in a microeconomic context.

Unfortunately, in the macro sphere, the US economy depends heavily on consumer spending, and all world economies depend on economic growth, that is, on people spending more each year than they spent the previous year.

While it would be wonderful, in terms of environment, health and safety, if masses of people stopped buying cars and started buying bicycles instead, it would be an economic disaster. Generally speaking, bikes cost a lot less than cars, and human power is virtually free in comparison to oil. That's why demand destruction would be a bad thing. If overall demand decreases, overall supply will decrease, too.

That's what a recession is, when this quarter's total economic activity is less than last quarter's. The economy shrinks, and can provide jobs for fewer people. In the worst cases, like the Great Depression, a vicious cycle takes hold, and a spiral ensues: decreasing demand, followed by decreasing supply, followed by widespread job losses, followed by decreasing demand....

So it seems to me that we need one of the following near-miraculous breakthroughs:
A new energy source as cheap, plentiful and useful as oil; or
An economic model which would allow for full employment without growth
With the possible exeption of nuclear fusion, I'm not aware of any such potential energy "miracles."

I think the only possibile economic "miracle" would be a socialistic/communistic model of guaranteed/required employment -- and such models have been riddled with problems in the past. Not to mention that almost no one wants anything like that in the US.

But if such a system can provide a reasonable, sustainable life for everyone, without requiring constant growth -- and the locust-like consumption of resources that continuous growth inevitably brings -- then you'll go along with it, comrade, and what's more, you'll like it. :)

I think the only possibile economic "miracle" would be a socialistic/communistic model of guaranteed/required employment -- and such models have been riddled with problems in the past. Not to mention that almost no one wants anything like that in the US.

But if such a system can provide a reasonable, sustainable life for everyone, without requiring constant growth -- and the locust-like consumption of resources that continuous growth inevitably brings -- then you'll go along with it, comrade, and what's more, you'll like it. :)

Its already been proven that "such a system" does not provide full employment, does not encourage high productivity, and does not reduce consumption of resources. The only thing it is good for is creating massive amounts of corruption, pollution, and repression.

I think it is fair to say that such a system, in the eyes of many Americans is definately enough provocation to fire incumbant politicians. So where do you suppose to find at least 300 federally elected politicians to inflict such a thing upon the American people.

Capitalism provides for great bounty during times of prosperity, but also allows for periods of boom and bust.

It is during times of hardship that socialism is ideal, and more efficient, than capitalism. During the Great Depression, it was socialism that made the conditions ripe for capitalism to return.

In a resource-constrained world, socialism may be the system we have to turn to, until future technologies allow for another period of exponential growth, should we decide to take the risk of living with exponential growth again.

communism and socialism only thrive when resources are scarce and other big problems with just general basic survival exist........when things are good, it doesnt do well

Capitalism mixed with democracy or many other forms of govt tends to take a direction towards fascism-----which is what we are seeing today in many countries including the US. When things are scarce and conditions are bad, democracy and capitalism dont do well.

Just the nature of the beasts.

When it comes to making rapid policy changes, a monarchy is probably the most effective.

Did you know that geologists don't have a decent explanation for where oil comes from? This should make you think twice about all those estimates about how we're running out of the stuff.

Geologists do have a good explanation of where coal comes from - its decayed, buried plant matter.

Unfortunately, most people think this story works for oil too. It doesn't.

Here's a basic description of a little organic chemistry. Plants are mostly made of sugars. Sugars are mostly composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in a 1:2:1 ratio. When plants decay, those sugars break down into carbon and water (which has the right 2:1 ratio). In a perfect world, no elements are lost in this simple description, and nothing is created that we have trouble explaining. The problem with oil is that it is composed of lots of molecules in a ratio of 1 carbon to 2 hydrogens, with 2 extra hydrogens thrown in at the end (for example, natural gas is mostly 1 carbon and 4 hydrogen, while gasoline is mostly 8 carbons and 18 hydrogens). So, there are two problems with the plants into oil idea. First, where did the oxygen from the plants go? If this is how oil was created, oxygen would be pouring out of the humus. It isn't. Second, where do the two extra hydrogen come from? Hydrogen is the most common element in the Earth, so there are a lot of potential sources. However, hydrogen is always tightly bound up with some other element - so in order to get the extra hydrogen to make oil, there have to be lots chemicals in the Earth's crust that are short hydrogen. There aren't.

