I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:32 am Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
It seems like once we start to something about the problem, our fears melt away. I agree. I still think that peak oil is a problem, but since we are doing something about it, it doesn't seem like the monster it once was. It's coming, but we are a little more prepared for it, with our lifestyle changes.
If only we could get our government to take it serously and start to prepare people, there might not be as big a problem in a few years. If they just got people to switch their electric water heaters and got people into smaller cars that would help a lot.
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:27 pm Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
bonjaski wrote:
but transportation accounts for 70% of oil use,
only a fraction ges into industry
not only my use of diesel nearly halfed,
we don't use oil,gas to heat our house
(we use central heating power from wood)
Your optimism is refreshing I must admit. Thank you.
Transportation is an industry and a very important one. It's even been estimated that 1 in 10 jobs in the US is associated with cars, this includes things such as mechanics, body repair shops, wheeles & tyres, insurances, glass, auto electrics, exhaust repair etc.. you name it. The infrastructure built to maintain the car fleet is massive.
If we get to the point of global terminal hydrocarbon decline, you're on a slippery slope to economic devestation. Ironically the ability to substitute say wood pelletts for heating or natural gas in a motor vehicle will only make things worse when the final crunch comes, people have made changes and there will be no further easy changes to make.
I've heard alot about Nuclear, Tar Sands, Oil Shale and Coal. Im not disputing the energy abundence of these resources, the challenge is can they scale up fast enough to keep what we have ("the economy") and keep it growing? Because everyone knows how important growth is.
I don't see any meaningful change in our chose path until it's really going to be too late. Even today right now China is planning another 500 coal fired power plants a massive investment compared to their Nuclear plans for example. _________________ "Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13065 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:00 pm Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
I'm mainly concerned about all the jobs that depend on cheap petroleum, and what those people (including me) will do for a living....
Our vendors now print in their catalogs "due to dramatic fluctuations in petroleum derivatives, we reserve the right to increase the prices of some of our products." This has an effect on our bottom line. Higher prices mean we have to charge more, eventually, we may not be able to pass along such price increases and continue to get orders. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:11 pm Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
bonjaski wrote:
i don't drive in cities and usually i don't drive faster then 100km/hour.
everyone could do that (not a great deal),
so with that and that a lot of transport could be done with trains.
i think its its easy to live very well with only 50% of todays oil consumption.
Additionally we can (already with todays technology) substitute 50% of that with biofuels.
so where is the problem?
Connect the dots. What if everybody did that? What would we do for work as our conservation eliminates our jobs?
Get new jobs doing something else?
Connect the dots. We gave up our jobs so that supply could meet demand through conservation. There is no energy for new jobs. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
Revi wrote:
I agree with the original poster. We can have a decent life with half the fossil fuels. We've done it in our household.
Sure, conservation seems ideal at the individual level, but if everybody did it, we would conserve our way right out of our jobs.
Wasted, or poorly used, energy does not go down some rathole, it employs millions, it drives GDP growth. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:20 pm Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
Concerned wrote:
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:
bonjaski wrote:
so peakoil is not a problem.
for one interested in economics and science its an interesting event ...
Another exceptional individual. Feel free to hang around, and we'll try and convert these heathens together.
What is obvious to us apparently takes a WEE bit of effort for the less talented. But we shall persevere! If only because we're 18 months post peak ( according to THEIR prophets ) and guess what? Nobody much has noticed.....not even them.
Well I don't know about phrophets but the stuff I've been reading says 2010-12.
Stay tuned.
It's a strawman he likes to trot out. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:57 pm Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
MonteQuest wrote:
Revi wrote:
I agree with the original poster. We can have a decent life with half the fossil fuels. We've done it in our household.
Sure, conservation seems ideal at the individual level, but if everybody did it, we would conserve our way right out of our jobs.
Wasted, or poorly used, energy does not go down some rathole, it employs millions, it drives GDP growth.
Absolutely right. The situation with oil is only a trigger, for most people the problem is not their personal use of oil but how oil is an underpinning of the infrastructure and the economy. Pull the oil thread (or the bird flu thread, or any of them) and it all unravels.
I can't remember for sure but I think it was Matt Savinar who said that the way to best stand up to this system was not to merely limit your consumption, but also to limit your production, in the sense of your participation in the economy. If you NEED your income, you're as vulnerable as if you NEED your oil. If you can learn to live on very little money, you're at least somewhat buffered. Plus, by not "producing" much, in the economic sense, you're not participating in fostering the dependences of others. _________________ "It's not that hard times are coming, it's that soft times are going."
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:08 am Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
max_power29 wrote:
Yeah! Government subsidies sure are good at making bioscams "efficient".
*sarcasm*Those start-ups sure are independent!*sarcasm*
Let the inflation and starvation begin!
That's a convenient omission of fact that oil companies are getting huge tax breaks already despite record profits. Subsidies for biofuels are simply a leveling of the playing field.
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:54 am Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
snax wrote:
max_power29 wrote:
Yeah! Government subsidies sure are good at making bioscams "efficient".
*sarcasm*Those start-ups sure are independent!*sarcasm*
Let the inflation and starvation begin!
