The unraveling of the Empire would have the same inevitability of a Greek tragedy.
One of the enduring myths sedulously cultivated by apologists of American foreign policy is that America, the land of the free and the brave, is besieged by malevolent foreign powers. In the realm of pure thought unsullied by empiric evidence the lone superpower bravely battles rogue states to prevent free societies from nuclear extinction. As Michael Howard, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford says, “For 200 years the United States has preserved almost unsullied the original ideals of the enlightenment: the belief in the God-given rights of the individual, the inherent rights of free assembly and free speech, the blessings of free enterprise, the perfectibility of man, and, above all, the universality of these values”.
But is the record of the ‘defender of freedom’ in contemporary history unblemished? “Two hundred years (of US history) is illustrated by a century of literal human slavery,” writes Chomsky in Deterring Democracy, “and effective disenfranchisement of Blacks for another century, genocidal assaults on native population, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Filipinos at the turn of the century, of millions of Indochinese, of some 200,000 Central Americans in the past decade.”…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1126 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
PETI, you have failed to adopt the proper attitude of alarmism. You're not supposed to look for solutions, you're supposed to run around holding your head and screaming and then collapse in a quivering pile of despair and hopelessness.
Dave
I tried. I ended up going downstairs and eating ice cream. I just couldn't get that worked up over it.
Who ever heard of applying carrying capacity to an animal which possesses the ability to modify and intentionally manipulate its own environment? Any realistic and qualified biologist would laugh at the idea of applying carrying capacity to humans.
1127 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
Cindy D,
I have watched all of Bartlett's videos, I watched the Hirsch video, and I read the carrying capacity + population overshoot link you provided. If you have any other information, I would gladly look at it.
I objected to using Bartlett as a source because a congressman is not a valid primary source. He is a politician. His video is very imformative, but it is also political. The Bartlett quote "The economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented." is not a Bartlett quote. It's Bartlett quoting Hirsch.
I find nothing in the Hirsch video, or the Bartlett video that justifies your alarmism. The only thing which could possibly justify it is the quote "The economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented." However, I would interpret this as a political comment used to help garnish political support for a worthwhile cause.
The evidence in the Bartlett video actually supports my position that we will successfully adjust, although at considerable (not catastrophic) economic costs. In one section, he discusses the rapid growth of renewable energy sources (30% per year for wind and solar) and his optimism for their use in the future. In another, he discusses that we can halve fuel consumption for personal automobiles by putting two in a car, or if your vehicle got 40mpg instead of 20mpg "both of which are very doable with a little planning." (We could quarter it by doing both). He expresses his optimism about using tar sands. He expresses his optimism about oil shale (more potential oil in them than we have consumed in history). He expresses his belief that the free market will exploit these reserves. "As oil goes up...the more expensive oil gets, the more sources there of oil because you can now use sources of oil that would have been prohibited in costs with oil at lower prices." That is exactly what I have said in my previous posts, to which you so strongly objected. He says "nuclear could and probably should grow."
A few more optimistic quotes from Bartlett:
"America is very good at that" (solving problems).
"I think America is up to meeting that challenge" (with reference to solving the energy crisis).
"I think we can lead the world in developing the technologies to take us away from fossil fuels."
I think your approach to this problem is counterproductive. By attacking people like me who express their belief that capitalism and democracy will solve these problems you only make yourself into an alarmist. Let me be clear, Dave, Clavos and I (in varying degrees) are all in favor of doing something about this problem (as any informed person should be). Exagerated predictions of catastrophe do not necessarily lead to increased political response. Instead they generally lead marginalization and decreased political action on the issue. You can see this phenomenon clearly in the global warming debate.
You presume to know more by reading newspapers, here and there, than some of the most important minds discussing the subject.
Every statistic I have cited comes from a credible source. I have used these sources to show that realistic alternatives exist, that oil production is not going to decline faster than we can adjust (30% by 2035-2060), and that these alternatives can successfully make up the gap in the future in response to higher prices and political initiative.
There are many experts out there. You are selectively chosing which experts you listen to, and even then you have a one-sided interpretation (as I showed with Bartlett). Some think oil production is going to increase for another 30 years. Others think the decline will be slower than others. You are selectively chosing some of the most alarmist experts and politicians. Your example about the California mayor proved nothing, as I pointed out the difference in budget when gas prices doubled could be made up by 2 dollars a day in tax money. Being alarmist does not necessarily equate with being more informed, as you seem to think.
1128 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
Again, you seem to equate lack of alarmism with not wanting to do anything about the problem. If Bartlett was in my district I would gladly vote for him (based on this issue alone). That's just naive and counterproductive. I suggest you stop. I know rejecting the system can be a self-fullfilling, self-justifying, exciting ride, but when we're talking about results, ehh not so much.
1129 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
Cindy D
There are no alternatives that are viable solutions at this time. It will take forthought and time to use the alternatives that have limited potential to their maximum effectiveness. 10 years prior to the peak is the absolute minimum suggested based on what we know now.
This kind of language is entirely arbitrary and caries no weight in an intelligent discussion. What do you mean there are no alternatives that are viable solutions at this time? You mean doubling car fuel efficiency, doubling, or tripling personal car occupancy, increasing nuclear, coal, wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, lifestyle changes etc etc etc are not viable alternatives? OF COURSE THEY ARE. And they WILL reduce fuel consumption DRAMATICALLY. And they WILL occur naturally in response to higher prices and political action.
What "problem" are these alternatives not able to solve? You haven't even defined the problem yet. If the problem is oil magically disapears, well then I agree, these alternatives won't help enough. If the problem is oil decreases 30% in 30 years, well then these alternatives ARE enough.
And this 10 years number is entirely arbitrary. What do we have to start doing 10 years before the peak? Start building new efficient cars and trains? We already are. Start developing new efficient technologies? We already are. We have to completely replace our entire infrastructure based on renewable energy sources? Well no we haven't done that yet..