An alternative theory that I heard about almost 20 years ago is that either there are huge pools of oil under the crust of the Earth, or alternatively, that something is making oil down there. Like bacteria that like hot oxygen-poor environments. This is called the abiotic theory of oil formation. It was thought up by Russian scientists in the 1950's ... when Russian science was in its heydey.

{snipping correct facts about production}

As for consumption, we consume presently 21 million mpd. Of this, only 60% is for transportation. That amounts to appx 12 million mpd. Even if you didn't have any cars, trains, buses, or trucks running anywhere in the country, you still need 9 million bpd to keep the economy running. We cannot produce enough for ourselves.


Demand Destruction is not limited to the transportation sector. It will effect everything. Transportation is only different in that we are all familiar with the same units for measuring supply and demand, ie, a gallon of gas. For other energy uses people have all sorts of units and methods of being billed, and more variety in cost from region to region.

Everything oil/gas intensive from electricity production to fertilizer will get more expensive, and those consumers will respond to market forces just like everyone else. Commercial users have a harder time becaues there is a lag between the time they use the fuel till the time they get paid for whatever it is that they produced; which is why the strategic reserve is so important as a market smoother when demand surpasses available supply. You don't use it to "meet the demand", but rather to smooth out the movement from one availability level to another. Taking the bumps out is very important to the economy, and allows the demand curve to cleanly sync up with the supply.



Get all infrastructure ready for post-peak
Once critical infrastructure is in place to allow people to transition, force demand to decrease


I don't disagree with infrastructure, as long as we are talking about building stuff, real stuff, touch and feel, metal, glass, and concrete stuff. Throwing money at policy wonks and bureacrats is not infrastructure.

And you don't need to force demand to decrease, the market will do it just fine. Allow the price to rise and keep the money out of the hands of the government as best you can. The only thing the government needs to do on the demand side is to smooth out the "bumps" from time to time as I mentioned above.

Granny NewEnglander will decide she can tolerate a 55F house; Joe Marginal Farmer will admit that growing high intensity vegetables on land better suited to grazing cattle probably isn't worth the risk afterall; and Ming Lee Excursion Driver might just come to the conclusion that a Honda Civic really is a better choice.

One problem we will encounter when we look to alternative forms of energy will be protestors. People love to protest, I think it makes them feel important. When a corportation tries to build a wind farm people protest because they dont want to look at them. When we tried to build more nuclear power plants people protested. The majority of our electricity should come from nuclear plants very efficient, good for the environment, and doesn't require oil.

I'm not saying some things are not worth protesting, only that everything is not worth protesting.

Its already been proven that "such a system" does not provide full employment, does not encourage high productivity, and does not reduce consumption of resources. The only thing it is good for is creating massive amounts of corruption, pollution, and repression.

You couldn't be more right.

That's why I said that if a workable system could somehow be developed, it would be a godsend. A "miracle." The best examples of workable socialism today are probably the socialist/capitalist hybrid economies of Scandinavia, so maybe we should start looking at what they're doing right. Or maybe a predominantly capitalistic model that doesn't rely upon growth could be developed.

I agree with pedex: the best form of government is the Good King/Queen! Needless to say, that has a few pitfalls, too. ;)

Did you know that geologists don't have a decent explanation for where oil comes from? This should make you think twice about all those estimates about how we're running out of the stuff.

Geologists do have a good explanation of where coal comes from - its decayed, buried plant matter.

Unfortunately, most people think this story works for oil too. It doesn't.

