[GHung]

Here's the thing O_S, as long as we validate the liars and deceivers such as ennui we validate their lies. Ennui has told several lies (no better name for it) about some of us and moves on as if there's any truth there. I dare him to show where I've EVER suggested that people shouldn't be free to live their lives as they see fit, but he implies that I said that. He's lying. He says I'm drumming: "I'm a doomer and my lifestyle is better than yours".... I dare him to find one comment where I claim that my life is better than everyone else's. He takes my response of " My life is at least as good, and better for me; not the dismal, austere life some assume it is..." and flips it, again implying I said something I didn't. Either his filters are dysfunctional, or he's intentionally fomenting a falsehood, AKA lying.

He says: "It's holier-than-thou and one-size-fits-all self-help advice..." Again, I challenge him to show where I've said "one size fits all". I know better.

He clearly doesn't like me pointing out that our current society will undergo a simplification process, a decline in terms of resource availability and consumption; that folks may be better off if they accept that and begin making other arrangements; that society as a collective will have an easier transition if more people are aware that their world is likely to change in very predictable, and unpredictable, ways. In short, I'm urging the unprepared to be more prepared and less vulnerable to change. He insinuates that I'm dictating some sort of mandate. I certainly have never said that ennui SHOULD do this or that. His assertions that I've taken that tack are, indeed, dishonest.

If he wants to claim that I think he's dishonest (assuming all along 'he' is a he), for once, he has a valid claim. I think this person is dishonest. He has lots of company in a society that doesn't have the courage to be honest with itself about some very crucial issues, so many make an art of shooting messengers; indeed, an industry of doing so. At that, he's very adept.

[JV153]

Ennui2,

Yes, I included fracking in the current methods but fracking again has even heavier resource demands (fracking sand, solvents, water, explosives, heavy drilling with huge diesel motors, labor).
Fracking is so new ? It's 1949 stuff.

http://aoghs.org/technology/hydraulic-fracturing/
Uhoh..gasbuggy.. http://aoghs.org/technology/project-gasbuggy/

New technology might come in with newer seismographic equipment, but there are very heavy resource demands to get at that oil. As it is, the US is looking at a big collapse in oil and natural gas production within 10 years due to rapid depletion rates from fracked wells.
Outside the Bazhenov (risked 74.6 billion barrels recoverable shale oil and 285 Tcf of recoverable natural gas) in Russia there are no significant fracking-suitable deposits and as far as I know the Russians are using some kind of hydraulic fracturing, just not with the noxious solvents.
This is course is based on internet research as nobody I know ever talks about oil, oil fields, or recovery methods. Is it real - what is real ? *ahem*

That's not the end of the world - so you drive half as much - there you go, 50% fuel savings, or you ride the bike, or take a subway or bus, easily done right ?. But what happens when heavy equipment with more regular use is involved - farm equipment, fertilizer for fields, trucking crops from the fields, grading of country dirt roads or maintaining asphalt roads, buses, snow removal, garbage removal, mail delivery, taxi service, airport activities, mining crawler-tractors, delivery of heavy appliances- or cases of increasing fuel use - drilling new wells for water in parched areas or building new houses (with all the associated infrastructure) for an increasing population.

[GregT]

I'm always miffed at the implication that a high-consumption BAU lifestyle is the only way to "enjoy life a lot more".

To some people it is, and you won't be able to sell them on powerdown/austerity.

No need to sell people on power down/austerity ennui2, it will happen on it's own (already is), whether people are sold on it, or not. The choice is for anyone who chooses to make it, or not. Powerdown now and avoid the rush, or wait until it is forced upon you, and deal with the consequences. It is only a matter of time. All good things eventually come to an end.

[StarvingLion]

I'm always miffed at the implication that a high-consumption BAU lifestyle is the only way to "enjoy life a lot more".

To some people it is, and you won't be able to sell them on powerdown/austerity.

No need to sell people on power down/austerity ennui2, it will happen on it's own (already is), whether people are sold on it, or not. The choice is for anyone who chooses to make it, or not. Powerdown now and avoid the rush, or wait until it is forced upon you, and deal with the consequences. It is only a matter of time. All good things eventually come to an end.