Besides, you fail to comprehend the peak is entirely symbolic. It has no real meaning! We have already had a fuel shortage for decades! Demand has been skyrocketing, while production has grown slowly and stalled. There have been no dire consquences. Oil production hitting the top of the curve is entirely symbolic.
1130 - Songlines
Corn is an inefficient source of biofuel, certainly. Yet there's an enormous amount of land in the US which is not under cultivation and could be. We use 1/4 of the land today that we were farming 100 years ago, and that could change. That's a lot of biofuel, especially if it's made more efficiently than converting corn to ethanol.
Lest we fool ourselves into thinking that biodiesel is the way of the future,it is time to consider the real facts.
The United States annually consumes more fossil and nuclear energy than all the energy produced in a year by the country's plant life, including forests and that used for food and fiber, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Energy and David Pimentel, a Cornell University researcher.
let's not be suckered by the promoters of biofuel alternatives like corn ethanol and soy biodiesel.
Large companies that stand to reap billions in subsidies and tax breaks from these energy "sources" are selling them as the way to a healthy planet and energy independence for the United States. For two reasons, don't believe it.
First, consider "energy return on energy invested," or EROEI. This is how much energy we "earn" for every unit of energy we "spend" to get it.
Gasoline's EROEI ranges between 6-to-1 and 10-to-1, says Cutler Cleveland, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. In other words, we get anywhere from six to 10 gallons of gasoline for every gallon we use to find oil, pump it out of the ground and refine it. But the EROEI of corn-based ethanol, the most common U.S. biofuel, is a mere 1.34-to-1, the Agriculture Department says. So even though an acre of corn can make 360 gallons of ethanol, only 90 gallons of that is "new" fuel.
Expand this to a larger geographic scale. Researchers at the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics calculate that planting the entire state of Iowa to corn and using it for ethanol would give us enough new fuel for about five days' worth of U.S. gasoline use. For policy-makers, this should be a red flag signaling that even enormous increases in ethanol production would do basically nothing to improve America's energy independence.
Second, consider the environmental effects of biofuels.
The corn used to make the ethanol at your local gas pump exacts a heavy price from land and water. The fertilizer required for high corn yields starts as a resource, but once it leaves farm fields -- and most does -- it essentially becomes poison, polluting lakes and rivers, harming drinking water. Corn production also uses actual poisons in the form of pesticides, and these too can end up in our water and even our food.
And corn plants have wimpy roots that do a poor job of preventing erosion. Millions of tons of superb, irreplaceable Midwestern soils are lost from fields every year because of corn.
And other biofuels? Soybean-based biodiesel has an EROEI of about 1.9 to 1, according to University of Minnesota professor David Tilman and his colleagues. That's better than corn ethanol, but still a poor return, and soybeans carry much of corn's environmental baggage.
An unproven form of biofuel production would wring several forms of energy, including ethanol, from grass, tree pulp and other plant material we can't eat. No one yet makes fuel this way with an acceptable EROEI. Efficiency might improve over time, but the environmental goodness of the resulting fuel will depend on the kinds of plants used.To produce enough corn-based ethanol to meet current U.S. demand for automotive gasoline, we would need to nearly double the amount of land used for harvested crops, plant all of it in corn, year after year, and not eat any of it. Even a greener fuel source like the switchgrass President Bush mentioned, which requires fewer petroleum-based inputs than corn and reduces topsoil losses by growing back each year, could provide only a small fraction of the energy we demand.
The corn and soybeans that make ethanol and biodiesel take huge quantities of fossil fuel for farm machinery, pesticides and fertilizer. Much of it comes from foreign sources, including some that may not be dependable, such as Russia and countries in the Middle East.
Corn and soybean production as practiced in the Midwest is ecologically unsustainable. Its effects include massive topsoil erosion, pollution of surface and groundwater with pesticides, and fertilizer runoff that travels down the Mississippi River to deplete oxygen and life from a New Jersey-size portion of the Gulf of Mexico.
Amongst other things improving fuel efficiency in cars by just 1 mile per gallon -- a gain possible with proper tire inflation -- would cut fuel consumption equal to the total amount of ethanol federally mandated for production in 2012.
Rather than chase phantom substitutes for fossil fuels, we should focus on what can immediately both slow our contribution to global climate change and reduce our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels: cutting energy use.
We must move beyond fossil fuels. But biofuels are not the answer.
1131 - Songlines
According to GRAIN, a Europe-based NGO that advocates the protection of agricultural biodiversity, if the United States dedicated its whole corn and soy harvests to make fuel, it would cover less than one-eighth of its oil demand and barely 6% of its diesel demand. The figures are even more sobering considering the United States grows around 44% of the world's corn—more than China, the European Union, Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico combined. This means that if world corn production were to be quadrupled and dedicated entirely to ethanol production, it could satisfy U.S. demand, but would leave the rest of the world's motor vehicle fleet still running on oil, while drivers starved.
The situation in Europe does not look much better. In his 2007 book Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, British researcher George Monbiot calculates that running all cars and buses in the United Kingdom on biodiesel would require 25.9 million hectares, but England has no more than 5.7 million hectares of farmland in total.
World agrofuel production must be quintupled to merely keep up with rising energy demand, according to the Interamerican Development Bank report "A Blueprint for Green Energy in the Americas." If this is achieved, agrofuels will cover 5% of world energy demand by 2020.
Various Latin America-based organizations, including Oilwatch South America and the Latin American Network against Tree Monocultures declared in 2006 that "energy crops will expand ... at the expense of our natural ecosystems. Soy is projected to be one of the main sources for diesel production, but it is a fact that soy monocultures are the main cause of the destruction of native forest in Argentina, the tropical Amazon rainforest in Brazil and Bolivia, and the Mata Atlántica in Brazil and Paraguay."
