Reduced demand for a sustainable future?

[Ludi]

To them, it seems much more plausible to reduce their numbers rather than give up our standards of living. And they also seem to forget the US is the third most populous country.

Yes, I can see how it would seem easier to blame someone else for problems we ourselves are causing, but, as far as plausibility - how plausible is it our overconsumption of the Earth's resources would be solved by someone else reducing their population? It's not some poor people in India or the Sudan who are causing global warming, etc.

[DavidFolks]

I don't agree that conservation is synonymous with cutting sales.

Time to learn that it is.

Conservation is reduced economic activity, is it not?

You are buying less of something.

Somebody's sales are cut.

So what are we talking about? Supply side economics, consumer side economics, increased consumption paradigm or sustainable production paradigm?

Conservation of a resource on the supply side, and liquidating the growth of that resource at a rate less than or equal to the growth in a sustainable production model doesn't cut sales or jobs. Look to sustainable forestry as an example.

Clearcutting a forest in a consumption paradigm gives a boost of jobs and economic activity, and then a collapse when the trees are gone.

Each paradigm can exist in a capitalist society, and each can produce a profit and economic activity. The difference is that long term a sustainable production paradigm with conservation and stewardship of the resource will produce a greater and continuing profit.

To that end, you might view conservation as not maximizing sales and depleting a resource to reap as large a profit as possible in as short a time as possible. It doesn't mean cutting sales.

[MonteQuest]

I don't agree that conservation is synonymous with cutting sales.

Time to learn that it is.

Conservation is reduced economic activity, is it not?

You are buying less of something.

Somebody's sales are cut.

So what are we talking about?

Probably the most cited solution for solving our energy crisis is instilling a conservation ethic into society and the economic engine. Conservation, by its very nature, is a self-induced recession on the economy. Increasing conservation always results in reduced economic activity. Each of the previous three oil shocks in the United States was followed by recession. In every oil shock, the US economy was at or near its “stall speed” when the oil shock occurred. From the cringes of the financial analysts as of late, nothing has changed.

Conservation means economic restraint, and that means fewer jobs which translates into less money in the hands of consumers. This results in poor sales that dominoes into business failures, more job losses and increased poverty that leads to conflict and human desperation.

Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation

[EnergyUnlimited]

Conservation means economic restraint, and that means fewer jobs which translates into less money in the hands of consumers. This results in poor sales that dominoes into business failures, more job losses and increased poverty that leads to conflict and human desperation.

I really cannot imagine, how fitting of energy saving bulbs, abandoning a practice of driving to nearby park to walk your dog, or selling fuel efficient ICE could cause meaningful job loses and poverty.

[MonteQuest]

Conservation means economic restraint, and that means fewer jobs which translates into less money in the hands of consumers. This results in poor sales that dominoes into business failures, more job losses and increased poverty that leads to conflict and human desperation.

I really cannot imagine, how fitting of energy saving bulbs, abandoning a practice of driving to nearby park to walk your dog, or selling fuel efficient ICE could cause meaningful job loses and poverty.

And therein lies the one of the biggest obstacles to sustainability; the inability to think systematically.

The examples you mention are meaningless to offset peak oil.

What if everybody conserved on the scale we need to?

I don't think you have any idea of the scale of conservation required.

[DavidFolks]

I've been so busy taking exception to your phrasing of this statement, that I've completely sidetracked the point. Sloppiness on my part.

Capitalism and conservation are like oil and water; they do not mix.

I'm going to make the assumption that what you mean is that reducing our current economic activity in order to conserve a dwindling resource will cause economic hardship. I can agree that changing the current paradigm of constantly increasing sales and consumption will cause economic hardship, and may indeed cause a recession/depression.

I still will argue that capitalism and conservation are not mutually exclusive. But in the context of this discussion, I agree that moving toward a sustainable production paradidigm, and conservation, without a coresponding reduction in population, would not be a solution.

Taken piecemeal, there are no single solutions. Moving from our current consumption society to a sustainable society is going to be painful. Long term though, we're going to have to make the changes, and find a way to live within the carrying capacity of our planet and whatever other resources we can manage. Doing this proactively will be less painful than having change thrust upon us by depletion.

[mkwin]

See here for a view supporting conservation: http://www.energybulletin.net/14695.html

[MonteQuest]

Taken piecemeal, there are no single solutions. Moving from our current consumption society to a sustainable society is going to be painful. Long term though, we're going to have to make the changes, and find a way to live within the carrying capacity of our planet and whatever other resources we can manage. Doing this proactively will be less painful than having change thrust upon us by depletion.

Which has been my message on this site for almost 3 years now.

