Peak What?/ The Future is Electric.

[Plantagenet]

TPTB are maintaining a face (farce) of return to normal/ global GDP growth at whatever cost. Behind the scenes in the MSM I am pretty sure by now the real powers know what is really going on and that it is all about peak oil.

Why do you think that? Why would TPTB waste trillions of dollars on stimulus and bank bailouts and loans to Greece if they really thought peak oil was the problem?

NOPE----the evil people in the TPTB are just as stupid and ignorant as everyone else. They think we are in a financial crisis and they can fix it by bailing out banks and insolvent countries and printing more Euros and Dollars and Yen and Yuan to pay for it.

[SeaGypsy]

Sorry I ought define my language better. I have counted the vast majority of political leaders as theater players/ non originators for a very long time. In this instance, I tend to side with the ultra-rich old money club conspiracy theorists when it comes to who are the real PTB.
People most of us plebs have never heard of, but have world leaders on speed dial.

[SeaGypsy]

Destination: Alice Springs!!!

Most of central Australia looked like above for 15,000 years; having previously sustained primordial forests..
You have to wonder when it looks like this, with all the climate change news chatter...

[Plantagenet]

Northern Australia will get wetter...but southern Australia----where all the fine Aussie women live----- is supposed to get even drier then it is now due to global warming.

southern Australia to get even drier due to AGW

The folks in south Australia can expect more long periods of droughts, more dust storms, more unhappy farmers, and more drying up of the Murray River.


Can you identify the Australian woman in this picture?

[SeaGypsy]

For the first time since the building of the Snowy River hydro system the river had an all dams full flood, as did the Murray river and the Darling, as with most mainland agricultural areas in the south east, this summer's crop has broken records by 20%. The Brisbane river is beginning to look like it may flood regularly again. But then the next El Nino could be just around the corner and we are back to a 7 or 10 or 12 year drought.

[Pops]

I am not in this thread suggesting that peak oil is less than a dire threat to society and humanity. I am suggesting that there is going to be another transition in the global economy, rather than anything resembling the end of such a thing in our lifetimes.

I see. I agree, teotwawki is not the end of the world, just the end of our world, business will continue it just won't be the usual.

[Lore]

I am not in this thread suggesting that peak oil is less than a dire threat to society and humanity. I am suggesting that there is going to be another transition in the global economy, rather than anything resembling the end of such a thing in our lifetimes.

I see. I agree, teotwawki is not the end of the world, just the end of our world, business will continue it just won't be the usual.

Then again you have to throw in the mix of other catastrophic issues to appreciate the interplay of how peak oil will really affect all of us. Sadly, when you consider the totality of the threats we face, peak oil just being one of them, then I do believe it will be the ultimate end for many.

[furrybill]

I am not in this thread suggesting that peak oil is less than a dire threat to society and humanity. I am suggesting that there is going to be another transition in the global economy, rather than anything resembling the end of such a thing in our lifetimes.

I see. I agree, teotwawki is not the end of the world, just the end of our world, business will continue it just won't be the usual.

Then again you have to throw in the mix of other catastrophic issues to appreciate the interplay of how peak oil will really affect all of us. Sadly, when you consider the totality of the threats we face, peak oil just being one of them, then I do believe it will be the ultimate end for many.

Great way to put it. This civilization is definitely toast. And I think it'll be the ultimate end for most rather than many. But it probably won't be the end of the world. There'll be a very long dark ages with pockets of learning and industry. Just like the monks copied texts and preserved some of the ancient wisdom some of what we have done right will be kept. Then some new civilization will rise from the ashes, hopefully having learned lessons from our stupidity.

[Timo]