You have confused power down with communism. All I see around me are communists. This is an oil board and yet oil tech is never discussed.

The only thing wrong with the US oil industry is California. Every time I write something about that nanobullshit I can barely contain my laughter.

[kublikhan]

It's a shame that education and awareness of the scientific realities (long term) won't get the vast majority of people to VOLUNTARILY live a (at least relatively) powered-down lifestyle. Given the vast propensity of people to buy everything they can afford (and borrow) to "better the life" of their families -- I just don't see that happening. Ever. No matter how bad climate change gets.

Sadly true. So instead of relying on bottom up voluntary cuts, we should use top down mandatory cuts. Look at the results of California's water conservation programs. The mandatory programs saw actual cuts in consumption. The voluntary programs saw increases.

California water agencies with mandatory water conservation rules in place were far more likely to reduce water conservation, according to data gathered by the state. Voluntary conservation measures are not reliably saving water during the worst drought to hit California in a generation. Only mandatory conservation rules, backed by a threat of fines, seem to prompt consumers to save. California water agencies with mandatory rules alone used 5 percent less water from January through May this year, compared to an average over the three previous years, according to a Bee analysis of the data. Agencies with only voluntary conservation measures saw water demand rise 4 percent over the same period. During May, water agencies with mandatory conservation rules alone reduced water use 14 percent. Other agencies saw water use increase slightly.

As a result of that poor showing, the board on July 15 ordered larger water suppliers to impose mandatory restrictions. The action was backed up by a statewide opinion poll released last week by the Public Policy Institute of California. It found that 75 percent of those surveyed favor some form of mandatory water-use restrictions, and only 23 percent oppose such a move.

After a two-month grace period, more than 95 percent of residents hit the 25 percent target, said Daniel Smith, director of the city’s operation services, and water use has continued to decline in June and July. He said the mandatory restrictions were a key part of the strategy. “It hasn’t been easy,” Smith said. “It’s difficult to change habits.”

Voluntary water conservation not effective, data show

Similar results with the incandescent light bulb phase out. Data shows a steady 3% decrease in lighting energy consumption per year:

Energy use for lighting is 0.8 quadrillion Btu in 2040, 1.0 quadrillion Btu lower than it was in 2013 reflecting a 57% decline in energy use despite an increase in lighting services.

Delivered energy consumption by fuel
Lighting Annual growth 2013-2040: -2.9%

ANNUAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2015

Or the curb side recycling programs. Hand out the recycling bins, pass out rules on what you can recycle, and the end user simply has to make a small change of habits to throw the recyclable in the correct bin.

Although all of the above require some change of habits on the part of the end user, the direction was handed down from a central authority. I think this is the way to go. Having the whole shrink consumption a small amount per year is better than the "aware" shrinking their consumption a large amount and seeing the results of their savings gobbled up by their fellows.

[Pops]

@Pops - They're doing regular posts and articles as well. Maybe some of us need to go over there and jump-start their comments; stir the pot a bit:)

Obviously they are not interested in comments. I posted this yesterday morning and it is still waiting... perhaps not thoughtful enough:

Good summary.

My own initial wave of concern around peak oil was very simplistic in nature. It dovetailed with my concern over the increase in tensions in the middle East and more general political and economic conditions in the early oughts. After a dozen years of near-daily reading on the subject, I’m no less concerned but I have been disabused of the notion that PO is a simple thing, or a process predictable in more than very general manner. Oil and the energy business in general is at the core of our economy (although some will argue even that) but just like the direction and specifics of the broader economy, they are extremely difficult to model.

Which only argues the need for more sites and discussion on the subject.

Good luck.

[Paulo1]

Powerdown aspect:

My wife and I live a somewhat alternate lifestyle. However, I would be the first to admit that we are still ff users and greatly benefit by this technology and source of energy. Nevertheless, we still have deliberately chosen to use less and live differently. This morning it was 4 deg C. I hear the 'fridge running, there is one small cf bulb going over the stove, and the woodstove has made the house toasty warm cosy. Our friends and family come over and take away 'an impression' that it is possible to retreat from the rat race and live very well on a lot less. That is all we try and do as far as spreading 'the word'.