"Sugarcane plantations and ethanol production in Brazil are the business of an oligopoly that utilizes slave labor," said the declaration, titled "The Land Should Feed People, Not Cars." "Palm oil plantations grow at the expense of jungles and territories of indigenous populations and other traditional populations of Colombia, Ecuador, and other countries, increasingly oriented to biodiesel production."
One of the signatory organizations, the World Rainforest Movement, affirmed in early 2007 that "the cultivation of these fuels means death. Death of entire communities; death of cultures; death of people; death of nature. Be these oil palm or eucalyptus plantations, be these sugarcane or transgenic soybean monoculture plantations, be they promoted by 'progressive' or 'conservative' governments. Death."
"All of these crops, and all of this monoculture expansion, are direct causes of deforestation, eviction of local communities from their lands, water and air pollution, soil erosion, and destruction of biodiversity," stated GRAIN in 2007 in a manifesto titled "Stop the Agrofuels Craze!" "They also lead, paradoxically, to a massive increase of CO2 emissions, due to the burning of the forests and peat lands to make way for agrofuel plantations."
1132 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
Also Cindy D,
The carrying capacity and overshoot article is utterly bogus. The article you linked to by Chefurka (you know "the one with pictures) is completely delusional. I could link you to the hundreds of textbooks saying applying carrying capacity to an organism that possesses the ability to manipulate its environment and (even its own genetics) on a large scale is absurd. But here's some of the more obviously absurd parts of the article:
1) Correlation does not equal causation. He shows that oil correlates strongly with world population growth. He then concludes the increase in oil consumption enabled (or caused) this increase. Faulty logic.
2) The world population actually increased at the same rate from 1800 to 1900 as it did from 1900 to 2000. He concludes the increased population from 1900 to 2000 is due to oil. What then does he attribute the increase from 1800 to 1900 to? And what reason is their to assume this or a similar rate of growth would have continued from 1900 to 2000 even without oil? None.
3) "Humans use of oil has quadrupled the earths carrying capacity since 1900." Wrong. The population was growing just as quickly before 1900 as after. When oil production declined significantly in the early 80s, it didn't even cause a blip in world population growth.
4) He adopts a prediction on the decline curve far more pessimistic than any expert in the field. I would bet 1,000 dollars world oil production is more than 30mbpd in 22 years.
5) He ignores all the literally billions of new technologies invented since 1900 and oil's first use, when the population was 1.6 billion. These new technologies alone (even without oil) may have increased carrying capacity to 10, 20 40 billion.
6) The model assumes there are no alternatives to using oil in agriculture, transportation or heating. Could not be farther from the truth.
7) Assumes there is zero oil left. Absolutely an absurd prediction. In 50 or 100 years when oil becomes exceedingly scarce and expensive it will probably be allocated to those few uses where we have not found alternatives. In many cases where liquid fuels are absolutely necessary, they can be manufactured by net energy loss systems using other non-renewable or renewable resources. There is never going to be a point when there is absolutely no oil left to perform the most vital activities.
The fact that you even entertain such an absurd notion demonstrates how easily you are influenced by the most absurd "experts," when literally hundreds of thousands of equally or superiorly qualified individuals disagree. It's as if you are searching for the most extreme positions to fullfill some kind of need for self-justification and importance.
Most intelligent people agree population growth is a problem. Something may need to be done about it in the future, but anyone predicting 5 billion people to die because of declining oil production is just delusional.
1133 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
If you want to retain any credibility to your "views"/alarmism Cindy D, I suggest you respond to my posts 1127, 1128, 1129, and 1132 in detail.
1134 - Dave Nalle
To produce enough corn-based ethanol to meet current U.S. demand for automotive gasoline, we would need to nearly double the amount of land used for harvested crops, plant all of it in corn, year after year, and not eat any of it.
So where's the problem then? This would require no more effort than returning to cultivation a third of the former farmland allowed to go fallow since 1900. With modern technology and cheap immigrant labor that ought to be a snap to accomplish.
You also conveniently look only at corn-based ethanol. How about Sugarcane with an EROEI of about 10 to 1 or Switchgrass with an EROEI of 8.6 to 1, both comparable to gasoline. And remember, the EROEI of gasoline is dropping rapidly. 40 years ago it was 100 to 1. Now it's down as low as 6 to 1. Within a generation it will probably be down to 2 to 1. That will require more fuel efficient vehicles and it will mean that the lower EROEI fuels will be competitive.
Dave
1135 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
So where's the problem then? This would require no more effort than returning to cultivation a third of the former farmland allowed to go fallow since 1900. With modern technology and cheap immigrant labor that ought to be a snap to accomplish.
And not eating corn or any other corn derived products (of which there are many). It would supplement remaining oil supplies though.
1136 - Dave Nalle
Given the large amount of potentially usable farmland in the US we could certainly cultivate fuel crops and also produce sufficient corn for food at the same time. It's also not as if we're destroying valuable habitat or virgin forest. This is all land that's been cultivated before when our methods were less efficient. It would just be a race to get the land under cultivation before someone builds condos on it.
Dave
1137 - Songlines
Research has shown that there isn't simply enough land fallow or otherwise for production of biofuel... even giving allowance to higher EROEI ratios the amount of land available is woefully short of what is actually needed. Current statistics show that even if all of the world's farm land were to be dedicated to biofuel it still wouldn't satiate the thirst for energy.Where's the land for food then?!
That is why i gave the example of Britain. Even if all of Britain's farm land were to be converted to fuel production there would still be a short-fall... all cars and buses in the United Kingdom on biodiesel would require 25.9 million hectares, but England has no more than 5.7 million hectares of farmland in total. and Britain even though an industrialised country uses far less energy than does the U.S.
