[jato]

I'm confused by the doomer/survivalist argument presented here: if you truly believe that there's going to be some sort of anarchy breaking out and you want you and your family to live, why hang on to your current lifestyle, what are you waiting for?

I don't know what is going to break out. Before I knew about Peak Oil, I thought I was going to retire at age 50 (I am 32 now). I don't know how the problem of declining oil, declining natural gas & economic depression or collapse will manifest itself.

The other important issue is timing. When is it going to get bad for me? I don't have any answers, only questions. Until the answers are apparent to me, I will sit put and prepare for general emergencies (water, food, power & money shortages).

Another question I'd like to ask: "Do you want society to break down?"

NO!

If not, and you're not prepared to change your current lifestyle because of money issues, how about acting, persuading, advocating or educating (all free or cheap) so that friends, relatives, your community and local legislators are working to prevent a breakdown?

I am prepared to change my lifestyle, but not before I have to. Why? Because I like it too much.

I have been communicating Peak Oil to friends, co-workers and relatives. As for are political system, I don't think there is any hope. At least not until there is a crisis, then maybe.

[gnm]

Jato/ I feel your pain- mostly broke and 2 small children here. I am perhaps somewhat more fortunate in that I already am in the hills and nearly self sufficent. Workin on gettin the whole greenhouse/henhouse stuff goin now.

I am not a full chaos doomer - more of an endless crushing depression sort. But you never know how spoiled assholes used to overindulgence of everything are gonna handle deprivation do you?

-G

[MonteQuest]

I believe that in 100 years we will be more or less out of fossil fuels. Without fossil fuels, we will not be able to build nuclear reactors (IMHO).

Why not? This looks like extreme lack of imagination
It doesn't matter whether energy source is oil, or nuclear - if you have power to extract/transport materials, nothing prevents you from building new reactors using energy that existing reactors produce.. Really no problem here at all.. It's like saying that electricity produced by natural gas have so high quality, that it cannot be replaced by electricity produced by hydro powerplants.

Why not? Can you imagine the changes that would have to take place and the time required to convert electricity to liquid fuels (i.e. hydrogen) to power ICE's? Here's a quote from my recent post:

What renewable energy will smelt steel, make plastics, rubber, medicines, and fertilizers? There are plenty of existing alternatives to oil, but none of them are cheap, and none offers a comparable EROEI, much less can even be made into anything. If we don’t save a significant amount of our fossil fuels for the maintenance of our infrastructure, rather than burn them up trying to meet our energy demand, where will the replacements come from? A Star Trek replicator?

[pkwonofsocal]

I guarrantee that those who feel optimistic now will continue to do so until their home light give away.

Licho:
>Maybe that's the reason why most "optimists" as you call them are not from USA
They probably don't care/know about US problems.

which is like seeing the world with one eye. Because no matter how much these countries want to stay out of US sphere of influence, what happens in the US will affect every single hamlet in the world.

> However, these are problems of just one country and are not directly related to peak oil problem

Just one country? Such statement reveals his ignorance in the world affairs.

If that 'one country' is Bhutan or Guyana, yes, it might be negligible. But the United States is not just one country. It's the One Country which wags the earth.

Before the US feels the pain of PO directly, it will try to export that problem to other countries. I doubt the optimists understand it.

[DamianB]

I am prepared to change my lifestyle, but not before I have to. Why? Because I like it too much.

Then you are part of the problem; you have 'the knowledge' but are too selfish to act on it.

THE FLAMINGO STORY

An ecologist studying flamingos on Kenya ’s Lake Nakuru has noticed an interesting phenomenon. Every year, when the time comes for migration, a few flamingos start the process by taking off from the lake. Since none of the others take any notice, they soon turn round and come back.

The next day they try again. This time a few others straggle along with them but, again, the vast majority just carry on with business as usual, so the pioneers return to the lake. This trend continues for a few days. Each time a few more birds join in but, since the thousands of others still take no notice, the migration plan is aborted.

Finally, one day, the same few birds take off again. This time however, the tiny increment to their number - maybe just one extra flamingo - is enough to tip the balance. The whole flock takes flight. The migration begins.

If we apply this concept to our current predicament, it gives rise to an immediate sense of empowerment. Rather than dismissing a small action - ‘what difference will it make?’ - or the role of the individual - ‘what can I do about it?’ - we see that change is actually always propelled by the individual, or that a small action can be an instrumental part of the significant changes that arise through complex processes.