My best friend has just lost his $150,000/yr job. He has $20,000 in the bank, a $200,000 mortgage on a condo and fixed costs of $2500 per month. He does have some investments, but in this economy they are dubious at best. We are close to the same age and have shared the same career in the past. The difference between us has been consumption and lifestyle. He has always bought stuff and spent money like a fiend, and my wife and I have chosen a more realistic path that does not include winter vacations in California, etc. If you spend your entire life indulging yourself, then when the train stops be prepared to get off with empty pockets and an unsupportable lifestyle. I have never made the kind of money my buddy has these past 10 years. Never. But we retired 3 years ago because we powered down 10 years ago. He is now forced to scramble to stay afloat.

The main reason for this difference is my reading the Long Emergency what? 10 years ago? This set me on an investigation of PO and all the readings and data included. Far from being a bad thing, understanding PO set us on a path to success. There are limits to growth, and while all the prognostications have not unfolded as predicted by PO authors, the basic tenets are indisputable: There are indeed limits, the modern world uses too many resources, we must live differently, and it is possible to so and live well provided you reduce ahead of time in a deliberate and thought out manner. I really don't see why this is so unacceptable for so many people?

[Tanada]

Question for those in the oil refining business. I know that they can use cracking towers to break the very long crude molecules down to more useful Diesel/Kerosene/Gasoline length and that syncrude plants can take Methane and convert it into the same fuels. Why can't you use the condensate fractions as an intermediate in a syncrude plant the same way you can use Methane as a starting point?

[ennui2]

Again, I challenge him to show where I've said "one size fits all". I know better.

You may not be intentionally trying to come across as judgmental, condescending, or prescriptive with your rhetoric but that's how it reads.

folks may be better off...begin making other arrangements...

Prescriptive.

Consider, if you will, how many self-destructive behaviors people engage in without factoring in doom. Addictions to smoking, alcohol, or hard drugs, for instance. It's part of the human condition to lock into a spiral of the pursuit of short-term gratification at the expense of long-term security.

One of my coworkers smokes, for instance. I have digged him a few times for smoking, but I know he won't quit because of what I say, so I'm not going to antagonize him by nagging him about it. In my case, I am a yo-yo dieter, so I have an unhealthy relationship with food.

Then you have other people who run up high credit card bills and will bankrupt themselves once they lose their jobs.

Any one of these things could lead to a life-crash that is just as severe in its own way as peak oil doom. It's just an individual life-crash that has limited collateral damage.

The difference with limits to growth is the tragedy of the commons aspect, that individual consumption, in total, takes away from the greater welfare of the commons.

In that respect, yes, how other people lead their lives does have an incremental effect on everyone else.

That part of the equation is not really imprinted on the human condition, however, and isn't something that people listen to when you scold them. This is why people like Al Gore have been reduced to political cartoons. Al Gore with his do as I say, not as I do, way of life. Nobody wants to reduce their share of the pie as long as someone else is cutting a big slice. So nothing ever gets done.

So basically my argument is that engagement and activism doesn't work. This isn't a corny position at all. It's really the ultimate doomer position.

Doomers seem to cling to the idea that some flavor of evangelism, if it won't save us, is in some way worthwhile. In my experience, it isn't. You can commiserate with the converted, but you won't convert anyone who doesn't want converting, and once you make them a believer, they're going to cope with it in their own way anyway, not necessarily follow the doomer playbook, so to speak.

[C8]

Sadly true. So instead of relying on bottom up voluntary cuts, we should use top down mandatory cuts. Look at the results of California's water conservation programs. The mandatory programs saw actual cuts in consumption. The voluntary programs saw increases.

Not in agreement here with this sentiment. Mandatory cuts have many negative aspects:

1. They hit the poor the hardest- Poor people are much more harmed by reduced water use and are forgoing showers- the wealthy in CA are still surrounded by lush gardens and acres of golf courses.

