[gollum]

I'm inclined to agree, if we simply went to a 4 day business week, mandated that every new vehicle be a hybrid, and ceased manufacture of "disposable" items I'm willing to bet we could cut oil use by 50% in a decade in the United States. I'm also convinces we lack the will to do so until we are so far down the road to collapse we will find ourselves unable to do these things.

[Ludi]

I'm inclined to agree, if we simply went to a 4 day business week, mandated that every new vehicle be a hybrid, and ceased manufacture of "disposable" item

What would you do about the people who rely on the "disposable" items for jobs? I'm not saying it might not be a good idea to transition to a non-disposable economy, but that would put a lot of people out of work. It's easy to say "just cut the fat" but if that's the plan, there needs to be provision for how people will make a living once their livelihood has been trimmed away.

[fiedag]

The real story for peakoil.com in all this is that the Spiegel online article links directly to a PDF on the http://peak-oil.com download site.

Yes folks: peak-hyphen-oil.com. A German site, resolutely in German. First word on the front page? "Achtung!".
Those of us who speak German should trawl the site for interesting things to translate, ja?

[gollum]

I'm inclined to agree, if we simply went to a 4 day business week, mandated that every new vehicle be a hybrid, and ceased manufacture of "disposable" item

What would you do about the people who rely on the "disposable" items for jobs? I'm not saying it might not be a good idea to transition to a non-disposable economy, but that would put a lot of people out of work. It's easy to say "just cut the fat" but if that's the plan, there needs to be provision for how people will make a living once their livelihood has been trimmed away.

Some sort of a planned economy, with a minimum standard of living for all. Perhaps we could look at a 20 or 30 hour work week? Of course to do any of this the present debt structure would have to be reset as would the blind faith and following of capitalism. We may find that in a resource declining world some form of socialism would be preferable to capitalism? Expectations would also have to be lowered, from top to bottom for it to work and be accepted everyone would have to sacrifice. Of course some of that extra time could be spent by reverting back to making some things for ourselves, my mother sewed her own clothes, my grandparents gardened (in a big way), we used to actually fix things in this country.

[cephalotus]

Doesn't that seem overly optimistic? How are we supposed to go along just fine for another 20 years when just the first little bump into global supply limitations in 2008 sent the world economy into a tailspin ----

Maybe it's to simple, but the $140/barrel price in 2008 didn't cause much problems in German economy. the price at gas stations was rising from maybe €1,30/l to €1,50/l which caused some teeth gnashing. but otherwise life just went on.
People here will pay 2€/l or 3€/l if they need to.

Maybe that's the arguement. The German econmomy and German people will survive 200US$/barrel, 300US$/barrel and most likely also 500US$/barrel, so maybe we believe, that peak oil will cause very high prices and that will force other(!) buyers out of the market.
(in reality this is not so easy, German industriy depends on exports and if some people in xyz can't afford to drive a BMW anymore, than it will also affect BMW)

On the other hand, Germany is using less and less oil every year, because oil heat systems are replaced with other systems since some years, cars consume less (and car numbers don't increase) and so on.

you can find the exact data on http://www.mwv.de (only in German)

If the sky falls, Germany could reduce oil consumption in my estimation by 50% from here to tomorrow, if they stop heating with oil imidiately (use electricity), if they reduce diesel and gasoline consumption by 30-40% (use bikes, public transport and car pooling), reduce air travel by 70-80% and leave everything else (public services, industry consumption, etc...) at 100%.
I doubt that even a 50% reduction would cause much chaos.

Here is an interesting report about the future of Germanys oil usage by the oil lobby(!) itself.

It's in German, but you can see, that even the oil lobby(!), which naturaly isn't a peak oil supporter, expects shrinking usage of oil in the coming years:
http://www.mwv.de/cms/upload/pdf/statis ... ognose.pdf

Maybe the availability of (expensive) oil imports is shrinking faster to zero than expected, but this is hard to predict. I assume that there will still be oil exports by 2030, most likely more expensive than today.

best regards

[Pops]

I don't know how fuel prices in Europe increased. Did they rise steadily over time on some schedule or have they simply always been much higher?

The certain knowledge prices (via taxes, price controls, ?) would rise over a given period, would allow people (at least some people) to adjust their lives to meet the new reality. Without that knowledge only a few will change preemptively, the rest will vote for either Drill-Baby or Ethanol subsidies.

[Oakley]

If we first cut out the "loose fat" - replaced private automobiles with carpooling/buses/trains/bikes, stopped manufacturing and transporting non-essential items etc., I believe there would be enough oil for growing and transporting food, producing drugs etc. for quite a few years.