That's a convenient omission of fact that oil companies are getting huge tax breaks already despite record profits. Subsidies for biofuels are simply a leveling of the playing field.
So they subsidize both, what is the point? What are we supposed to eat: crude oil instead of food?
I would rather the world had neither taxes nor subsidies at all.
How does bioscam harness MORE energy than just burning the oil in the first place instead of burning it to grow food to burn?
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 13065 Location: naive idiot fantasy world
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
Auntie_Cipation wrote:
I can't remember for sure but I think it was Matt Savinar who said that the way to best stand up to this system was not to merely limit your consumption, but also to limit your production, in the sense of your participation in the economy. If you NEED your income, you're as vulnerable as if you NEED your oil. If you can learn to live on very little money, you're at least somewhat buffered. Plus, by not "producing" much, in the economic sense, you're not participating in fostering the dependences of others.
I only know of a few people who are in that situation, and none of them personally. I don't know of anyone personally who has a smaller income than I do, and I am quite concerned about losing my income.
Who doesn't need their income? _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow." - jboogy
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
Auntie_Cipation wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
Revi wrote:
I agree with the original poster. We can have a decent life with half the fossil fuels. We've done it in our household.
Sure, conservation seems ideal at the individual level, but if everybody did it, we would conserve our way right out of our jobs.
Wasted, or poorly used, energy does not go down some rathole, it employs millions, it drives GDP growth.
Absolutely right. The situation with oil is only a trigger, for most people the problem is not their personal use of oil but how oil is an underpinning of the infrastructure and the economy. Pull the oil thread (or the bird flu thread, or any of them) and it all unravels.
I can't remember for sure but I think it was Matt Savinar who said that the way to best stand up to this system was not to merely limit your consumption, but also to limit your production, in the sense of your participation in the economy. If you NEED your income, you're as vulnerable as if you NEED your oil. If you can learn to live on very little money, you're at least somewhat buffered. Plus, by not "producing" much, in the economic sense, you're not participating in fostering the dependences of others.
I did say that but I'm not encouraging people to actually limit their incomes. As the prices of essential commodities rise, they will be distributed on the basis of the ability to pay. So if you want an electric bike, some solar panels, nice farmland with access to potable water, whatever, you're going to need to be able to compete with others in terms of being able to bid for it. _________________ http://www.peakoil.org
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
MattSavinar wrote:
Auntie_Cipation wrote:
I can't remember for sure but I think it was Matt Savinar who said that the way to best stand up to this system was not to merely limit your consumption, but also to limit your production, in the sense of your participation in the economy. If you NEED your income, you're as vulnerable as if you NEED your oil. If you can learn to live on very little money, you're at least somewhat buffered. Plus, by not "producing" much, in the economic sense, you're not participating in fostering the dependences of others.
I did say that but I'm not encouraging people to actually limit their incomes. As the prices of essential commodities rise, they will be distributed on the basis of the ability to pay. So if you want an electric bike, some solar panels, nice farmland with access to potable water, whatever, you're going to need to be able to compete with others in terms of being able to bid for it.
Thanks for the clarification. I still maintain that the idea of limiting one's input into the system, instead of 'merely' one's consumption from it, is very powerful.
I quit a $60k/year job in 2004 and now work very part-time for $10/hour. I earn about $500/month, which happens to be enough to pay my bills, as I'm fortunate to not have housing costs. No, I'm not deprived -- I have access to savings for purchasing needs re planning for the future. And I agree with you that if one wants land or manufactured stuff as part of their preparation, that will take money and they should indeed attempt to get what they need/want.
But, special purchases aside, my goal is to live within this income as much as possible. Part of why I'm motivated to do this is to show that it can be done, that people can live comfortably in the US without much income. Another strong motivation for me is the desire to earn less income than the federal filing requirements for income tax (about 8k for one person). I have no objection to income tax in general, but as long as it's essentially a war tax, I'll sit out, thanks. And as I suggested, another strong motivation is the idea that I'm trying to keep my footprint low on both the consumption end and the production end. That has a strong appeal. It makes barter appealing in a whole new way, too. _________________ "It's not that hard times are coming, it's that soft times are going."
Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:02 am Post subject: Re: peakoil is not a problem
The only way we can stay afloat is to cut our fossil fuel needs. The price of the stuff goes up and cuts into the bottom line. We are spending some money now to save later. We bought a more efficient washer for example. It'll use less electricity in the future, when our income drops, or the price of electricity goes up. Now is the time to invest in infrastructure that saves money and energy later.
The town I live in put in new windows and insulated the town office. They said that the next few years there were huge savings in energy use. It cost some money to do the insulating, but it's paying off now big time. Us taxpayers consider that money well spent. Everybody's much more comfortable in the building now that there aren't huge drafts coming through. Jevons might not like it, but I do.
I guess I'm not as concerned about losing jobs through conservation and efficiency. Most of the money we spend for gas and oil goes towards making artificial ski areas in Dubai and destabilizing Iraq. (on both sides) Anything we spend here at home insulating, etc. goes through at least 10 hands before it rattles out of the area.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