This would require no more effort than returning to cultivation a third of the former farmland allowed to go fallow since 1900. With modern technology and cheap immigrant labor that ought to be a snap to accomplish
Perhaps you should elaborate how this plan can be implemented... Sharon Astyk writing in the Energy Bulletin says there are issues of ethics involved. Ethics of Biofuels "The impact of biofuels on world hunger can be reduced to simple land use mathematics. For example, were we to convert all 179,000,000 hectares of arable land in the US to biofuel production, we might be able to meet much of our present energy needs. We would, however, grow no food, and we would strip our soil even more severely than we have thus far." And as it is being practiced right now, biofuel production also increases soil and water depletion, desertification, and atmospheric carbon.
She also adds...
Biofuels cannot and must not be a strategy for maintaining the present situation. Any biofuels strategy we use must operate in conjunction with significant changes in the way we live, if it is to have any impact at all. Anyone who tells you that we can run all our cars on biodiesel or ethanol is out of their minds. The issue is simple arithmetic.
Use of biodiesel at the expense of food is not ethical.
1138 - Dave Nalle
Songlines, you have lots of reasons why biofuels are not the answer, but you have no alternatives to offer that are any better.
Making biodiesel at the expense of food is a bogus argument, because food is always going to be an agricultural priority. You can't sell your biofuels if everyone starves to death.
Obviously no single element is going to solve all our problems by itself. But the combination of the more efficient biofuels with engines which get substantially better gas mileage, plus more public transportation and thus reduced vehicle use per capita, the problems ought to be solvable. It's certainly something worth working on as part of the overall energy picture, to help sustain and transform the current system until such a time as better alternatives become available.
Just like drilling in ANWR and opening up other oil resources, it's one piece of the puzzle of how we'll keep things going for a few more years while more and better solutions can be found.
Just writing biofuels off and giving up leaves us with less time to find permanent solutions and more hardship and potential for disaster in the meantime.
It's easy to identify problems, but if you aren't willing to act on solutions which, though imperfect, help to mitigate the problem, then you're just wasting everyone's time.
Dave
1139 - Dave Nalle
There's also some sort of a factual disconnect going on here. According to an article at IPS News, Brazil plans to gear up to produce enough ethanol to fill 10% of world demand for gasoline without cutting more forest, using more land or reducing current food production. This is with only 6.94% of its land under cultivation, about a third of the arable land area in the US. If the US were to follow the same model, the result would be enough ethanol or other biofuels to meet 40% of the world's fuel needs.
A 40% reduction in the consumption of petroleum would have enormous impact in delaying any possible shortages and creating long-term sustainability and energy independence. I don't see where there can be any sensible argument against it.
Dave
1140 - Songlines
The U.S and the rest of the world have squandered away a great opportunity to be independent of the rag-heads sitting on the oil spigots in the Middle East during and after the last oil crisis. Nalle I agree with your assessment that alternative sources of energy should be tapped and tapped soon. But i have serious reservations about bio-diesels simply because of the socio-economic costs... unless you are saying humans are expendable.
Please follow that link to Sharon Astyk's article provided in #1137. The author observes... the reason that cane-based Ethanol can fuel such a large percentage of Brazilian vehicles is that Brazilians use less than 10% of the oil that Americans do (Maciel, ASPO-USA 2006 Talk).
She also adds Brazil is a poor parallel in many ways, because of its low consumption; producing as much sugarcane ethanol as Brazil (which would be difficult, given that much of the US is not suited to sugarcane production) would provide the smallest drop in our gigantic bucket. And there are other, more disturbing issues. Brazil has been encouraging massive stripping of the rainforests in order to grow grain. So the reason Brazil was able to keep its grain yields up was because it was transforming rainforests into crop land at the same time that it was turning farmed land into ethanol. This was only possible because Brazil had rainforest to exploit, and could not afford to care about the environmental consequences either for Brazil or for the world as a whole. For nations without rainforests remaining to slash and burn, biofuels will exact a cost in food sufficiency.
1141 - bliffle
Lots of smoke here.
All the energy the USA needs falls on the state of North Dakota every day. Gratis. Free. No charge. Courtesy of our friendly sun. Asymptotically, we have no need to pump oil out of the ground or temporarily convert sun energy to corn, or even grasses.
What we need is better means to convert free sun energy to portable and storable forms, such as electricity, hydrogen, etc.
So, should we evacuate NoDak (sending all the people therein to a Better Place, say Texas, to relocate) so that we can erect solar collectors uniformly across the state?
No. Not necessary. Besides, some people LIKE NoDak and want to stay there! They often claim that the quality of life is high, that family values are strong, that the change of seasons is refreshing, and all kinds of other pretexts.
Every parking lot and housing development in the nation is already intercepting solar energy sufficient for the community, but uselessly converting it to local heat. Indeed, we usually start our cars and immediately turn on the Air Conditioner to employ petrol to fight solar energy. Same thing with our homes and offices.
All we need is proper technology to convert, store and transport solar energy. Everything is at our fingertips: solar collectors, energy storage, power networks, and even computers to allocate credits and debits and reconfigure distribution in order to employ traditional market forces to allocate resources, thus avoiding a need for dictatorial government commune or corporate monopoly to administer.
All we need is the public political will to put it all together and get the projects started. Right now we don't have the will. Paradoxically, we re-enforce the very vested interests that oppose such progress. We openly subsidize Oil companies while they are reaping record profits (so they are spared the nuisance of re-investing retained earnings in their own business) and we subsidize inefficient reactionary auto and truck makers with slightly more hidden subsidies.
To get the public will to change the situation we need personal will first. We have to abandon personal shibboleths that have been distorted by propagandists to go against their very goals. For example, we have to stop protecting established private oil companies with extravagant public taxes and national debts. Or that a Politically Correct bureaucracy under control of the Green Party will be able to Do No Evil (think Google).
But if we waste our efforts defending either of the archaic models of the past, Communism and Capitalism, we are lost. Anyway, who said that those two impostors are the only choices? they don't even form a true dichotomy: they are not Exclusive or Exhaustive.