Of course this requires that national governments take over, at least temporarily, to handle the transition (as stated in the article).

Yes, cutting out nonessential production would conserve some energy, but when does conservation lead to deprivation, and when does deprivation lead to death. If oil is cut in half, then production related to that half disappears. What happens to the people who depend on that production to earn a living; does their living cease?

I think it is optimistic to think that a national government take over is even feasible or wise. Look at the disaster that the USSR was when politicians and bureaucrats decided what was to be produced and who was to consume the production. Looking at the current ineffectiveness of government to deal with economic collapse, I question if they would be capable of dealing with the complexity of planning where to direct scarcer and scarcer oil, especially in such a short time span as 14 years, where each year the situation worsened. In the example of a 5% rate of decline in production, we are not just talking about the halving of production in 14 years, but another halving in the subsequent 14 years, etc., etc., etc.

Also consider that the first halving of oil production will be, in absolute terms, be the largest loss of oil during the entire long period of decline, just as the last doubling when production was expanding was the largest addition of production experienced during the entire expansion period. This will be shocking to the 6.7 billion world population.

It is astounding to think that it took all of a long human history to reach just 3/4 of a billion population around 1800 AD. The growth rate was very low. And then in just 200+ years that population exploded to 6.7 billion (still growing). This is an unprecedented rate of growth and correlates to the output of the industrial age, which age was driven by the exploitation of fossil fuels over that time frame. I just don't see how we can have a reversal of the major component of energy, oil, without a reversal of population. We may quibble about what output should or can be eliminated first, but ultimately population levels must follow energy production levels, perhaps with a slight lag. Anything else seems to me to be hopeful thinking.

[gollum]

If we first cut out the "loose fat" - replaced private automobiles with carpooling/buses/trains/bikes, stopped manufacturing and transporting non-essential items etc., I believe there would be enough oil for growing and transporting food, producing drugs etc. for quite a few years.

Of course this requires that national governments take over, at least temporarily, to handle the transition (as stated in the article).

Yes, cutting out nonessential production would conserve some energy, but when does conservation lead to deprivation, and when does deprivation lead to death. If oil is cut in half, then production related to that half disappears. What happens to the people who depend on that production to earn a living; does their living cease?

I think it is optimistic to think that a national government take over is even feasible or wise. Look at the disaster that the USSR was when politicians and bureaucrats decided what was to be produced and who was to consume the production. Looking at the current ineffectiveness of government to deal with economic collapse, I question if they would be capable of dealing with the complexity of planning where to direct scarcer and scarcer oil, especially in such a short time span as 14 years, where each year the situation worsened. In the example of a 5% rate of decline in production, we are not just talking about the halving of production in 14 years, but another halving in the subsequent 14 years, etc., etc., etc.

Also consider that the first halving of oil production will be, in absolute terms, be the largest loss of oil during the entire long period of decline, just as the last doubling when production was expanding was the largest addition of production experienced during the entire expansion period. This will be shocking to the 6.7 billion world population.

It is astounding to think that it took all of a long human history to reach just 3/4 of a billion population around 1800 AD. The growth rate was very low. And then in just 200+ years that population exploded to 6.7 billion (still growing). This is an unprecedented rate of growth and correlates to the output of the industrial age, which age was driven by the exploitation of fossil fuels over that time frame. I just don't see how we can have a reversal of the major component of energy, oil, without a reversal of population. We may quibble about what output should or can be eliminated first, but ultimately population levels must follow energy production levels, perhaps with a slight lag. Anything else seems to me to be hopeful thinking.

I have seen a couple of news articles about lower birth rates due to the poor economy, perhaps a hopeful sign? Just making a decision to have even 1.5 children per couple, along with a few less heroic medical measures say after the age of 75 could do a lot to pull down the population without a tremendous amount of social or economic pain. That's not to say practice euthanasia, or refuse simple to moderate medical care.

[Fredrik]

Yes, cutting out nonessential production would conserve some energy, but when does conservation lead to deprivation, and when does deprivation lead to death. If oil is cut in half, then production related to that half disappears. What happens to the people who depend on that production to earn a living; does their living cease?

Their living could cease if the economical system and values remained the same. But with, say, 50% of people losing their jobs in a few years, the system and values will not remain the same. The political transformation will be huge - no matter how free-market you used to be, you will want the government to feed you when there's absolutely no other source of income. Most Americans may spit when they hear the word socialism now, but after the economy has crashed with no hope of recovery and they find themselves jobless and hungry, they will accept any government-run welfare handouts if the alternative is starvation. (I don't think it'll be called socialism though.) The transition would be even easier in countries that are less ideologically entrenched in the ideals of unrestricted free markets.