Seen from that perspective, we are the ones with the power - the power to cast ripples into the pond and become active nodes within a global network; the power to make positive change into a contagious impulse; the power to help build the sort of world we want for our children.

[lorenzo]

abc

[Licho]

MonteQuests:
We have 50 years.. 50 years to fully adapt to "no-oil". The world has changed beyong imagination during last 50 years, and it will change again in next 50 years..

which is like seeing the world with one eye. Because no matter how much these countries want to stay out of US sphere of influence, what happens in the US will affect every single hamlet in the world.

This seems to me a bit too strong, every hamlet in the world? Russians would certainly disagree.. Many countries have almost no trade with USA, why should they care so much? For europe, it's different, economies are connected. For example German investments in only one US state are 5x higher than total USA investments in Asia, problems will hurt Europe, but people just don't care much right now..

Just one country? Such statement reveals his ignorance in the world affairs.

If that 'one country' is Bhutan or Guyana, yes, it might be negligible. But the United States is not just one country. It's the One Country which wags the earth.

Before the US feels the pain of PO directly, it will try to export that problem to other countries. I doubt the optimists understand it.

I don't believe in total ignorance of USA citizens and leadership. I don't believe you would use your army in really dangerous conflict with any major power. And since most countries don't have oil, why should they care so much about local conflicts like the one in Iraq?
And if you mean that USA "wags" the earth with economy.. then how much you know about economy of EU and it's problems/prospects? EU economy is bigger than that of USA, but how much you care right now? Well most people care the same about USA

[MonteQuest]

MonteQuests:
We have 50 years.. 50 years to fully adapt to "no-oil". The world has changed beyong imagination during last 50 years, and it will change again in next 50 years.

How much change would we have had over the last fifty years without oil? In 50 years, at the current 1.3% growth rate the population will be at 13 billion. The most optimistic projections are 9 billion, and 40% of them will be Indians and Chinese, all trying to consume like we do here in the US which is 5% of the world's population. And who set the figure at 50 years? It could be this year.

[threadbear]

It's really unfair to describe posters as emotionally ill, on one hand, or optimistic to the point of delusion, on the other.

Personally, I feel, even if the US is giving the subject scant attention, China has to be working on oil alternatives, perhaps in a Manhattan project sort of way. Whether they succeed or not, is unknowable.

Nevada Ghosts pointed out something in his last post that will be happening peak oil, or no, and that is a coming economic depression. Not a little recession, not a correction--a depression. Start reading Steven Roach, Morgan Stanley's chief analyst, Paul Krugman of the New York Times, etc... If it's true that some are motivated by the simple desire to scare the sh** out of themselves, there's no shortage of material out there. Station yourself by the nearest washroom, and have a read.

[jato]

Quote:

I am prepared to change my lifestyle, but not before I have to. Why? Because I like it too much.

Then you are part of the problem; you have 'the knowledge' but are too selfish to act on it.

I am guilty as charged.

Do you use fossil fuels?

[theshadypeach]

Do you use fossil fuels?

LOL. nice one. The mere fact that he's on a computer, built using petroleum, powered by electricity that's generated by using petroleum , sorta implicates him as well. I guess DamienB is guilty of hypocrisy.


Cheers

[JC_SaltLaker]

What renewable energy will smelt steel[?]

I am aware of at least one electrical-based smelting process:

On average, around the world, it takes some 15.7 kWh of electricity to produce one kilogram of aluminium from alumina. Design and process improvements have progressively reduced this figure from about 21kWh in the 1950's...

Aluminium smelting is energy intensive, which is why the world's smelters are located in areas which have access to abundant power resources (hydro-electric, natural gas, coal or nuclear). Many locations are remote and the electricity is generated specifically for the aluminium plant.

It would seem hydro-electric-based smelting is already an existing technology where aluminum is concerned. As for the balance of your argument, you may indeed be on-the-mark.

[DamianB]

Do you use fossil fuels?

I guess DamienB is guilty of hypocrisy.

Cheers

Guilty as charged!

The point I was trying to make is that starting to change is half the battle. I find it empowering.

FWIW I have wood-fired heating, solar HW and grow about 40% of my own food. I try to buy stuff from single-store businesses. I eat 95% organic. I talk to my friends and family about sustainability.

Getting one of these is my next target:
http://www.windsave.com/wind_main_content.html

I have no illusions that this is not nearly enough but I believe in the bumpy decline, not the cliff-edge into anarchy.

Peace to all,
Damian