2. They encourage a black market which is a net drain on resources (and law enforcement)

3. They do not spur innovation the way higher prices do since the cuts are usually temporary and in only one region

4. They dangerously increase the authoritarian role of government over the people and pave the way towards a dictatorship by legally creating many govt. powers that previously did not exist or were not exercised

5. MOST ALL, THEY ARE UNNECESSARY AS WE ARE FREELY MOVING TOWARDS A LOWER PER-CAPITA ENERGY LIFESTYLE



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-1 ... s-recovery

The best way to quickly reduce energy use to to stop millions of individuals from migrating from lower per capita energy nations (Mexico, Syria, India, etc.) to higher per-capita nations (but liberal environmentalists don't like that idea!). One must always resist the liberal urge to use a crisis to establish more govt. power on the road to a dictatorship ("of the people" of course).

[Ibon]

Nobody wants to reduce their share of the pie as long as someone else is cutting a big slice. So nothing ever gets done..

What will change is what defines the pie. And that has to do with values. And constraining resources will mold values. If the pie is having a wilderness in your backyard rather than a hummer in your driveway or a permaculture garden in your back yard instead of a monoculture lawn then these choices do have direct impacts on consumption. Many who have actively chosen these values are not being seen on the main stream media but they are out there although small in number.

To someone like Al Gore who was socialized in post WWII abundance he becomes as you say a cartoon for this inability. His generation is obsolete in the set of values required. The emerging millennials will be far better socialized and their values will reflect this when they reach Al Gore's age.

[ennui2]

1. They hit the poor the hardest- Poor people are much more harmed by reduced water use and are forgoing showers- the wealthy in CA are still surrounded by lush gardens and acres of golf courses.

How do mandatory cuts only impact the poor? Shouldn't these mandatory cuts also require that golf courses turn into sand dunes? Otherwise it's not being applied properly.

3. They do not spur innovation the way higher prices do since the cuts are usually temporary and in only one region

High prices are what leads to the rich maintaining their gardens and golf courses, just like in the movie Soylent Green, the rich were still eating what little beef was still available. So I don't see how high prices somehow is fair across all class structures.

5. MOST ALL, THEY ARE UNNECESSARY AS WE ARE FREELY MOVING TOWARDS A LOWER PER-CAPITA ENERGY LIFESTYLE

And again, the rich, being the top of the pyramid, will be the last impacted by shortages.

When there's no government intervention, that's how it plays out. The richest and most powerful hold onto the spoils and the poor get shafted.

The best way to quickly reduce energy use to to stop millions of individuals from migrating from lower per capita energy nations (Mexico, Syria, India, etc.) to higher per-capita nations (but liberal environmentalists don't like that idea!). One must always resist the liberal urge to use a crisis to establish more govt. power on the road to a dictatorship ("of the people" of course).

This is kind of a neo-con xenophobes interpretation of limits-to-growth.

I think you'll find that a weak government just cedes power to corporations and the rich to shaft the little guy in a constrained world, with or without any influx of illegal immigrants.

[ennui2]

The emerging millennials will be far better socialized and their values will reflect this when they reach Al Gore's age.

I'm not seeing the same millennial social trends you are. They are going to have to make the same 180' turn in their lifestyle as all previous generations as far as I can see. The only difference is they are more pessimistic about their careers, but before the dot com boom Gen-X was called the slacker generation and we bemoaned the fact that we didn't have the same opportunities that the Mad Men and boomers did. So that cynicism about not being able to achieve the white-picket-fence dream is nothing new. It doesn't mean people don't still aspire for that.

[kublikhan]

Not in agreement here with this sentiment. Mandatory cuts have many negative aspects:

1. They hit the poor the hardest- Poor people are much more harmed by reduced water use and are forgoing showers- the wealthy in CA are still surrounded by lush gardens and acres of golf courses.