Think for yourselves. Difficult, even dangerous, but necessary.
1142 - Cindy D
PETI,
I could link you to the hundreds of textbooks saying applying carrying capacity to an organism that possesses the ability to manipulate its environment and (even its own genetics) on a large scale is absurd.
Okay I am game. Please do so.
Every statistic I have cited [you did not cite anything, please see the definition of "citation"] comes from a credible source [what sources? sources are part of the definition of citations...you cited nothing]. I have used these sources to show that realistic alternatives exist,[what sources?] that oil production is not going to decline faster than we can adjust (30% by 2035-2060), and that these alternatives can successfully make up the gap in the future in response to higher prices and political initiative.
Are you completely out of your mind?
I have seen you pass off some figures without citation. I suspect these mysterious sources have a delusion in common with you.
1) Correlation does not equal causation. He shows that oil correlates strongly with world population growth. He then concludes the increase in oil consumption enabled (or caused) this increase. Faulty logic.
You apparently seem to think that correlation disproves causation.
I would like to hear your explanation for the sudden increase in carrying capacity at around 1900.
If you want to retain any credibility to your "views"/alarmism Cindy D, I suggest you respond to my posts 1127, 1128, 1129, and 1132 in detail.
Keep using the word alarmism. You are demonstrating and actual fallacy. I suggest you cite something for me to respond to or stop wasting my time.
1143 - Cindy D
PETI,
I would add that alternative energy is our ONLY choice and hope. Which in no way negates the problems with it.
1144 - Cindy D
bliffle,
I am going to talk to you as a compatriot. I have a great respect for your views and will be happy to provide you with any references that you require. This is a chat about what I have found. When I actually tuned in to the "Peak Oil noise"...as that is what it was to me, I had a rude awakening.
First of all, I said to myself--our government has access to all this information, surely they would prepare us for something like this. Second, I said to myself--businesses will make money on anything, ANYTHING!...surely the market will just accommodate alternatives when they are financially feasible.
So, I embarked on some research to prove myself correct. I did not do so. I have learned to be skeptical of my own beliefs. I required hard evidence. While I found that solar energy (like with the zero-energy homes sounded great the cost--"After $18,500 in rebates and tax incentives, the total cost for all our energy-efficient improvements and our solar system, including labor, came to $43,000." would be prohibitive almost all people to accomplish in the near future.
PETI is right about what we use most of our oil for--transportation.
We don't have solar powered jets or solar powered ships. Solar power doesn't take the place of what agriculture uses for their fertilizer.
The organic gardeners were right all along. The pro-solar advocates, wind energy advocates, etc. etc. were right all along. The market didn't want that.
Now the problem is we are behind the curve. We will (MUST) use alternative energy to mitigate oil. The main problem is we likely do not have the time to change over before all hell breaks loose. We need to change everything we use now. We need to be able to afford to do it.
But the longer we wait, the worse we will be. If it takes 10 years (that is the minimum I have read, others say 25-50 years) to change over our transportation, homes, etc over to an alternative, we may already be behind. If oil peaks say at 2016, we won't be ready. Also, we have to be able to understand and choose what we will be ready for. Putting money into some alternatives will be wasted effort as they won't pan out. (I am talking here about making the correct choices in investing in changing infrastructure, etc.)
We also need to trust that other countries (whom we forget are also affected) will be able to practice the same level of safety--say with nuclear energy--that we would in an all out crisis. Say China.
And if we cannot transition smoothly (due to lack of time to prepare), there will be crisis after crisis. We will be turning our money and attention to these.
Once oil peaks, it will fail to meet demand. It will become more and more obvious that something is wrong. If the fucking lame brains that run the country will hear this, we will have more time to prepare. I am grateful for Congressman Bartlett. He is trying to convince the rest, based on 4 studies our government did. They may dismiss and scorn him as they (including anyone who counts) dismissed and scorned M. King Hubbert (the geophysicist the idea of peak oil originated with), and Thomas Malthus, and The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth.
Like Hubbert's ideas about peak oil, which were ridiculed until it stared us right in the face...the others are still ridiculed. The others are describing what will happen to us if we do not act in time. If we wait for markets to decide to act, we will act too late to avoid great catastrophe. We will have 12-18 months to prepare what we need 10-50 years to prepare for.
bliffle, I am waiting to be proven wrong. There is nothing I would like better. But I was taught in High Scool, by a very unusual teacher, to look at the evidence against what I believe, not just the evidence that supports it. So, I need to see evidence. I can't find any that says we will prepare in time that I am not able to rip apart.
If you have some. It will surely cheer me up. And I would appreciate having access to it.
Thanks,
Cindy
1145 - Cindy D
PETI:
A few more optimistic quotes from Bartlett:
"America is very good at that" (solving problems).
"I think America is up to meeting that challenge" (with reference to solving the energy crisis).
"I think we can lead the world in developing the technologies to take us away from fossil fuels."
You seem not to be familiar with rhetorical strategies in argument. I guarantee you that Congressman Bartlett is.
1146 - Clavos
From Merriam-Webster Online: (for Cindy, because it's obvious she doesn't know the meaning of the verb "to cite").
3 a: to refer to; especially : to mention formally in commendation or praise b: to name in a citation4: to bring forward or call to another's attention especially as an example, proof, or precedent (emphasis added)
Main Entry:
cite
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
cit·ed; cit·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French citer to cite, summon, from Latin citare to put in motion, rouse, summon, from frequentative of ciēre to stir, move " more at -kinesis
Date:
15th century
1: to call upon officially or authoritatively to appear (as before a court)2: to quote by way of example, authority, or proof
1147 - Cindy D
I think this will be something worth reading, did I mention who Matthew R. Simmons is?