Growing up, such discussion of TEOTWAWKI always contained the caveat, not in our lifetime. Well, not in our lifetime is still possible, i guess, but undoubtedly, that caveat is becoming much less secure as we begin to replace it with the word "maybe." Those who pay attention are beginning to have serious doubts about the longevity of the world as we know it. Alas, we are the minority, and the vast majority controls the apparatus that raises those doubts, to begin with, and the vast majority are either stupid, don't care (or both), greedy (or all three), or are in denial (or all four). From my own perspective, yes, bad times are a-comin', but it won't be the end of the world. The world was here for millions and millions of years before humanity, and it will be here for millions of years after we're gone. As long as we have a molten core, this planet will have life. Life will continue, and humans will be here for a very long time to come, but ironically, it might be technology that ends up seperating us into the haves and have nots. Or rather, in to the rulers and the serfs. I agree with Kunstler that we're headed for a much more regional economic system, as opposed to a global economy. Here in the middle of the US, grapes from Chile, or apples from NZ, will increasingly become luxuries, instead of stapels, like we have now. International travel will continue, but the mass-transit airline industry will be reduced to only those who have vast quantities of money. For the "public", we'll travel on ships, or not at all, just like we did one hundred years ago. The 20th Century was a technological bubble, enabling an exponential increase in everyone's standard of living. Along with this standard of living, there were also major, MAJOR technologies developed that can either save us, or kill us all, and those positive technologies are being more slowly advanced because there's simply no economic reason for saving the world. If everyone has what they need and the planet is safe from destructuve technologies, there goes my power and my wealth. I'll stop that before i lose control of everything that i see. We'll also see a lot more sudden and abrubt changes to political systems, all around the globe. Back in the 60s and 70s, how many people here had duck and cover exercises in school, just in case there was a nuclear war? That seems ludicrous today, but was taken very seriously back then. How many people actually thought we would see the end of the Soviet Empire back in the 70s? Again, ludicrous. Things change, and given twice as many people on the planet now, as opposed to then, and us 7 billion people are all competing against each other for the natural resources that are left to be found, and that are decreasing in volume every single day, and the increase in media and communication technologies that enable nearly every single human to know what's happening on the other side of the planet, so 15 seconds ago, along with the ideological extremism we're all witnessing now...........Ay Carumba! It's hard to think of life as we know it lasting very long, at all.

OK. I'll go take a chill pill. That will solve everything.

[pstarr]

Timo, some would say that yours was only a rant, a distraction from the topic thread. But I wouldn't. I have come to the conclusion that peak oil now means political discussions are distractions, economic/financial problems are unsolvable predicaments, and that most so-called "solutions" are necessarily in isolation.

[SeaGypsy]

How is what Kunstler describes not globalism? Is the internet on for .1%? In every region of importance? 2 Ticks? A Ship comes by once in a while, or a train? With goodies from faraway lands? 2 more Ticks? Globalism.

Whatever happens to the planet, or the rest of humanity.

[ralfy]

The gamers' if giving thought to the consequences; imagine their great grandkids living under a giant plexiglass solar collecter wizz bang unity networked supercomputer protoplasm world, with the rest of the world resembling a damp and poisonous version of Mars, think "Oh well, that's kinda cool!"

Meanwhile electricity based modules are going to dominate many aspects of the global economy, well beyond oil. With resource flexibility and all the billions going into carbon capture/ (recycle re-burn via algae emerges strongly at this point), the cards have essentially been shown.

After oil, the next seriously key resources are metals associated with electricity capture, storage and transfer. The energy to run through the equipment is going to be competitive up until there may be no live coral or anything with a spine in the ocean. I'm pretty sure, at that point, we are totally FUBAR. I think the science based on calcium accumulation in mollusk and reef species indicates global ocean death in the 100 to 250 year timespan from now. It is unknown what science may be able to achieve to alleviate or mitigate any of the most drastic effects.

The most serious thinkers seem to be suggesting nukes are the only backstop energy with a miniscule carbon footprint by comparison to any alternative, which may buy us enough time to sidestep absolute global disaster by carbonification of oceans and air.

Amazingly, central Australia may turn once again into a forest full of rivers.... mmmm....

Martenson discussed this idea in his video lecture, and I recall one report (probably mentioned in Energy Bulletin) that assessed the idea of business as usual with various sources of energy, and from what I gathered, the likely scenario is that we will use various sources of energy to survive, but it will not allow us to maintain the current global economy, which needs oil, either for most operations or as a start up.

There are many factors to consider. For example, for nuclear power, I think Martenson states that just to meet two-thirds of U.S. energy demands using nuclear power, one will need something like the total number of reactors worldwide. And that's just to meet two-thirds of the energy needs of less than 5 pct of the world's population. Of course, there should be various ways to lower energy and resource costs, but one should balance them with all sorts of problems that will crop up. This is important, as we did not do such when we started using oil.

Perhaps what's more logical is to look at something like ecological footprint and biocapacity, which considers resources in general:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _footprint

With that, we can argue that our ave. global footprint is around 2.7 global hectares per capita but our biocapacity is only around 1.8 global hectares, which means we are in overshoot. What makes matters worse is that the 1.8 figure was based on a population of 6 billion. An increasing population will lower per capita biocapacity. Pollution and climate change will lower that biocapacity further.

In addition, it's possible that the ave. global footprint will have to remain the same or even go up, which makes the deficit worse.

If we assume that an amount of time (not to mention significant levels of global coordination) will be needed to move from an oil-based to an electricity (and other)-based economy as well as oil and other resources needed for other sources of energy, then we'll probably need something like two decades to make that possible. If we want economic growth to continue, and given the need to create a buffer against various black swans (like war, the effects of climate change, epidemics, etc.), then we will require the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years or so.