Some might favor resource wars as a short-term solution to energy scarcity. This, however, wouldn't diminish the need for a steady state-run economy. Besides, after Iraq there are hardly any worthwile targets that could yield more oil than what would be lost in actual warfare and occupation. Even Iraq's oil production will probably remain too small to benefit the US much as the country remains in a state of chaos. Any feasible solution to PO much be primarily domestic.

I think it is optimistic to think that a national government take over is even feasible or wise. Look at the disaster that the USSR was when politicians and bureaucrats decided what was to be produced and who was to consume the production. Looking at the current ineffectiveness of government to deal with economic collapse, I question if they would be capable of dealing with the complexity of planning where to direct scarcer and scarcer oil, especially in such a short time span as 14 years, where each year the situation worsened. In the example of a 5% rate of decline in production, we are not just talking about the halving of production in 14 years, but another halving in the subsequent 14 years, etc., etc., etc.

I'd say any kind of government is wise compared to chaos and starvation. If there's a better solution to peak oil, I'm very willing to learn more about it. (I don't believe a sudden transition to some kind of peaceful tribal anarchy is feasible in a modern nation-state, although many PO aware people seem to favor that.)

The USSR was an ideologically driven project that sought to transform a group of rather underdeveloped nations into a Marxist utopia, by means of totalitarian authoritarianism. The USSR did not primarily work for the people, nor was the state in any way accountable to the citizens. In Western countries, with long democratic traditions (although imperfect in practice), the situation might be different. At the least it would be in the government's own best interests to keep the population fed, warmed and clothed. Which is not to say there won't be much political turbulence in the short to middle term.

Also consider that the first halving of oil production will be, in absolute terms, be the largest loss of oil during the entire long period of decline, just as the last doubling when production was expanding was the largest addition of production experienced during the entire expansion period. This will be shocking to the 6.7 billion world population.

I agree, and this shock will be a major driving force for a radical revision of economic policies and expectations of the future in all countries.

We may quibble about what output should or can be eliminated first, but ultimately population levels must follow energy production levels, perhaps with a slight lag. Anything else seems to me to be hopeful thinking.

I agree, sadly. I believe that sound, rational policies may make that lag longer and smoother than what it would otherwise be. I don't think we'll necessarily fall back to the late 19th century population levels; many experts estimate the sustainable global population (not dependent on fossil fertilizers) to be about 2-3 billion.

[Ibon]

I don't know how fuel prices in Europe increased. Did they rise steadily over time on some schedule or have they simply always been much higher?

My info might be somewhat dated but European fuel prices are high because of high taxes. A part of these taxes goes to maintain roads but also a significant percentage is used to fund public transportation and alternatives. In addition there are provisions that allow taxes to be reduced when there are price spikes in order moderate the disruption of a volatile market.

I remember when living in Switzerland in the early 90's there was a folks referendum where the majority of swiss citizens voted in favor of a law that increased the price of gas be .20 cents a liter or about 75cents a gallon in order to fund expansion of rail etc. This happened at a time when I had just moved to South Florida and I saw a 1 penny a gallon tax initiative to fund Everglades restoration get defeated in state elections.

[Pops]

Just looking around real quick to see just how far back the difference in price went I stumbled on Google's newspaper archive, here's just a random link from 73...

Ellensburg WA, 12/5/73

Looks like fuel taxes in Europe at the time were at least US$.75 +/- and in the US $/.04.

[Pops]

Not that Europeans blithely pay the big tax without complaint like they sometimes tell us...
A Socialist Rag

[Nano]

I think the people here who say: "there's nothing new in this report" are missing the point entirely. It's very significant that these scientist are talking about forced changes to foreign policy and politics due to peak oil. I haven't seen any government agency anywhere state things as bluntly as that. It's very significant.

Yes, Europe will turn out to be quite resilient to high oil prices. Another European study group (this one, called "hop!") already figured that even a fast rise to $800 per barrel oil would be survivable for the EU, It would cause 30-40% unemployment, but this unemployment would be able to be reduced relatively quickly if investments into peak oil mitigation are made (plan economics again)

Sure it's all pretty optimistic stuff, but I'm seeing the possibilities, and I see there is a common thread of argument in the German military study and the hop! study. Sure, it will probably get very bad. 30%-40% unemployment for 5-10 years? That ll be hard to swallow. The risks for societal collapse are huge. etc. etc. But its not unthinkable that we muddle through that period without too much anarchy and emerge the better for it. Of course, during that period of strife, I and a lot of my oblivous friends, family and colleagues are going to find ourselves working like packmules and living like churchrats, but if that's what it will take for my children to have a life, no problem, i'm not going to cry about it!