Matthew R. Simmons, chairman and CEO of Simmons & Company International, is a prominent oil-industry insider and one of the world's leading experts on the topic of peak oil. Simmons was motivated by the 1973 energy crisis to create an investment banking firm catering to oil companies. In his previous capacity, he served as energy adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush.
Matthew Simmons believes the Club of Rome predictions were correct. Simmons is an advisor to the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre. He is a member of the National Petroleum Council and the Council on Foreign Relations. He believes a careful assessment of Saudi Arabian oil reserves is the most significant issue shaping petroleum politics.
Simmons is the author of the book Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy. His examination of oil reserve decline rates helped raise awareness of the unreliability of Middle East oil reserves as the published reports have never been verified. (wikipedia, Matthew Simmons)
Revisiting The Limits to Growth: Could The Club of Rome Have Been Correct After All?
By the way, just to note, Congressman Bartlett is a Liberty Republican.
So an investment banker and a Liberty Republican are amongst my most quoted sources. I also happen to disagree with Greg Palast on this issue. My friends on the left don't like me any more than anyone on the right.
1148 - Cindy D
Clav,
(for Cindy, because it's obvious she doesn't know the meaning of the verb "to cite")
That you would actually post that in a "supposedly" fact-based debate is so utterly telling that you will pluck at the flimsiest of straws to support your lack of ability to actually find ANY viable argument on the topic.
Do I actually have to spell out for you what citation is in the academic world or will you just deny the existence of the entire academic world on the basis that you apparently know nothing about it?
References are the foundation of ANY serious argument. References are called citations.
Or will you write to Princeton University and tell THEM they have no idea what the word "cite" means.
My point was he didn't cite any references. He didn't cite any sources. Sources are what "citations" in a scholarly, academic, or other factual work are meant to cite.
1149 - troll
the market is people and will lag if people lag...hydrogen tech exists now for car and home - solar - wind - biodiesel
if you've got the bucks then create the demand...State investment will follow (or not)
(yes Cindy - I have been involved with wind and solar since the 70s when I worked with a group salvaging old Jacobs wind generators and gathering used batteries from telephone repeater stations)
with effort we - the world's rich dirty bastards - could conceivably come up with solutions to offer the growing human horde
...on the other hand who gives a fuck: 500 million or bust
1150 - bliffle
Cindy,
I couldn't figure out what you were asking of me. Probably my inadequacy, not yours.
It seems to me that we have good solutions within our grasp, if we have the courage and are resolute.
It doesn't even require any radical political change. Indeed, rather than top-down-communism (or some such horror) all it requires is that we stop propping up sunset industries with subsidies that we cannot afford.
Then, our natural Yankee Ingenuity and practical application of technology that is readily available even to small capital investment will lead to a Better Tomorrow.
What could be more natural?
1151 - Dave Nalle
Hell, I've got the generator and the plans for my solar chimney system. I just need to pour the concrete for the base and find some reasonably priced turbines and I'm on my way.
Dave
1152 - Cindy D
troll,
i am really glad that we didn't have a summer vacation from gas taxes. lulling people back to comfortable sleep is the last thing we need to do.
i am looking for some hopeful signs...
i am doing what i can. mostly learning about permaculture, moving to a smaller house in a warmer climate, as alas i am not rich. (not any more anyway)
1153 - Cindy D
bliffle,
i guess i was asking you for more than hope. please no top-down-communism, thank you very much. :-)
what i want is to be proven wrong with facts that i can look at and challenge and prove to myself are valid.
but, i support hope. i am hopeful that i might find some hope. i need some.
1154 - Clavos
@#1148,
You are quite right, Cindy.
"Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise."
Thomas Gray
1742
1155 - Cindy D
i have to say, listening to Dave's enthusiasm about his biofuel and solar chimney are a good sort of medicine.
1156 - Cindy D
Thanks for posting that poem Clav.
I think I will take a break and try to focus on some joy.
1157 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
My point was he didn't cite any references. He didn't cite any sources. Sources are what "citations" in a scholarly, academic, or other factual work are meant to cite.
For the maybe 20th time, if you think something I wrote is factually incorrect, find a source directly to the contrary. If not, don't challenge my credibility. Any intelligent reader of this thread would observe the vast quantities of information I have cited(Merriam Webster Definition #2 or 4 for those dimwits who are unclear) in posts 1080, 1091, 1104, 1127, 1129, 1132, and 1157 (all of which has gone unresponded), would be able to verify anything they did not believe, and plainly see your challenging of my credibility as merely an incapacity for intelligent debate.
1158 - Dave Nalle
I'd respond to you, PETI, but from what I can tell you're one of the few people on this thread making any sense at all.
Dave
1159 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
I just thought of an amusing counterpoint.
Cindy, you realize all of the articles you have linked to have relied upon assumptions of continuing present growth rates in population, energy usage, etc..
Well, is it not equally fair then to assume continuing present growth rates in wind and solar power?
If so, then in 30 years wind and solar will provide 366% more energy then all of the energy the world uses today. There is no energy crisis.
[math: currently make up .14% of world energy use
growth rate: 30% per year
1.3 compounded for 30 years = 1.3^30
multiply by .14% = 366%]
Using the same calculations, in 50 years our energy derived from wind and solar will be 497 times greater than total worldwide energy consumption. There is no energy crisis.
I have used the same exact techniques as both of your carrying capacity and limits to growth articles have done, which is assume present growth rates, which are obviously absurd assumptions.
1160 - Cindy D
PETI,
You are a waste of time. Believe whatever it is that you like, dear.
1161 - Clavos
Cindy,
One more try:
How can you actually believe, in the face of more than a century of evidence to the contrary, that Malthus was correct in his forecasts, or that the Club of Rome, after decades of contrary evidence also had it right?
And yet you do believe that a congressman, not a scientist, has it right with his bizarre, totally unsubstantiated and unproven and untestable theories?