Finally, given that this is a global endeavor (as it involves a global economy) and will likely involve the same corporations, governments, and military forces that have been operating the last few decades, then we should probably see how we did the last five decades or so and see the next five in light of that.

[SeaGypsy]

Martenson discussed this idea in his video lecture, and I recall one report (probably mentioned in Energy Bulletin) that assessed the idea of business as usual with various sources of energy, and from what I gathered, the likely scenario is that we will use various sources of energy to survive, but it will not allow us to maintain the current global economy, which needs oil, either for most operations or as a start up.

There are many factors to consider. For example, for nuclear power, I think Martenson states that just to meet two-thirds of U.S. energy demands using nuclear power, one will need something like the total number of reactors worldwide. And that's just to meet two-thirds of the energy needs of less than 5 pct of the world's population. Of course, there should be various ways to lower energy and resource costs, but one should balance them with all sorts of problems that will crop up. This is important, as we did not do such when we started using oil.

If we assume that an amount of time (not to mention significant levels of global coordination) will be needed to move from an oil-based to an electricity (and other)-based economy as well as oil and other resources needed for other sources of energy, then we'll probably need something like two decades to make that possible.

Your first quote of Martenson does not undo my argument. Do I have to keep saying I am not talking about 'continued growth/ BAU' but about the existence of an economic continuum only? The second part is an obvious component of mainstream discussion.

The bolded paragraph shows what you and many others are missing.
The reason electric has to be the dominant component is that it is redundant/ already in place. We don't have to do anything to make what is already there possible.

[ralfy]

Your first quote of Martenson does not undo my argument. Do I have to keep saying I am not talking about 'continued growth/ BAU' but about the existence of an economic continuum only? The second part is an obvious component of mainstream discussion.

That is my impression taken from this post:

peak-what-the-future-is-electric-t64898.html#p1117237

That is, rather than a "rapture by mass starvation" we will have a "neo-eco- renaissance society." In short, BAU by other means.

My apologies if you meant something else, but I always saw "Renaissance" in light of the rise of science and technology coupled with industrialization that followed in Western history.

I don't see the second part as a component of "mainstream discussion," as I don't see such discussions in mainstream news and commentaries, only the belief that we need more nukes, that they can easily replace oil, and that no additional problems will arise from such.

The bolded paragraph shows what you and many others are missing.
The reason electric has to be the dominant component is that it is redundant/ already in place. We don't have to do anything to make what is already there possible.

Now, that's part of mainstream discussion, i.e., the magic of electricity, i.e., it is "already in place" and we can easily use it, never mind the fact that electricity isn't a source of energy and still involves various resources. Never mind lag time, the need for coordination, and other problems. We can easily solve those in our imagination.

With that, I'd like to think that I and others aren't missing anything. If any, we're actually adding to your thread what is missing.

[SeaGypsy]

Maybe we aren't really arguing, just speculating consequences of commonly held perceptions of reality. I am speculating the end of global fiscal sharing, but reinforcement of global fiscal trade and block distribution. In other words, the world splitting rapidly into a have and have not situation. Where have not is Mad Max/ Somalia/ Isolation from the rule of law etc. Where have is like industrial China.

[ralfy]

I think "have and have not" will take place internally rather than externally. That is, various armed groups will take control of regions, preying on civilians, both locally and abroad.

In this case, the Chinese government has managed to control its population for several decades through draconian means, but now more are demanding better conditions, leading to increased consumer spending. This in turn has prompted greater pressure to take control of resources in other countries through financial means. Meanwhile, the military is becoming stronger, and may soon turn on the population if unrest grows stronger. The government, meanwhile, has to ensure that the military will not turn on such, even as it borrows and spends more to appease the population.

[Pops]

I think "have and have not" will take place internally rather than externally. That is, various armed groups will take control of regions, preying on civilians, both locally and abroad.

Ralfy, I usually agree with most of your posts but I disagree with the regression to armed tribes theory in the US – if that is what you meant. I know, armed (whatever) is a pretty dominant theme in the American psyche but the reality is usually more mundane law and order or at worst, oppression. Whenever there is a ownership interest present, there is usually a formal peace keeper of some kind. It's been that way right across the country since the beginning, as soon as there is any sort of community there is a LEO and rudimentary justice system. Granted the LEO ain't always Marshal Dillon, sometimes he's Little Bill or worse, Boss Hog, but still, we just don't have much of a tradition of "armed groups" running things for any significant period.