Here's a basic description of a little organic chemistry. Plants are mostly made of sugars. Sugars are mostly composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen in a 1:2:1 ratio. When plants decay, those sugars break down into carbon and water (which has the right 2:1 ratio). In a perfect world, no elements are lost in this simple description, and nothing is created that we have trouble explaining. The problem with oil is that it is composed of lots of molecules in a ratio of 1 carbon to 2 hydrogens, with 2 extra hydrogens thrown in at the end (for example, natural gas is mostly 1 carbon and 4 hydrogen, while gasoline is mostly 8 carbons and 18 hydrogens). So, there are two problems with the plants into oil idea. First, where did the oxygen from the plants go? If this is how oil was created, oxygen would be pouring out of the humus. It isn't. Second, where do the two extra hydrogen come from? Hydrogen is the most common element in the Earth, so there are a lot of potential sources. However, hydrogen is always tightly bound up with some other element - so in order to get the extra hydrogen to make oil, there have to be lots chemicals in the Earth's crust that are short hydrogen. There aren't.

An alternative theory that I heard about almost 20 years ago is that either there are huge pools of oil under the crust of the Earth, or alternatively, that something is making oil down there. Like bacteria that like hot oxygen-poor environments. This is called the abiotic theory of oil formation. It was thought up by Russian scientists in the 1950's ... when Russian science was in its heydey.

If there are vast new reservoirs of oil sitting right under our noses still to be found, now would be a really, really good time for proponents of unconventional oil theories to tell us exactly where they are.

Here's a bit on the abiotic petroleum hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiotic_oil_theory

There is some evidence to support it, but most petroleum geologists don't believe it. Even if there really are vast reservoirs of oil deep, deep down in the earth, finding and then tapping into them would require, again, a "miracle" of technological innovation.

One problem we will encounter when we look to alternative forms of energy will be protestors. People love to protest, I think it makes them feel important. When a corportation tries to build a wind farm people protest because they dont want to look at them. When we tried to build more nuclear power plants people protested. The majority of our electricity should come from nuclear plants very efficient, good for the environment, and doesn't require oil.

I'm not saying some things are not worth protesting, only that everything is not worth protesting.

You are absolutely right. Nuclear waste and nuclear meltdowns are very good for the environment. Not only that, but uranium and plutonium are renewable resources.

You're not saying that "some things are not worth protesting" but that "everything is not worth protesting". That's a pretty weird statement but it does help to see how the wires in your brain are crossed causing you to constantly utter ridiculous statements. Really, what is such a reactionary neocon as yourself doing in a carfree forum? Shouldn't you be over in the Creationist forums, or maybe the Kill the Poor, Taxcuts for the Rich forums? Maybe you thought this forum was the Cat Free forum...

The majority of our electricity should come from nuclear plants very efficient, good for the environment, and doesn't require oil.
Chernobyl.

Chernobyl.

That's a fine example of the problem posed by peak oil. Alternatives to oil and natural gas do exist, but they all have serious limitations and drawbacks. For transportation in particular, the alternatives to hydrocarbon power are exceptionally unattractive.

Really, what is such a reactionary neocon as yourself doing in a carfree forum? Shouldn't you be over in the Creationist forums, or maybe the Kill the Poor, Taxcuts for the Rich forums? Maybe you thought this forum was the Cat Free forum...

While I wasn't the target of this tirade, is there a reason why a neocon shouldn't be allowed to be as free from cars as possible? Or is it only that you can't see passed the stereotype and see an actual person.

This is a problem I see a lot, XYZ Advocates alienating and driving away neocons, and then wailing in dismay when they get no traction in the halls of government where the neocons are running the show. Neocons have a very strong libertarian streak that could be appealed to, instead of attacked. Choosing to live without a car can be seen as an expression of personal liberty in opposition to government controls and taxation. Classic neocon motivation.

I am proud to be a neocon. I try to be as car free as my work will allow. [lost a lot of ground when I broke my leg, but I digress..] Every mile I ride on my bike keeps my money out of the hands of Uncle Sam and Osama Sludgebait; and I absolute love it. These are not contradictory statements.

Neocons have a very strong libertarian streakNo they don't.
Libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian) and neoconservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_in_the_United_States) are drastically different political philosophies. Neocons tend to make this mistake of describing themselves as "Libertarian" often, whereas actual Libertarians wouldn't declare themselves Neocons at gunpoint.

No they don't.

Yes they do.

Yes they do.How? Supporting incredibly wasteful and expensive government programs,(do I need to make a list?) paid for by tax dollars is about as anti-Libertarian as you can get. Know your adjectives before you begin to apply them.