The only viable near term source of energy is in our standard of living. The scale of conservation that will be needed to accomodate 3 billion more people by 2050 and offset oil depletion will reek havoc with our economic system.

We are going to have to drive less for sure. And with 1 out of every six jobs tied to auto use, the dominoes will fall from gasoline, to tires, car insurance, body repair, motels, hotels, fast food, car washes, batteies, fan belts, etc.

We are going to have to stop being rich.

[MonteQuest]

See here for a view supporting conservation: http://www.energybulletin.net/14695.html

That article is so fraught with misconceptions and errors, I'm not even going to address them.

If that is your best shot, I am afraid it is a dog that will not hunt.

The irony of that piece is, that, although he doesn't have a grasp of the issues, he ends with the right thoughts anyway.

Let's be clear here. I am not against conservation. We must do it.

But we have to understand the consequences of conservation on the scale needed.

Let's conserve, and have a 25% cut in consumption, let's say.

Sounds good.

What if I said, let's reduce sales by 25%?

Doesn't sound so good, right?

What is the difference?

Nothing.

Conservation is reduced economic activity, period.

[Permanently_Baffled]

Hi Monte

I have a question - now I am having difficulty wording this so please bear with me!

I fully accept 100% your argument regarding conservation = recession/lower economic activity.

Indeed - one of the major problems post peak oil/conservation seems to be unemployment and how we get a system to work which employs enough people so they can earn enough to afford the very basics of existance (food, water, shelter)

So looking it at the other way around - do you think there is enough potential sustainable energy available in the US (plus what ever dribble of FF is left) to acheive said levels of employment?

Now I realise, this would require drastic cuts in wages. For example , if automakers reduced their output by say 90%, as their was a transition to public transport, could the production of public transport vehicles like trains and buses absord most of the workers IF THE WORK WAS LESS MECHANISED AND MORE LABOUR INTENSIVE (to get around the expense and lack of availability of FF?)

Of course the wages would have to be very low - but then I guess prices would also have to adjust to the lower wages being achieved in the economy? (so people could afford enough to sustain themselves but at massively lower standards of living?)

Other examples maybe the energy and agricultural sectors.

If for example - mechanisation and automation in food production/growing became more labour intensive and more local - could enough people be employed to give them at least SOME income? In effect replacing some machinery with muscle power?

In the energy sector - as FF power stations lay off workers - could they be absorbed making wind turbines, tidal turbines etc - which return some at least some energy into the system to make yet more turbines etc, and so create a virtous circle this way?

I am not challenging the view - I am trying to throw ideas around and see how possible we can meet the challenge of mass unemployment in a post peak contracting economy...

Hmm.... Maybe a topic for another thread, - what to do with the surplus of labour post peak. What can economies get them to do?

Is seems post peak there will plenty of work need doing (eg work on more sustainable infrastructure) , its what on earth a system would look like to get it to 'work'. Of course the other issue is to get people to accept the new paradigm - very challenging indeed!

Hope this makes sense...

[Ludi]

Just butting in here...


It might be possible to enable people to have the basics of existence by providing them with the means to provide for themselves -- land, water, and community. With those things they don't necessarily need a "job" or "wages" as they can be self-employed making a living for themselves, as people did for tens of thousands of years. This could be sustainable.

It's hard for me to imagine an economy based on very low wages to be desirable. For whom would they be making the wind turbines? They could not afford energy from them if they were being paid mere subsistence wages...who would be the beneficiary of this virtual slave labor?

[Permanently_Baffled]

Just butting in here...

No problem Ludi - your input is always welcome (especially as I have just set up an allotment and I will need to pick your brains!)

It might be possible to enable people to have the basics of existence by providing them with the means to provide for themselves -- land, water, and community. With those things they don't necessarily need a "job" or "wages" as they can be self-employed making a living for themselves, as people did for tens of thousands of years. This could be sustainable.

Fair comment - thinking about it , yes - "wages" wouldn't have to take the traditional form of money.

It's hard for me to imagine an economy based on very low wages to be desirable. For whom would they be making the wind turbines? They could not afford energy from them if they were being paid mere subsistence wages...who would be the beneficiary of this virtual slave labor?

Good question - I guess it would be similiar to today, the richer and more fortunate in society get to enjoy a larger share of the spoils of the energy provided by the sustainable sources & limited FF's (who would be a lot smaller amont of people in percentage terms compared to today)

In return the plebs get employment and some food in their bellies?

[Ludi]

It doesn't seem a desirable plan....the "plebs" could have food in their bellies without having to work for The Fortunate, if they were given the opportunity. With no prospect of earning more (remember, you are keeping wages at subsistence level) and improving life for themselves or their children, what would be the incentive to do this work for the rich? Unless they were forced or coerced into it....