And I think that is a big part of the reason I agree for the most part that Business will continue, as it pretty well has since before memory. The new Usual will be just as usual as it ever was because we all have have a tendency to ignore the changes right in front of our nose and pretend everything is usual until the unusual can be christened the "Good Old Days".

Take the labor force participation for example, it's lower than it's been in 30 years and continuing down, older workers are working longer and middle aged workers aren't, to me this seems like a big deal but it gets little attention and in fact papered over with terms like "long term unemployment".



I know there is an ongoing fantasy that the left is going to come try to take the guns and property of the God fearing and there'll be this big showdown (or the race war/secession/MadMax Gas War/etc) but the boiled frog says different. What is happening right in front of our eyes is simply percieved as usual right up to the point it can no longer be ignored.

[Revi]

I think the future is electric, but just for a small percentage of the population. Most of the rest of us will be sitting in the dark. There will be enclaves of people living a late 20th century existence, but there will also be a lot of areas like Detroit, where industries flourished in the 20th century, but died and are still marginally inhabited. I heard someone talking about a town here in Maine that used to have shoe manufacturing, a paper mill and other industries, and now has none of them. The place is hanging by a thread. That's very typical for a lot of places in the US nowadays.

[Timo]

I think "have and have not" will take place internally rather than externally. That is, various armed groups will take control of regions, preying on civilians, both locally and abroad.

Ralfy, I usually agree with most of your posts but I disagree with the regression to armed tribes theory in the US – if that is what you meant. I know, armed (whatever) is a pretty dominant theme in the American psyche but the reality is usually more mundane law and order or at worst, oppression. Whenever there is a ownership interest present, there is usually a formal peace keeper of some kind. It's been that way right across the country since the beginning, as soon as there is any sort of community there is a LEO and rudimentary justice system. Granted the LEO ain't always Marshal Dillon, sometimes he's Little Bill or worse, Boss Hog, but still, we just don't have much of a tradition of "armed groups" running things for any significant period.

Pops, sing the US National Anthem and ask yourself if you still feel the same way. The National Anthem of this country is predicated on military struggle and military might. This nation was founded on that principle. Factor in the NRA, Stand Your Ground, gun rights paranoia, and the vast arrays of political extremism going on now in this country, i honestly don't see Ralfy vision as going overboard at all. I hope you're right, and he/she's wrong (sorry Ralfy), but in my book, all bets on the future of this world are off when we're faced with any number of potential economic cataclysms. Along those lines, one of my professors in college (the history of North America, from the city planners perspective) told us that the US would eventually break apart. Those states that can support their citizenry, in terms of education, health care, food, shelter, job security, etc... will become destinations for the rest of the nation who's citizens want hose personal benifits for themselves. In order to preserve those qualities, those states will have to close their borders, just like what we're doing now with Mexico. Some states will have too much dead weight with unemployed, malnourished, ill-health, welfare-dependent, etc... and will choose to export that weight to other states to relieve themselves of that burden. I'll refer back to that standard, tired old cliche about not happening in my lifetime. Well, i sure hope not, but the way things are going, maybe.

[Pops]

Could be Timo, you make a good argument. I certainly have no crystal ball but I've planned for the worst as best I can (including a scenario like you imagine) so I can only hope for the best at this point.

I have no doubt that there are certain factions who might like to have secession as an excuse to do a little bit of house cleaning but the main problem (for them) is that they aren't a contiguous unit - the differences in ideology are at the boundaries of the weakest political units, cities and counties, not states. It is conceivable that my county in SW MO might join forces with equally poor and inbred areas of the surrounding states to some end but I'm not sure what.

I think the larger roadblock to the coalescing of separatists is – as was said upthread, there is not simply one problem. So where you might flee to escape GW may be a different place than if you are running from PO and that may be a different place altogether than where you might run if you are an economic refugee. Of course as time goes by those problems and others will combine and coalesce and express into who knows what form so I'm not sure there will ever be a clear choice of a have and have-not region for any length of time.

Just as really closing the border with Mexico right now would trap a bunch of illegals in the US who are trying to deport themselves. LOL

Intolerance is probably about the most prevalent human trait and there is no doubt many people would rather not look at anyone who is not pretty well a mirror image of themselves. It happens all the time that some larger event releases people to act out their long held hatreds using guns or machetes or clubs. It isn't that I think "ethnic cleansing" or just simple vengeful hate is below us, we're perfectly capable and as you point out it is stock in trade for many politicians and "entertainers", lots of folks in fact are probably praying for the day.

Still, I don't see the payoff at this point for a large part of the population. For them it's extend and pretend first, last and always, it's just a recession after all...