[Frank]

{split from Alternatives ready? by MQ}
My gut reaction is that we could easily recover from a 2% decline here in the US (assuming 2% less is available to us than in past years). Actually, it'd be about 5% less, assuming 3% historical growth in consumption that'd no longer be available. A little less driving, more programmable thermostats, ongoing switchover to more efficient vehicles, etc. would take care of it.

Of course, this wouldn't last very long! 2% rate will increase and unless every other country in the world did the same, it'll start getting nasty after a couple of years... not to mention the disparity between rich and poor.

[Wildwell]

Conservation is another useful tool for handling decline.

[Ludi]

Conservation is another useful tool for handling decline.

I agree. It's probably going to be my main tool, because I can't afford much in the way of alternatives...

[MonteQuest]

Conservation is another useful tool for handling decline.

Not if the conservation takes your job.

[MonteQuest]

My gut reaction is that we could easily recover from a 2% decline here in the US (assuming 2% less is available to us than in past years). Actually, it'd be about 5% less, assuming 3% historical growth in consumption that'd no longer be available. A little less driving, more programmable thermostats, ongoing switchover to more efficient vehicles, etc. would take care of it.

Of course, this wouldn't last very long! 2% rate will increase and unless every other country in the world did the same, it'll start getting nasty after a couple of years... not to mention the disparity between rich and poor.

Perhaps initially. No, it would not last long. Next year, you would have to do it all over again. And every year thereafter. Each year the pie will get smaller and your share will diminish in kind.

[MonteQuest]

Conservation is another useful tool for handling decline.

I agree. It's probably going to be my main tool, because I can't afford much in the way of alternatives...

On an individual basis, it may mean everything. But "somebody" has to absorb the loss in revenue.

Will it be your job or business? Who decides?

But to answer your question:

How can an energy source that currently supplies .001% of our energy needs suddenly overnight take up a 5% shortfall?

It cannot.

[killJOY]

I can easily take it.

I don't know about everyone else.

[Wildwell]

Conservation is another useful tool for handling decline.

Not if the conservation takes your job.

Don't be ridiculous, having 80mpg cars instead of 15mpg doesn't take anyone's jobs, apart from the companies behind the times and re-located to companies producing the more efficient cars. True, the oil companies might sell less oil, but then the price is higher and the workforce is redistributed to renewable energy etc. You need to produce evidence before making such outlandish claims.

[MonteQuest]

Conservation is another useful tool for handling decline.

Not if the conservation takes your job.

Don't be ridiculous, having 80mpg cars instead of 15mpg doesn't take anyone's jobs, apart from the companies behind the times and re-located to companies producing the more efficient cars. True, the oil companies might sell less oil, but then the price is higher and the workforce is redistributed to renewable energy etc. You need to produce evidence before making such outlandish claims.

I have:

Solving Oil Depletion: Solutions in Isolation

How can anyway say that reduced sales=same bottom line?

15 mpg to 80mpg is an increase in "efficiency" which due to Jevon's Paradox leads to increased consumption. Conservation means not buying and using as much. Less GDP. Less growth.

[Ludi]

Conservation is another useful tool for handling decline.

Not if the conservation takes your job.

Don't be ridiculous, having 80mpg cars instead of 15mpg doesn't take anyone's jobs, apart from the companies behind the times and re-located to companies producing the more efficient cars. True, the oil companies might sell less oil, but then the price is higher and the workforce is redistributed to renewable energy etc. You need to produce evidence before making such outlandish claims.

I have:

Solving Oil Depletion: Solutions in Isolation

How can anyway say that reduced sales=same bottom line?

Can the workforce be redistributed quickly, and by whom? Remember I'm talking about if peak is this year or in the next year, not years out with people planning ahead. Trying to look at this in the immediate future, or even the present. Ok?

As an example, the truckers who were put out of business by Katrina, let's pretend instead they were put out of business by peak oil - what alternative energy jobs would they be redistributed to, and by whom?

[MonteQuest]

Can the workforce be redistributed quickly, and by whom? Remember I'm talking about if peak is this year or in the next year, not years out with people planning ahead.

Doesn't matter. If you are still consuming 84 mbpd of oil to produce renewable energies, it is still demand exceeding supply when we go into decline.

You must achieve a net reduction, not just a shift in end use.

[killJOY]

having 80mpg cars instead of 15mpg doesn't take anyone's jobs, apart from the companies behind the times and re-located to companies producing the more efficient cars. True, the oil companies might sell less oil, but then the price is higher and the workforce is redistributed to renewable energy etc.

To quote someone,

You need to produce evidence before making such outlandish claims.

15 mpg to 80mpg is an increase in "efficiency" which due to Jevon's Paradox leads to increased consumption. Conservation means not buying and using as much. Less GDP. Less growth.