You appear to be a classic case of an individual who decides their stance on an issue beforehand and then cherry-picks whatever theories agree with their point of view to "substantiate" that stance, regardless of the authenticity or credibility of those sources.
You keep demanding that PETI and others present "citations" for their data, yet you present the circularity of "Mr. X says that Y is so, and the proof is right here, in Mr. X's essay that says that Y is so."
Cindy, you are neither credible nor logical in your arguments.
1162 - Cindy D
Clav,
How can you actually believe, in the face of more than a century of evidence to the contrary, that Malthus was correct in his forecasts, or that the Club of Rome, after decades of contrary evidence also had it right?
Because there is no contrary evidence that I find for limits to growth, quite the contrary. There are only people doing what you are doing. Not reading something and then simply dismissing and ridiculing it because they don't like what they think it says. If you have any evidence, whatsoever, I would love some.
Do you understand the difference between saying something is so and actually providing evidence?
Matthew Simmons, in the link I posted above: Revisiting The Limits to Growth: Could The Club of Rome Have Been Correct After All?, explains and demonstrates that all the criticism he heard about The Limits to Growth led him to actually read it. Basically, he discovered that the people criticizing the book hadn't actually read it, but had been passing on misinformation about what was in it for years. (Sort of why I am asking you for actual evidence Clav.)
What are you just plain intellectually lazy? You can't read the book, you can't even read a short bit of informed discussion about the book, yet you can have an opinion about it? Where did you get your opinion Clav?
There is a problem when people who have not actually read something feel qualified to speak about what is in it. This is what happened with
Limits to GrowthHubbert's Peak Oil Theory.People much like you Clav, decided Hubbert was a crank and just dismissed him without even bothering to inform themselves.
And what is happening with the new Limits to Growth is that slowly the awareness is dawning, just like with peak oil theory.
And yet you do believe that a congressman, not a scientist...
Robert Hirsch is one of the scientists that Bartlett is quoting in one of the 4 studies that was done. I discovered Bartlett after reading Hirsch's 2005 (see how much mitigation we have done since then?) report: PEAKING OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION: IMPACTS, MITIGATION, & RISK MANAGEMENT
So, the reasons I chose Bartlett were twofold:
1) I felt this audience would perhaps afford credibility to Bartlett being a Liberty Republican and learning that the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus is trying to convince Congress. In other words, I thought that the irrational and uninformed knee-jerk responses to Limits to Growth, etc. might be offset by the realization that even a Congressman is moved to present what is not yet accepted by the mainstream.
2) Bartlett's presentation is a video summarizing the scientific work found in 4 reports. I often prefer to use video as it makes it more likely that anyone will actually look at my evidence before they discount it. As it's easier to watch something than to read something.
You keep demanding that PETI and others present "citations" for their data, yet you present the circularity of "Mr. X says that Y is so, and the proof is right here, in Mr. X's essay that says that Y is so."...Cindy, you are neither credible nor logical in your arguments.
Am I supposed to understand that example? I have to admit I don't. Why don't you try supporting your argument with something I have actually said instead of using Mr. X and Mr. Y. Knocking down some Mr. X Mr. Y construction in your mind somehow discredits me?
What I am asking is for is a discussion that advances anything but someone's bullshit, uniformed, sock-puppet opinion. You know--a real discussion, like people with a brain have. Not familiar with it? Allow me to illustrate:
I make an argument and provide my evidence. You then comprehend my evidence (like maybe by actually looking at it) and present your argument which demonstrates (with your own cited evidence) where I have gone wrong. Then, I continue on by doing the same and so it goes. This is what is called a debate in the real world.
Clav, can you express to me in even a single comprehensible paragraph what even the most basic idea behind limits to growth is?
Tossing out unsubstantiated criticisms and claims is what is called "hearsay."
[Personal attack deleted. Cindy, you've been quite gracious so far in your debating style. Please do yourself and others justice by not resorting to personal insults. Thanks - Assistant Comments Editor]
1163 - Cindy D
lol very uncool strikeout, that should be reversed
1164 - Clavos
Cindy,
Still more flaws in your reasoning, to wit:
1. You make the unwarranted assumption that I have not read The Limits To Growth, and that I don't understand it. Nothing I have written here is evidence of that. I have said that the predictions outlined in the book, and in its 30 year update published in 2004 have not occurred, which obviously throws into question the scholarship behind the predictions. Notably, several scientists and scholars have convincingly debunked the conclusions presented therein, specifically mentioning the scarcity of the data supporting them. These scientists, from respected institutions such as MIT, CalTech and Stanford, most certainly DID read the book AND analyzed and investigated the ideas presented. They concluded both in the 70s, after the first publication, and again in 2004, when the sequel was published, that the scholarship and reasoning were flawed, and in one opinion: "irresponsible nonsense." Since then, few if any, scholars or experts place any credibility in the Club of Rome OR The Limits To Growth.
The truly convincing evidence, however, is easily interpreted, even by someone with undeveloped critical analysis skills, such as yourself, by simply looking around you, BECAUSE NONE OF THEIR PREDICTIONS HAVE COME TRUE. The world did NOT run out of oil in 1992, as predicted. True or not true, Cindy?
2. Again, the problem with this and most other predictions about peak oil or any mineral, is that most fail to take into account a myriad of mitigating factors, as I mentioned upthread several days ago. The further problem with buying too precipitously and without careful examination into these kinds of ideas is that the potential for calamitous disaster is too great. It is a common human trait to romanticize and glorify the lone prophet who goes against the conventional wisdom and struggles against the establishment, but it is seldom wise to do so without careful investigation of his ideas; too often, the prophets prove to be false.
"In other words, I thought that the irrational and uninformed knee-jerk responses to Limits to Growth, etc. might be offset by the realization that even a Congressman is moved to present what is not yet accepted by the mainstream."
