How will the European Union respond to Peak Oil?

energycity · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 22, 2008 Posts: 125

There is a lot of interesting talk on this and other forums about which country is best placed to survive PO, but this is almost a perfect definition of an international problem (or "challenge" as my boss would say) so what role will the major international organisations have to play?

If we are about to hit a PO brick wall at 200km per hour I suppose the answer is “No role – each local area will be on their own” but let’s optimistically assume a more gradual descent – what then?

Most of all I’m interested in what the response of the European Union will be? Is each nation expected to survive on its own resources? If so I can see mass migration within the EU occuring.

peasea · Tar Sands Joined: Jul 26, 2007 Posts: 48

short answer - burn coal

long answer - kings and queens again

the middles classes have out lived their usefulness - certainly Englands elite would love to destroy those upstart pesants

sorry , cant see democracy - what ever that was, surviving

P.

DomusAlbion

To understand how a region or people will respond to a crisis one must look to the past, to the history of that region.

This is why I am firmly in the Doomer camp. Europe will undoubtedly descend into chaos and the regional squabbles it enjoyed for the past 1500 years. Oh and they'll blame the Jews of course.

Also, I'm not exempting America, but there is not a clear enough history to guess what might happen in the "New World".
_________________
"Modern Agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food."
-- Albert Bartlett

"It will be a dark time. But for those who survive, I suspect it will be rather exciting."
-- James Lovelock

Tyler_JC

Europe has a highly developed electric train network, a highly educated population with strong democratic tendencies, relatively low corruption, highly sophisticated technology, and significant potential for offshore wind, solar power, and other non-oil energy sources.

I think Europe will do quite well compared to the rest of the world.

Why are people so quick to assume the worst?

The EU will likely respond to oil production declines by increasing interest in non-oil energy sources like coal, nuclear, offshore wind, solar, and the rest. Europeans are already among the world's most efficient users of energy and a reduction in oil supplies will improve their competitive edge.

War between the EU states is so unlikely that it's laughable. What exactly does France have to gain by invading Italy? Laughing

_________________
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."

Cashmere · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Mar 27, 2008 Posts: 1971

Like every other industrialized region of the world. They will put their consciences on the shelf and figure out a way to rationalize stealing the oil from those who have it and keeping it from those too poor to buy it outright.

jlw61

How will they react? As Dr Smith used to say:

When in danger,
when in doubt.
Run in circles,
yell and shout.
_________________
When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking

malcomatic_51 · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 24, 2005 Posts: 185 Location: UK

The EU will have limited options just as any international organisation. It will have limited ability to affect events.

The most likely first casualty will be the Euro. Varying inflation around the EU will force it to fall apart. It may linger as a rump currency in Northern Europe, but most Latin countries will have to reinstitute their old currencies.

War within Europe appears highly unlikely at this stage. As long as there is an intant community of sovereign diplomats, and political extremists are kept under control, we should see managed decline in living standards through inflation of goods and the currency.

Europe does not have a strong tradition of democracy. Democracy in the modern sense has only gained hold in most countries since the 1930s (including UK). The tradition of Europe is more or less enlightened artistocracy, something that lingered in the UK until only a few years ago when the Labour government did some chopping in the House of Lords to remove most hereditory peers. All countries are run by the elite who own the land and the plant, they always have been and they always will be. The issue is how that reality exerts its will - viciously, or gently?

I have to say that democracy is clearly the problem. Mass exploitation of the masses by the ownership (of land and industrial plant) sits awkwardly with universal suffrage. However, the elite have had to recognise that the most powerful nations were democratic because they could raise the most taxes from their people - but that was only true while cheap energy drove a "panem et circenses" fast-growing consumer economy of the type pioneered in the US after the discovery of cheap oil in the 1920s.

Remove cheap energy and the mass consumer economy dies, and so does panem et circenses. That is a dangerous transition back to an older style when the top 1% rich and clever people ran the show. Aristocracy is not the worst form of government if it is enlightened and has a long vision. In many ways enlightened aristocracy will suit the challenges of a post-Peak world far better than mass democracy. Mass democracy produces childish, modish, pretentious politics that projects a fantasy world. Arguably, it is the problem.

My guess is that very large structures like the EU will dwindle to occasional assemblies of reps from an increasingly large bunch of regional powers like the old German states or the Swiss Cantons.

Plantagenet

Plantagenet

malcomatic_51 · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 24, 2005 Posts: 185 Location: UK

Slowpoke · Tar Sands Joined: Oct 24, 2005 Posts: 67

Except the US isn't exactly a democracy, not a 'proper' one anyway. A representative, delegatory republic has a massive problem in that whenever a 'tier' delegates power to someone else, the legitimacy level drops. The more 'tiers', the less legitimacy the uppermost are left with.

mos6507

Europe probably has more immediately at stake by being so dependent on natural gas from Russia to keep their asses from freezing in the winter. If they can't solve that dilemma, there is no way they will solve PO.

Fredrik · Last edited by Fredrik on Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:33 am; edited 1 time in total

Even if it got really bad in the economy and energy sectors, most EU countries would probably be able to feed themselves, if they get just enough energy (NG) and ingredients to produce sufficient amounts of fertilizer. (Not sure about the UK and Italy though.) As long as their most basic needs are met, I don't think the citizens of modern European countries would go to actual war against their neighbors. And even if the people's needs weren't met, an invasion and economic subjugation of another European country would be very improbable. More likely, the affected state would just dissolve into a tribal chaos and the people would try to migrate elsewhere.

As if things weren't bad enough with PO, climate change is going to inflict even greater damage to Europe, starting from the south. When the climate gets too hot and dry to grow a minimum amount of crops in the Mediterranean countries, the Spaniards, Italians, Greeks etc. will try to move north, but what kind of reception they'll get remains to be seen...

The cooling effect of a potentially slowing-down gulf stream will be a wild card, though. If we're lucky, thermohaline circulation could slow down in step with GW, and European climate would be spared from the worst.
_________________
"A devastating error is to set up a political system based on [individual] desire... the best dictatorship would be one where the government prevents any economical growth."
"Only scarcity and effort make life worth living."
-Pentti Linkola

Fredrik

energycity · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 22, 2008 Posts: 125