[MonteQuest]

Hi Monte

I have a question - now I am having difficulty wording this so please bear with me!

I fully accept 100% your argument regarding conservation = recession/lower economic activity.

Indeed - one of the major problems post peak oil/conservation seems to be unemployment and how we get a system to work which employs enough people so they can earn enough to afford the very basics of existance (food, water, shelter)

So looking it at the other way around - do you think there is enough potential sustainable energy available in the US (plus what ever dribble of FF is left) to acheive said levels of employment?

Now I realise, this would require drastic cuts in wages. For example , if automakers reduced their output by say 90%, as their was a transition to public transport, could the production of public transport vehicles like trains and buses absord most of the workers IF THE WORK WAS LESS MECHANISED AND MORE LABOUR INTENSIVE (to get around the expense and lack of availability of FF?)

We will see many things that are now done by machines handed back over to human beings, for the eminently pragmatic reason that it will again be cheaper to feed, house, clothe, and train a human being to do those things than it will be to make, fuel, and maintain a machine to do them.

Our machine slaves will have to go.

Making such a transition will be a mega-achievement if done.

Of course the wages would have to be very low - but then I guess prices would also have to adjust to the lower wages being achieved in the economy? (so people could afford enough to sustain themselves but at massively lower standards of living?)

Yes, this too. If sales drop off due to conservation and an economic downturn ( one self-imposed, the other market forces) workers will be laid off as in any recession.

To keep everyone employed, we will have to do as the airlines have done: cut wages, benefits and pension plans.

If ten people work at a place and five have to be laid off, we cut the wages of the remaining five 50% and rehire them.

Of course, now those ten people's purchasing power has now been cut 50%, so the dominoes will continue to fall until it reaches the entire economy.

Result. A massive drop in the standard of living for everyone.
However, we will have to learn to share more, which will increase the quality of life.

[careinke]

Somehow Monte’s doomer predictions make me smile. In a perverse sort of way, I find comfort in the fact that my huge reduction in spending, coupled with my ongoing attempts at self sufficiency, are contributing to the downfall of our “Taker” society.

Cliff (Start a revolution, grow a arden)

[Permanently_Baffled]

Thanks Monte for the response.

Ludi - I wasn't suggesting any sort of coercion or enforcement by the state - I was just trying to understand what the "market" will try and do with the potential masses of cheap labour available post peak/economic shock (my fault - I didnt explain this to well!)

[Ludi]

Unfortunately, I think we can expect coercion by "the market" (or the state), as that is what the market (and most states) is currently doing to billions of people - coercing them to be virtual (or actual) slaves!


Ours is a coercive system, a pyramid scheme.

[Ibon]

When it comes to corporate and government coercion, greed, corruption, we notice today the general public's apathy and paralysis around protest. Considering that the general public is increasingly struggling to make ends meet and considering that the majority of people are employed by corporations, what happens when massive unemployment breaks the chains that have turned the public into complacent sheeples?

I can imagine that when consequences hit home this long asleep complacency of the general public will end and we will see massive protest against corporate and government self interest.

We will have huge numbers of people unemployed. We will have huge requirements to rebuild our infrastructure torward sustainability. And we will have massive protests from displaced people. And we wont have money and resources to make some techno fix. All of this will force a whole new approach to our economic system. A whole new approach to people living in community. A whole new approach to how people get compensated for their work.

This may all start out as government programs like the WPA during the depression and end up morphing to a more permanent arrangement.

The massive protests of displaced people will create a huge threat to the corporate / government elite. Todays complacent shoppers will turn into tomorrows revolutionaries once they lose their jobs.
I know that seems almost impossible to imagine at the moment.

[xrotaryguy]

I was under the impression you need petroleum to lubricate the ball bearings of wind mills, and that petrochemical products are necessary to create photovoltaic cells... is that not accurate?

Wind mills can be lubricated with organically derived oils. That’s an easy fix.

I do not know about the viability of photovoltaic production without petroleum. To produce photovoltaics, is petroleum needed for some reason other than energy input?

There are no batteries that do not contain dangerous rare materials.

Not all batteries contain both dangerous and rare materials. The sulfuric acid in a lead acid battery is fairly dangerous, but no more dangerous than gasoline. Lead is not a rare element and is not dangerous unless ingested or disposed of improperly. Currently, all lead acid batteries are either recycled or incinerated. I don’t know that I would call incineration “proper” disposal though. Certainly, all lead acid batteries should be recycled.

The nickel in a nickel metal hydride battery is not rare. However, I do not know about the dangerous or rare nature of the other chemicals involved in this type of battery.

Lithium ion batteries can be a little scary in a lap top. A large bank of these batteries in a car poses an engineering challenge. We shall see how the Tesla Roadster works out. Lithium is not an abundant metal as far as I know. That may be an incurable problem for lithium ion batteries.

