[Graeme]

Governments Must Work together to Avoid a Peak Oil Scenario

Decline in output from the world's oil fields is averaging 5% per year, with some speculation that we may have reached the global production limit for conventional crude oil. Once the loss in output overtakes what can be provided from unconventional sources, it can be said that we have passed the point of global "peak oil".


Rather, to consider that there may be a solution, but only one, and that is for the governments of the world to unite in a voluntary and cooperative programme to reduce oil consumption by 3 million barrels/day (ca 3%) per year, in line with the predicted fall in oil production from the present to 2030. Any other strategy - including business as usual - will be tough, unpleasant and disastrous, and must inevitably abrade society into conflict and all-out wars between regions and between nations. In a nutshell, oil-producing nations must agree to reduce their production by 3% per year and oil-importing nations to reduce their imports by an exactly matching amount. Production will fall and must be planned to fall, while consumers take-up the slack in supply, in the form of fuel rationing.

We need a clear strategy to gear-down our dependence on personalised transportation and on the carriage of essential goods such as food and water to the extent that should this mechanism fail, in Britain we have probably three days supply before the supermarket shelves are empty and the country begins to starve. To put it another way, a fall in oil provision by 3% per year means building more localised means that depend less on transport by that same figure, pro rata. Since the problem is a global one, the solution can only be found globally, and individual nations - under the leadership of their governments - must cooperate in creating an overall less fuel-dependent ideology and putting this into practice. Fuel rationing is key and a reconstruction of societies so that the means for shelter, work, food production, money and all else are not separated, but become part of the integrated hive of community.

oilprice

Professor Chris Rhodes is a writer and researcher. He studied chemistry at Sussex University, earning both a B.Sc and a Doctoral degree (D.Phil.); rising to become the youngest professor of physical chemistry in the U.K. at the age of 34.

[Quinny]

It might be a start, but IMHO it's too little too late and very unlikely to get global agreement.

[Plantagenet]

Governments today can't decide how to work together on climate change.

Its even more unlikely they will come together and work on peak oil.

[Dybbuk]

Doing all the stuff he mentioned voluntarily would be nightmarishly hard to arrange. And if "governments" are involved, it's sure to involve a lot of favors for the buddies of politicians.

On the other hand, it will all happen automatically and without any direction whatsoever, when production peaks and then declines on its own. That scenario has my vote.

Instead of expending effort trying to get politicians to manage the peak and decline, better to work on ways to not need as much oil.

[Plantagenet]

proponents of good governments know exactly how to deal with climate change and resource depletion....

Really? Why would you imagine that?

Lets look at the real world. Al Gore and Clinton never even submitted the Kyoto Treaty for ratification in the US. I can understand why Clinton didn't want to bother with climate change treaties---his mind was on other things---but why didn't Gore even try to get it submitted for a vote? On the international scene, of the countries that did sign agree to it, many countries that signed it either dropped out later or simply never adhered to it. Now, some 20 years later we can see that the Kyoto Treaty utterly failed at reducing CO2 in the atmosphere---its much higher now then when the Kyoto protocols were set up. And the entire UN climate treaty process was derailed at the Copenhagen 2009 meeting and has been moribund since. Your claim that "proponents of good government" know what to do about climate change is clearly false.

AND as far as resource depletion goes, you are having pleasant but even more unreal fantasy. There never has been even a hint of international cooperation on peak oil and resource completion---your claim is just another example of a cornucopian delusion---it is totally untrue.

[Plantagenet]

proponents of good governments know exactly how to deal with climate change and resource depletion....

Really? Why would you imagine that?

Lets look at the real world. Al Gore and Clinton never even submitted the Kyoto Treaty for ratification in the US. I can understand why Clinton didn't want to bother with climate change treaties---his mind was on other things---but why didn't Gore even try to get it submitted for a vote? On the international scene, of the countries that did sign agree to it, many countries that signed it either dropped out later or simply never adhered to it. Now, some 20 years later we can see that the Kyoto Treaty utterly failed at reducing CO2 in the atmosphere---its much higher now then when the Kyoto protocols were set up. And the entire UN climate treaty process was derailed at the Copenhagen 2009 meeting and has been moribund since. Your claim that "proponents of good government" know what to do about climate change is clearly false.