2. They encourage a black market which is a net drain on resources (and law enforcement)

3. They do not spur innovation the way higher prices do since the cuts are usually temporary and in only one region

4. They dangerously increase the authoritarian role of government over the people and pave the way towards a dictatorship by legally creating many govt. powers that previously did not exist or were not exercised

5. MOST ALL, THEY ARE UNNECESSARY AS WE ARE FREELY MOVING TOWARDS A LOWER PER-CAPITA ENERGY LIFESTYLE

What you say mandatory cuts cause, I say the drought itself caused. And as for the rich watering their golf courses when the poor are cutting back, that is what you get when you leave it to market forces alone or applying rules unequally in a patchwork fashion. The new rules are being implemented precisely to counter this. The fact that the even the ultra-rich are balking and squealing now is a good indication that the new rules will see the ultra-rich cutting back too.

People “should not be forced to live on property with brown lawns, golf on brown courses or apologize for wanting their gardens to be beautiful,” Yuhas fumed recently on social media. “We pay significant property taxes based on where we live,” he added in an interview. “And, no, we’re not all equal when it comes to water.” [The ultra-wealthy enclave of Rancho Santa Fe uses 400% more water per capita than the state average.]

But a moment of truth is at hand for Yuhas and his neighbors, and all of California will be watching: On July 1, for the first time in its 92-year history, Rancho Santa Fe will be subject to water rationing. Under the new rules, each household will be assigned an essential allotment for basic indoor needs. Any additional usage — sprinklers, fountains, swimming pools — must be slashed by nearly half for the district to meet state-mandated targets. Residents who exceed their allotment could see their already sky-high water bills triple. And for ultra-wealthy customers undeterred by financial penalties, the district reserves the right to install flow restrictors — quarter-size disks that make it difficult to, say, shower and do a load of laundry at the same time. In extreme cases, the district could shut off the tap altogether.

Rich Californians balk at limits: ‘We’re not all equal when it comes to water’

[Ibon]

The emerging millennials will be far better socialized and their values will reflect this when they reach Al Gore's age.

I'm not seeing the same millennial social trends you are. They are going to have to make the same 180' turn in their lifestyle as all previous generations as far as I can see. The only difference is they are more pessimistic about their careers, but before the dot com boom Gen-X was called the slacker generation and we bemoaned the fact that we didn't have the same opportunities that the Mad Men and boomers did. So that cynicism about not being able to achieve the white-picket-fence dream is nothing new. It doesn't mean people don't still aspire for that.

It all depends on what this generation experiences during the next 3-4 decades before they reach Al Gore's age. We (meaning the affluent west) have only seen the most tenderest of squeezes on our resource base to date. The severity of the trend from tender to strangulation will determine the speed of change in cultural values. We really don't know.

[C8]

Regarding the issue of govt. interference essentially hurting the poor the most- how could it not? Laws are lobbied for and voted on by the wealthy and the upper middle class. The "green" movement is and upper income white constituency- this point is very critical. I do not want to derail this thread further so I will start a new thread about the subject tilted "Green legislation mainly helps the affluent"

[ennui2]

Regarding the issue of govt. interference essentially hurting the poor the most- how could it not?

Study the guilded age with its child-labor abuses and monopolies, followed by trust-busting. Then study the events that made the formation of the EPA necessary, all those superfund sites created when corporations treated natural resources as a cheap dumping-ground for their wastes.

You really are on a trickle-down Ayn Rand tear, aren't you? Maybe Fox News would be a better place for you to hangout because I can't imagine you really understand or appreciate the issues that matter to doomers.

[ralfy]

Regarding the issue of govt. interference essentially hurting the poor the most- how could it not? Laws are lobbied for and voted on by the wealthy and the upper middle class. The "green" movement is and upper income white constituency- this point is very critical. I do not want to derail this thread further so I will start a new thread about the subject tilted "Green legislation mainly helps the affluent"

The catch is that the wealthy also rely on growing consumer markets so that their own wealth will grow, and that requires deregulation. This explains why the word "green" in your third sentence is enclosed in quotation marks.

[Revi]

Of course the rich will be able to live a lifestyle much like what we live today. The rest of us will be in abject poverty, which uses a lot less energy. That's just the way it works. It stinks, but there won't be much done about it. Look at Europe. All those refugees aren't using much gas and oil right now, are they? Meanwhile there are people living a modern lifestyle in the countries where they are landing. Will the refugees end up living like the rich? We'll see... I suspect not.