This could be the new Gospel: EFFICIENCY DOES NOT EQUAL CONSERVATION.

[Ludi]

Can the workforce be redistributed quickly, and by whom? Remember I'm talking about if peak is this year or in the next year, not years out with people planning ahead.

Doesn't matter. If you are still consuming 84 mbpd of oil to produce renewable energies, it is still demand exceeding supply when we go into decline.

You must achieve a net reduction, not just a shift in end use.

Yes, I see that. To reduce need for energy, the workforce would need to do something which requires less energy. Is that possible?

[MonteQuest]

There's no scenario where the entire workforce needs to redistributed, it happens over time and has happened in the past. The largest redistribution would be a car company going bust (30,000 job losses at GM the other day) or an airline going bust, otherwise you are looking at a 30 year transition.

Name an energy transition in the past that went from a cheap, energy dense source to a less dense, more expensive form.

It has never happened in the past.

[Ludi]

What alternative energy jobs are those GM workers being redistributed to?

[MonteQuest]

1 out of every 6 jobs is tied to the auto industry.

People drive their cars to go consume or to earn the money to go consume.

Drive less=less consumption, not only of gas and oil, but fast food, convenience marts, movies, motels, tires, batteries, auto parts, car washes, and all manner of impulse buying along the strip malls that litter America.

To conserve gasoline means conserving everything else.

Connect the dots.

[Wildwell]

The US then, since it's where I live.

The US has a huge cushion for efficiency. I would never think of buying a car that does less than 50mpg combined, which is getting on to be the norm in Europe. As prices rises, these vehicles will become available to US consumers. If GM doesn’t provide them, then it will lose custom to Japanese and European car makers.

US renewable energy can easily be ramped up when the market conditions are right. Oil prices are currently too low in most cases.

More efficient use of oil probably creates more jobs, rather than less. For example, again in Europe the tax take is much higher, not only to cover more external costs but this helps to fund social programmes, health services, mass transit that might not run (which reduces oil consumption further) and so on. In the US the fuel is just being burnt away and nobody is making money from it apart from oil companies who are making huge profits and pay Middle Eastern countries for the resource.

I know I sound critical of the US, I don’t mean to be, but I find it puzzling that people seemed to have been conditioned that conservation is a bad thing.

[MonteQuest]

Can the workforce be redistributed quickly, and by whom? Remember I'm talking about if peak is this year or in the next year, not years out with people planning ahead.

Doesn't matter. If you are still consuming 84 mbpd of oil to produce renewable energies, it is still demand exceeding supply when we go into decline.

You must achieve a net reduction, not just a shift in end use.

Yes, I see that. To reduce need for energy, the workforce would need to do something which requires less energy. Is that possible?

Yes, keep them on but cut overall wages of all GM workers to do so.

Give up the speed of production.

Use more manual labor. Less energy use.

But this has it's domino effects too.

The result= the standard of living for all must come down in order for conservation to be effective.

[MonteQuest]

I know I sound critical of the US, I don’t mean to be, but I find it puzzling that people seemed to have been conditioned that conservation is a bad thing.

Conservation and capitalism are like oil and water; they don't mix.

How does "reduced sales" foster economic growth?

[Wildwell]

There's no scenario where the entire workforce needs to redistributed, it happens over time and has happened in the past. The largest redistribution would be a car company going bust (30,000 job losses at GM the other day) or an airline going bust, otherwise you are looking at a 30 year transition.

Name an energy transition in the past that went from a cheap, energy dense source to a less dense, more expensive form.

It has never happened in the past.

We have an energy mix of varying price, so there’s no direct example.

Whether it's less dense and more expensive really depends on use, price is irrelevant it’s about bang for buck. For example if a car does 15mpg and the fuel costs $1 a gallon ($1 = 15 miles) if that fuel rises to $2 a gallon and you purchase a 30 mpg car you are no worse off, it's still costing $1 to go 15 miles.

In the past, oil reduced jobs:

UK 1930: Nearly 2 million railway workers, over 1 million miners, several million agricultural workers. Lets say 6 million people *directly* involved in the 'coal economy'

Today: 150,000 railway workers, a few thousand miners, considerably less people in agriculture, 1 million people in car related jobs, 300,000 in trucking, more people in oil and gas (sorry don't have the figures), 150,000 airline workers....maybe 2-3 million people in the oil economy...

So the jobs have just been re-located over a period of 50 year or more and REDUCED.

GDP has risen because of:

Women working, productivity, cheap credit, better education, technology, better health. Cars? I’m a doubter. It may have opened up rural areas and allowed more people to get to places they wouldn’t have gone, so they have had some effect, but that’s been at the expensive of other sectors and walking, leading to heath, crime and environmental problems that have costs.