AdamB wrote:MonteQuest wrote:AdamB wrote:Which reality?
That the world we think exists is largely an illusion made possible by borrowing from the future, and thinking infinite growth can continue in a finite world.
So first you construct a global strawman (the world thinks) and then pull out another claim that has been discredited by the business cycle multiple times per century, if not decade (infinite growth)? That isn't even your idea, it was a Ruppert fav I believe, meant as a red meat line for the faithful, them who can be counted on to not think about it amidst the cheering for their prophet of doom rock star.
Down around claim/paragraph #10
http://independentreport.blogspot.com/2 ... k-oil.html
If you want to build the conclusions you claim to be making, you can at least use your own words on the topic, and leave all the strawmen out of it.
The universe is a pretty big place, and some folks have already been left with plenty of egg on their faces when they pretend that the application of price and by extension technology doesn't exist. Just ask Malthus. Or Ehrlich.MonteQuest wrote:AdamB wrote:Like right now, one of the silliest investments someone could have made was for, as an example, building a well insulated home, trading their SUV for a econoobox, buying a scooter, etc etc. Of what use is conservation when supplies for our lifetime are assured?
Oh, so the super insulated home I just built was a silly investment? Got it.
Depends on what you paid to insulate it I suppose, doing a NPV calculation is relatively easy for anyone who can use Excel, or has a calculator and pencil and paper.
For example, those who bought their own personal peak oil solutions, be it more insulation or a hybrid, are now being hammered in that calculation by low prices. The CapX increase just can't be easily made back with slightly lower OpX in a low price environment.
Do the math.MonteQuest wrote:Supplies for our lifetime are assured? Got it.
Sure. Perhaps you've missed the more recent work on that topic, but some world class energy economists haven't, and are asking some pretty good questions about how badly peak demand will pistol whip the supply side, and then we can leave the stuff in the ground.
One of the most interesting things that peak oilers have ever done was pretend that only supply matters, when in fact oil prices and length of availability is a calculation between TWO, count'im TWO, non-linear curves. Basic Econ, yet missed when peak oil happened in 2000. Or 2005. Or 2006. Or 2008. Or now. Or whatever, the point is, if you don't account for the interaction of those two curves, you make ridiculous projections that look like this:
Straight from wiki:
I recommend reading the work of real experts when it comes to these kinds of things, they certainly know more than the various bloggers or social commentators do. And in all seriousness, the economists mostly had all the pieces of this right all along, perhaps because they do understands those interacting non linear curves I referred to.
http://eec.ucdavis.edu/highlight/why-th ... peak-soon/
It is highly unlikely that the oil demand will peak soon as most people are poor and very likely don't want to remain poor. In order to meet their needs and even wants, not only the amount of oil but energy and material resources needed will have to be many times higher than what is available:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22956470
That's why the current production "revolution" is merely a blip.
The catch is that such needs cannot happen in a world with physical limitations:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse
Worse, even a low ecological footprint may already be overshoot for the current population, which will continue to grow:
https://theconversation.com/if-everyone ... uble-43905