kublikhan wrote:Oil expenditures are about 5% of GDP. Total energy expenditures is double this at about 10% of GDP.
Good post. Thanks much for the ballpark figures and the supporting links.
So, it would seem to me that if we want a realistic picture of whether long term energy prices will be sustainable, there are two competing forces at bay with fossil fuels:
1). The real world cost of such fuels, as they get harder to obtain (the "easy" sources are depleted). Real world cost, IMO, includes pollution, climate damage, military costs, etc. which are generally ignored in terms of the actual purchase price of fossil fuels.
2). The globe (potentially) moves toward less energy intensity from fossil fuel consumption (via green energy, conservation, doing without (including a lower standard of living), substitution, etc).
Since industry will pass costs along to consumers and governments over time, the real question, it seems to me, is whether the global middle class can afford fossil fuel use at the rate the system demands without destroying the system.
Given the results so far, we've cheated by dumping on the planet. Now that the jig is up on that, the game looks tough indeed -- especially since humans are so prone to plan very poorly, especially for the longer term.
(And yeah, I know, in 3 to 10 decades we can have a LOT more green energy, given the will to invest in it -- but anyone who thinks fossil fuels can just be abandoned within several decades short of "Mr. Fusion" magic while meeting planetary energy demand is just deluding themselves. Just Chindia demand growth seals that deal, and that's only part of the problem).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.