A nice thought, Cindy, and your faith in congressmen is touching. Over the years I've found congresspeople to be among the most uninformed and least trustworthy people in our country, however.
"What I am asking is for is a discussion that advances anything but someone's bullshit, uniformed, sock-puppet opinion."
An excellent goal, Cindy. Present us with an informed opinion to discuss.
"I make an argument and provide my evidence."
Here, you touch on my X - Y example, which admittedly was a bit murky, though I think quite understandable. The argument you make is that the peak oil and limits to growth theories are in fact, true, and the "evidence" you present to prove your argument are the theories themselves.
That's a Circular Argument, Cindy, and proves nothing.
1165 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
Why has my post been deleted two times now? I posted it yesterday afternoon and again yesterday evening. Now it's gone again.
1166 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
It was a very long post carefully showing the flawed assumptions of the Simmons article. Was it too long or something?
1167 - Dr Dreadful
PETI,
I was on point yesterday evening. I did notice that the same comment of yours posted twice, and I deleted one of the dupes but left the other. However, I just scrolled up and you're right, it has indeed vanished.
Once they're gone, unfortunately, they're gone. I don't have any explanation for you as to what might have happened: there's no theoretical limit on the length of posts, so it wouldn't be that.
Unless the esteemed Mr Rose found some fault with it (and in that case, he would have excised the offending part, not the whole comment), I don't know what else to tell you other than offer my apologies.
1168 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
No problem, thanks for the quick response.
1169 - Dave Nalle
It's possible that both comment editors were working at the same time and they each deleted a different copy of it as the duplicate.
Dave
1170 - Dr Dreadful
Possible, but unlikely, unless Chris was sleepwalking at the time!
1171 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
Because there is no contrary evidence that I find for limits to growth, quite the contrary. There are only people doing what you are doing. Not reading something and then simply dismissing and ridiculing it because they don't like what they think it says. If you have any evidence, whatsoever, I would love some.
No one is disputing that there are limits to growth. There are obviously limits to growth in a finite space with finite resources (at least until we can inhabit other planets). What I am disputing are the actual estimates of the Simmons article and the other article ("the one with pictures"). Without even reading them (I have read both in detail), I know that they are not accepted by most experts. A quick check confirmed what I already knew, that some estimates of earth's carrying capacity for humans are as high as 1 trillion, and the average is 15 billion (over twice the current population and almost 15 times bigger than the "article with pictures" claims).
[Campbell, Neil A. and Jane B. Reece, Biology. 7th ed. San Francisco: Pearson, 2005.]
Others, as I previously said, outright deny the application of carrying capacity to an organism that can alter its environment.
As it is, I did read the Simmons and "article with pictures." They both make faulty assumptions about population growth. Simmons says the population of China will grow .7 billion by 2030, most estimates say it will only grow .2 billion by 2050. He is off by over 300%.
He assumes Saudi Arabia will have a population of 45-50 billion by 2030 (he even mentions 80 billion), when in 2008 the population was 26 billion, and the growth rate was 1.95% (CIA world factbook). Mathematically, if this continues the population would be only 40 billion, and the UN predicts it will be 37 billion (go to the UN website). Wrong again Mr. Simmons.
Then he assumes the "50, possibly 80 billion people of Saudi Arabia" adopt an energy consumption per capita the same as the U.S. What basis is there for this assumption? He then uses this to justify Saudi Arabia's energy consumption to increase from 2.1 million BOE/day, to "over 12 million" by 2030. Not going to happen.
No where in his analysis does he mention the fact that the worldwide number of births per woman has dropped from 5.02 to 2.65 from 1950, to 2005. If we adopt a simplistic projection of the status quo rate of change in births/woman [which is what Simmons does], then in 30 years the number of births/woman will be less than 2 and we will have negative population growth (rapid negative population growth if you account for mortality rates).
Again, all Simmons has done is take last century's population growth and extrapolated it to the future (which is why he gets absurd numbers like 2 billion for the population of China) and assumed that all the poor counties (and 4 billion inhabitants) in the world adopt lifestyles similar to the U.S. Both are not going to happen.
What are you just plain intellectually lazy? You can't read the book, you can't even read a short bit of informed discussion about the book, yet you can have an opinion about it?
So I have read the book, and shown all the flawed assumptions.
You are a waste of time. Believe whatever it is that you like, dear.
I know it's anoying when people actually read your ludicrous sources and go through all their flawed assumptions? You can't keep going around citing them authoritativily anymore.
1172 - Cindy D
Clav,
I skimmed your post (but didn't bother reading it). It makes a lot of claims that as far as I know you dreamed up. Or, as far as I know, some other numskull dreamed up. Without references you could have gotten your arguments from any source at all.
Saying something doesn't make it so. I also have no faith in your ability to discern fact from hearsay. So, I won't waste my time unless you quit addressing what you think of me and my ideas and debate the information with references.
End of story.
1173 - Cindy D
Oh wait, I was hasty Clav. Perhaps I will address some points. Skimming what an awful thing to do. Give me a bit and I will reply.
1174 - pleasexcuetheinterruption
And yet you ignore all of my posts (1080, 1091, 1104, 1127, 1129, 1132, 1159, 1171) containing factual information. Were the links I provided faulty? Was MLA not good enough for you? Would you prefer APA style citations? Chicago?
1175 - Cindy D
And yet you ignore all of my posts (1080, 1091, 1104, 1127, 1129, 1132, 1159, 1171) containing factual information. Were the links I provided faulty? Was MLA not good enough for you? Would you prefer APA style citations? Chicago? (PETI)
1080 no links, no citations, no references
1091 no links, no citations, no references
1104 no links, no citations, no references
1127 claim: "Every statistic I have cited comes from a credible source." no links, no citations, no references
1129 no links, no citations, no references
1132 no links, no citations, no references
1159 no links, no citations, no references
1171 noticed a reference, haven't actually had time to read this post.