[diemos]

At one extreme one could say that the correct rate is zero, since then the resource will last forever. But if the rate is zero then you're not getting any benefit out of it so who cares if it lasts forever.

At the other extreme one could say that the correct rate is "as fast as you can dig it out of the ground". I'd argue that that's dangerous because you create a system that is dependent on that consumption and will inevitably crash when the resource runs out.

So would anyone like to provide a rational for picking a rate somewhere in between those two extremes?

[Tanada]

One percent of remaining proven reserves per year. This will give you incentive to find and log all of it as quickly as possible and at the same time once you have found it all a very gradual exponential descent curve for total exploitation of the resource.

[dolanbaker]

Follow the 80-20 rule, select the 80% of oil consuming activities and use 20% (of current consumption) of the oil to sustain them. this will extend the oil age by a factor of five, allowing plenty of time to transition away while providing fuel for the essentials.

[GoghGoner]

In a way that creates a bottleneck of human population leading to an new species with larger brain?

[davep]

I guess it depends on the resource. Some could be consumed at replacement rate, so long as the replacement is factored in to the cost and is implemented.

As for others, such as copper, I think that boat has already sailed. We'd now be into recycling rate if we didn't have such cheap energy. I think for this sort of resource we need to ensure that they need to be consumed in a manner where we are able to recycle them without loss nor degradation of function.

[Pops]

It is a good theoretical question but pretty well moot.

First, who does the calculus and enforcement?
The gov obviously. How many governments ever restricted production?
KSA and the US when they had enough control.

Why did they do it?
Maximise profit.


Most of my adult life and especially after started reading and posting on PO & economic stuff I kind of thought that socialism and far-reaching state regulation— if not total control, would be necessary. I've gradually moved away from thinking gov has all the answers. Maybe it is the current environment of hard core partisanship more interested in ideology than basic questions... which I suppose is to be expected when most of us have most of our basic needs covered.

I think Buffett is right and the gov has fallen to the corporations but it is backed by whole swaths of the country enraptured by the plutocrats' dog-whistle politics.

Kind of a bummer this morning...

[KaiserJeep]

Sometimes we forget that Fossil Fuels are in actual fact, a renewable resource. It simply takes a Geological timescale, far longer than the lifespan of any single animal species, to renew them.

[dolanbaker]

Sometimes we forget that Fossil Fuels are in actual fact, a renewable resource. It simply takes a Geological timescale, far longer than the lifespan of any single animal species, to renew them.

Using that logic, maybe we should be consuming one or two million barrels a year (globally).

[dinopello]

Sometimes we forget that Fossil Fuels are in actual fact, a renewable resource. It simply takes a Geological timescale, far longer than the lifespan of any single animal species, to renew them.

Using that logic, maybe we should be consuming one or two million barrels a year (globally).

We'll get there eventually

[Keith_McClary]

For FFs, no faster than nature can sequester the CO2. How many barrels/year is that.

Edit: And how many barrels/year is geology replacing?

[Apneaman]

What is the correct rate to consume a half gallon of Denali Moose Tracks ice cream? As fast as I can shovel it in for as much as I can take. Same thing we do with our resources. We are only constrained by physical realities. This is a drive deep within our paleo mammalian brain. We are not really driving the bus - our limbic system is. We evolved to seek short term rewards. This is why we cannot stop in the face of biosphere destruction or even consider slowing down so as to leave future generations some of that awesome oil. Our higher brain that evolved later, on top of the reptilian one, is great for making tools and increasing technology, but we also use it to rationalize why we must continue growth. Even the majority of Greens want and preach growth, it's just a delusional version of it that is not physically possible. No we will not see any slowing and especially not at this late stage. Were in the final race for what's left and that in itself is energy and resource intense. To the last yeast standing.

[ennui2]

I don't say this as an excuse to wreck the planet prematurely, but the laws of thermodynamics mean there is no such thing as eternal sustainability in the universe as a whole. Beyond that, the earth itself has a finite life within the solar-system, and within that, a habitability zone to allow for agriculture, etc. We could do everything right and we'd just buy ourselves more time before the next ice-age forces us to constrict our population down, etc...

So it's really an ethical/philosophical question how to spend those BTUs, fast or slow, hedonistically or whatever. But the idea that can hold onto some sort of eternal steady-state is an illusion. Geological timescales are a hell of a lot longer than human, but still small by cosmological standards.

[Hawkcreek]

I used to lecture my sons that their success in life would be determined largely by how well they were able to make themselves do, things that they did not want to do. You know, homework over TV, vegetables instead of Big Macs, etc, etc.
They have done pretty well in life, and seem to be teaching my grandkids the same things.
So I don't believe that we are all just driven by instincts. Or rather, instincts drive us, but we can control those instincts if we want to.
In some cases, total, immediate use of a resource can be justified. Some resources can be replaced by others, while some aren't really needed for a productive society.
If we are only talking about fossil fuels, the restraints will be imposed by the extraction realities. How well we manage those realities will be determined by our ability to make ourselves do, what we don't want to do.
It seems that most of the world population doesn't know that yet. Until we all learn that, we have no ability to affect any rate of consumption, so the question is moot.

[Newfie]

What is the correct rate to consume a half gallon of Denali Moose Tracks ice cream? As fast as I can shovel it in for as much as I can take. Same thing we do with our resources. We are only constrained by physical realities. This is a drive deep within our paleo mammalian brain. We are not really driving the bus - our limbic system is. We evolved to seek short term rewards. This is why we cannot stop in the face of biosphere destruction or even consider slowing down so as to leave future generations some of that awesome oil. Our higher brain that evolved later, on top of the reptilian one, is great for making tools and increasing technology, but we also use it to rationalize why we must continue growth. Even the majority of Greens want and preach growth, it's just a delusional version of it that is not physically possible. No we will not see any slowing and especially not at this late stage. Were in the final race for what's left and that in itself is energy and resource intense. To the last yeast standing.

Another one of your good posts!

[SeaGypsy]

Yep Newf, Apneaman is in fact wide awake.

[Apneaman]

Hawkcreek, those were all fine lessons to teach and surely helped in their success, but was their carbon or ecological footprint any less than some obese under employed snack cake eating glutton? If they have decent to high paying careers then I would guess their carbon or ecological footprints are bigger than most everyone with a lower income. Considering the big picture, your personal anecdote is a moot point. BTW ignorance is overrated. More know that we are in serious shit than are leading on or admitting even if they are not learned in the finer details. Immediate tribal loyalty trumps AGW worries and so does degrading energy to increase survival prospects for oneself and especially offspring. Information and communication is not the problem.


“The real problem of humanity is the following: we have paleolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology.” – E.O. Wilson

[Keith_McClary]

We are wired to worry about personal, family and tribal survival. Maybe the latter extends to national, ethnic/racial, religious or class groups. But we don't seem to care about species survival.

[SeaGypsy]

If that were true there would be no endangered species laws. There are, virtually everywhere, they are just not as important as the economic imperative.

[ennui2]

If that were true there would be no endangered species laws. There are, virtually everywhere, they are just not as important as the economic imperative.

The end result of the human experiment is how the majority of people behave, not the laws we erect to try to get people to behave better. And our track-record is not good in this respect.