AND as far as resource depletion goes, you are having pleasant but even more unreal fantasy. There never has been even a hint of international cooperation on peak oil and resource completion---your claim is a classic example of a cornucopian delusion---it is totally untrue.

[Plantagenet]

Planty, in hindsight Ronald Reagan's remark that ""Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."[1]" will stand at the epitome of Republican environmental sanity. Things have gone down hill since.

Yup. You are right---Things have gotten much worse since then, thats for sure.

Obama's decision to force his way into the private meeting called by China so the non-western countries could discuss things amongst themselves and his stupidly arrogant attempt to take over their meeting at the Copenhagen UN climate treaty meeting is my nomination for the low point----Obama's grave insult to the Chinese and other 3rd world peoples derailed the climate change treaty that was scheduled to be signed at Copenhagen, and has effectively killed any new UN climate change treaty at least until Obama leaves office.

[Plantagenet]

decades of .. Corporate subsidies, FIRE-campaign contribution, and well-orchestrated attacks on environmentalists, good policy, and sustainable development have truly gutted any possibility we have of addressing either peak oil or AGW.

I'm surprised to see you give up hope and abandon your cornucopian fantasy that "good governments" will fix climate change and peak oil so quickly, starry.


Hope is fading away so quickly!

[Dybbuk]

Because you wealthy republicans tools will never allow it to happen. So screw you Plant, and your anti-environment trolling. You constantly blame the victims to distract from you own responsibility. Have you ever stood up to other Republicans and said, "listen. AGW is real. Resource depletion is real. Peak oil is real. We need to institute a government program to replace inefficient private-auto/diesel-truck tranport, concentrated walkable cities/burbs, and drill trains through neighborhoods . . . for the good of the people. For everyone?"

Have you ever uttered such a word of disagreement with your wealthy donors?

You can count on political conservatives to continue to deny the science of AGW for the foreseeable future. You know why? Because they only hear about it, from the same people who say stuff about them like the quote above. Do you really expect them to change their minds, and adopt the pet issue of the people who have been calling them names for decades?

The AGW cause was lost by the liberals, not the conservatives...because the liberals decided to use it as a political stick to beat their opponents with.

[Quinny]

Planty - do not try and put forward the Republicans as good environmental stewards. You will make yourself look even more stupid.

[Plantagenet]

Planty - do not try and put forward the Republicans as good environmental stewards.

Quinny - I never tried to put forward the Republicans as good environmental stewards. In fact, I haven't said a single word about Republicans or Republicans in as good environmental stewards in this topic---I suggest you read the topic before suggesting that again or you will make yourself look even more stupid.

I simply pointed out an obvious truth----Democrats haven't been good environmental stewards either.

[SeaGypsy]

No government of any color anywhere has a policy to reduce growth to less than zero; a mandatory position to wind down from our lofty petro driven heights. Peak oil and massive FF burning are set to continue due to system wide inertia, which has sucked along politicians regardless of real or imagined consequence beyond the election cycle.

Living in Australia, seen by many as being a world leader in Carbon pricing, a classic example. Simultaneous to setting mandated on shore targets and taxes, Australia has licensed massive expansion of FF's for export, mainly coal and gas. If burnt in Chindia, that's their emissions not ours is the philosophy. As we also export much of the ore requirements for the same customers, effectively a massive off-shoring of our smelting industry.

Trusting either side or center to really do anything about preventing either peak oil driven economic disaster or AGW is a mugs game. Only the extreme fringe of society are actually doing anything real about sustainability, whilst most of us who consider ourselves aware, still drive around in cars and live pretty much on grid.

Only something big enough to stop the momentum driving the current inertia can stop it's inevitable consequences. It will take a disaster to prevent a disaster, either way, disaster is inevitable. Meanwhile whoever holds the seats of power sees their ultimate duty as to their political party held bedazzled in the headlights of the election cycle.

[Plantagenet]

... your wealthy donors...

You live in a total fantasy world, don't you starry...

I don't have any wealthy donors----but It seems like you do. In fact the "wealthy donor" may actually be you---after all, You're sitting on a million+ bucks of acreage by the ocean in California, aren't you?