In general, I don’t think that the dangerous or rare nature of the materials in batteries is the core problem with batteries.

we aren't running out of electricity, but we can convert electricity into portable fuel (batteries and hyrogen being the obvious ways). So when gas and oil give out - we will turn to electricity or nothing (horses? sailboats? bikes?). That makes peak oil at least in part an electricity problem. There are certainly a host of technical problems with hydrogen - flammability, density, platinum needed for fuel cells, EROEI, to name a few. But let's assume we could develop ways around enough of the problems and develop a half-decent hydrogen vehicle. The problem then is the energy to convert water to hydrogen, aka an electricity issue. Cutting your demand for electricity elsewhere would liberate it to be used for transportation.

Exactly. This does not mean that hydrogen can never be used for energy storage, but as you state, the problems are many. As such, the likelihood of hydrogen becoming America’s next primary energy carrier are slim to none.

You mentioned storage a couple times, how do we store excess energy at the moment? I really don't know how the grid works.

The grid does not really store electricity that has already been produced. Power generation stations shut down or reduce production when demand is low, and resume or increase production when demand is higher. In this way, excess energy is stored in the coal that is not being burned, or in the water that is not flowing through turbines, etc. If or when we switch to a power generation system that relies heavily on solar, wind, or even tidal, then we will have to come up with storage methods. Perhaps there is no single storage method that will work for all of them though.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2219

What? No torque number? That’s the best part of any high performance electric car since electric motors make the same torque at zero rpm as they do at 10,000 rpm. Can you imagine driving a car with 500ft lbs of torque from zero rpm? *Shudder* Man, that would be fun!

While the optimists believe we are in for economic depressions but will get though the other side the doomers believe we are in for a break down of society and the mass die-off of 4 billion people.

No, the optimists deny and are ignorant of biology/ecology and overshoot, and the doomers are not.

We've had this conversation before. You take an extremely reductionism view of the human race and compare our current condition to other species. However, we are fundamentally different from other species and predicting trends or absolute natural laws like overshoot from these comparisons is unreliable.

Yes we need to stabilize and reduce populations in the third world, but we have the opposite problem in the industrialized world!! Just look at Japan, much of Europe and Russia - here the problem is the birth-rate that is too little to sustain the population at current levels.

Die-off in the third world…sadly yes. In the developed world…no.

Very true.

Monty, optimism isn’t the same as ignorance.

And here we have a classic example of that denial and ignorance of biology/ecology.

I love how Monty thinks people who disagree with him are ignorant. Again, Monty evidently thinks that he is always right, and that anyone who disagrees with him is ignorant.

By the way, quoting yourself does not make you a more credible source, Monty.

[Veritas]

Finally had a chance to catch up on this thread.

I don't get how you (believe it was montequest) come to the conclusion that energy use = irreplacable jobs and economic activity. It seems to me like you are saying we just can't reduce energy demand that much because people will lose jobs, sectors will collapse. Sure, they will and then they will be replaced by other jobs and the growth in other sectors.

If we reduce the demand for cars by 90% a whole string of economic sectors are no longer possible. Now we take all those people who were flying planes, managing hotels, running conveience stores, and tell them to go do something useful, problem solved.

It's not like you flick a switch overnight and the world changes right? You'd see a gradual decline in demand for these products and services, and a commensurate increase in demand for other products and services. If people aren't spending their time flying around staying in hotels, they're presumably doing something else.

Hey, now the demand for recreational facilities is up 90%. So take all those hotel managers and put them in charge of rec facilities. Take your airplane pilots and have them drive whatever the public transit is in cities (obviously not literally the same people - but those who would have been the next generation of pilots instead become a new generation of something else).

One would imagine that a sustainable future involves localization and de-mechanization of a lot of things. So all those people who were driving trucks to deliver milk across the country can now go work on local dairy farms producing the good for people in a reasonable radius. Demand for skilled trades would surge right? If you can't mass produce everything for ikea and walmart, somebody has to make that stuff locally.

So just because you cut your energy demand by 25%, does not mean your unemployment rate goes up by 25%. People get redirected from service into primary production of goods.

It doesn't mean its easy or quick, but I don't believe that just taking conservation seriously will trigger economic collapse.

So to me the questions are:

1) how much energy could reliably be provided from renewables?

2) what is the gap between that supply and current demand?

3) Can conservation efforts address that gap?


If we're talking about renewables providing 10% of current energy supply in a best-case scenario, then yeah its probably not gonna happen. But if its 30%? 50%? It strikes me that the vast majority of our energy consumption is basically waste and we should be able to reduce it dramatically if we were so committed.