[eastbay]

I think the people here who say: "there's nothing new in this report" are missing the point entirely. It's very significant that these scientist are talking about forced changes to foreign policy and politics due to peak oil. I haven't seen any government agency anywhere state things as bluntly as that. It's very significant.

But its not unthinkable that we muddle through that period without too much anarchy and emerge the better for it. Of course, during that period of strife, I and a lot of my oblivous friends, family and colleagues are going to find ourselves working like packmules and living like churchrats, but if that's what it will take for my children to have a life, no problem, i'm not going to cry about it!

The point of the hard-hitting study and the growing concern is that there will not be a civilized 'emerging' from this period. The increasingly expressed concern and the preliminary conclusion of this draft study is that it's Game Over. That means 'no afterwards' ... no 'emerging'. This is difficult for any of us to fathom.

[americandream]

Eastbay,

I suspect this issue poses something of a paradox due to the nature of the capitalist growth model and the indicators involved.

Oil is a lagging indicator that can only be measured in decades (longer trend) by virtue of the distortions and misinformation inherent in the leading nature of that other indicator, exhuberant annual global capitalist growth (shorter trend). This is not helped by the fact that much of contemporary global wealth creation is occurring behing the bamboo curtain of Chinese command control which has utilised the mechanisms of regional socialism to the service of that informational distortion.

It will take an established trend in the overwhelming of oil supply weakening over shorter trending annual growth imperatives for the feedback into capital to start to be felt globally and for the shift to risk aversion to increasingly overwhelm the current appetite for risk.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,715138,00.html


Above find the link to the der Spiegel article.

pstarr, the German military refused to comment leaving the 'why 15 to 30 years from now' question unanswered.

[americandream]

Incidentally, I am not entirely in agreement that we will see the rise of fascism. Fascism like international socialism is a modernity project, albeit a corporatist one with the shield of substanceless socialism of a nationalist nature. In other words, it is dependent on market magnitude resourcing for volkish projects such as peoples cars or the other inducements for the preservation of bourgeoisie wealth creation. In contrast, internationalist socialism lends itself to post capitalist limitations, being removed from the logic of the corporation and the private.

Where the risk lies however is with a return to feudalism which seeks to maintain growth by way of low cost or free labour and by the use of widespread ignorance and superstition. The rise of mass forms of control via the New Age or religions such as Christiany and Islam do not bode well for the future however and point to a shift away from the gains of modernity and a return to forms of growth that preceded the age of cheap energy.

So to that extent, the jury is out on whether the gains of modernity survive the end of cheap resourcing. However, the choicies will be between a sustainable modernity or the abandonment of reason altogether, IMHO.

[Pops]

What I find interesting in the increasing murmur from .gov is they are sounding more and more like people when they first hit this site. The IEA, EIA, US military, British, Germans all sound more and more like Hersch and less and less like CERA - who will soon have the exclusive slot of "opposing view."

[Nano]

The point of the hard-hitting study and the growing concern is that there will not be a civilized 'emerging' from this period. The increasingly expressed concern and the preliminary conclusion of this draft study is that it's Game Over. That means 'no afterwards' ... no 'emerging'. This is difficult for any of us to fathom.

Certainly there will be an emerging! Oil price will rise until noone uses petroleum fueled personal transport, except the military, government, and the transport companies. This will happen when world oil production is 25% of what it is now. On the way there, oil price will rise toward $1000 per barrel, or whatever it takes. Prices of everything will become very volatile and investment climate will be horrific. Unemployment and personal bankrupties will reach unprecendented highs. Etc. Etc. Certainly there is a high risk of extremist politics and social unrest while this is getting worse, but it is not unthinkable that there will be 'new normal' eventualy with oil at $1000 per barrel that I and mine will find bearable enough. Of course, I am speaking of myself here. For people who depend on 'shopping' and chasing after every new gadget, tourist location or piece of textile in order not to fall into depression, it might not be bearable, but that their problem, it not humanity's problem.

[Ludi]

For people who depend on 'shopping' and chasing after every new gadget, tourist location or piece of textile ...

...or jobs.

[eastbay]

For people who depend on 'shopping' and chasing after every new gadget, tourist location or piece of textile ...

...or jobs.

...or dinner.