[Tyler_JC]

Your post brings us to the following list of questions.

1. What % of the world's oil is used to create food?

2. What % of those inputs could be substituted with natural gas, coal, methane hydrates, biofuels, and other sources of carbon?

3. What would farm yields look like if we switched from oil intensive factory farms to less oil intensive farming methods?

I don't know the exact numbers but based on the reading I've done, the answers look something like this.

1. 3/4 of America's oil use is for transportation. Globally, oil use for transportation is also a strong majority. Considering that transportation can, in most cases, be electrified, a large supply cushion becomes available for agricultural uses.

2. A hydrocarbon is a hydrocarbon. Oil can become natural gas. Natural gas can become crude oil (and its derivatives). Coal can become oil. Basically, throw enough money at the problem and you'll get whatever chemical you want. The EROEI doesn't matter because we are trying to produce chemicals, not energy.

3. Talk to Ludi.

I'm not saying their won't be problems as a result of peak oil. I just don't see a shortage of fertilizer and pesticides as one of those problems.

[KingM]

I think a good target population for the earth is one billion people. It would allow for a high level of civilization, for cities, lots of protected land, and could be sustainable over the long run.

Unfortunately, the only way to reach this number is either a mass die-off or strict government control of reproduction. I don't see how we could get there in a gentle way.

[gg3]

For those of you who tried downloading the "pdf" only to discover it wasn't a real PDF (cross-platform & cross-application) but an Adobe-Only PDF (IMHO a phony PDF), you can try this:

http://paulchefurka.com/WEAP/WEAP.html

and read it on the webpage.

Anyway... Same old news. We've screwed the pooch and we're doomed.

Re. KingM: Yes, I agree, 1 billion humans. And if people aren't willing to accept legal limits on reproduction, strictly enforced, then they have chosen dieoff and in that case I won't cry as they die.

Yeast cells.

Bleh.

[IslandCrow]

I have down loaded the data the model is based on (Main page of the Paul's work) and will probably play around with them in the dark winter months....

However, initially one point is bothering me. The data shows a strong correlation between rising energy and rising population. The assumption is that this same correlation will apply on the down side. I know the model factors in a decrease in energy use per person as slide progresses, but I wonder if there would be a significant time lag before population drops. Part of this is because we in the west can absorb large drops in energy use before the population starts to drop.

My initial response is that the model gives a good indication of pressures due to dropping energy, but I think that the population will not drop as soon as energy levels drop (ie not as soon as the model predicts).

[gg3]

re. Island Crow: Interesting point. As a generalization, the wealthy nations will fare better because they have more room to cut back before they start dying off, and the poor nations will suffer dieoff sooner becaue they have less wiggle-room. Also factor in climate change and emerging diseases: both more likely to hit the poor nations harder than the wealthy.

To this I would add, the knowledge gained (science & technology) during the petroleum era may also help us ease the downside somewhat. But again, the impacts will differ according to the economic condition of each nation as it heads into the crisis.

In any case we're still in overshoot, headed for collapse. It may take longer, but we'll end up at a sustainable balance point in the end, either this century or next.

[IslandCrow]

If the economy tanks quickly and the minimal safety nets we currently have rip apart, people will rapidly get violent in some places, and hungry in even more places. Economic collapse caused population decline in Russia. Why are we immune?

How people react will be a key factor. Unfortunately I think that violent reactions will be more common than they need to be. The problem with a lot of the violence is that it is directed against the infrastructure that would be needed to smooth the decent to a lower level of energy use.

Against this is a number of years of having lived in poor countries as an adult, and observed how people manage with much much less than we are using here in the west. Because of this I have a firm conviction that in the West we could live on a much lower level of energy before having a major die off...the wild card is whether people will react violently to dropping living standards (and so make the problem even worse).

In the long term we will see populations drop...but I see this drop starting later than the model predicted

I suppose that in viewing the WEAP model, I would see that the correlation between energy use and population is a lagging model (I mean by that: energy change effects population change x years later). Because of the constant run up in energy availability and population growth over a number of years it looks as if there is an immediate (time wise) correlation. I do not have a good feel for just how long the time lag would be, but my 'gut feeling' (partly from looking at places like Zimbabwe which still has a growing population) is that the lag might be in the order of 5 - 10 years. Because of the time taken for a baby to reach reproductive rate the effect of the time lag could be even greater than the time I have just given. According to the model Russia's population should be rising now!

A long defense of my position but it really is a critic of just one smallish detail in the WEAP model - So far I think that the model gives a good indication of the overall shape of things to come. It seems to me to be a useful model.

[M_B_S]

Population Thesis

Paul Chefurka made an "interesting" U - turn

His population model is rubbish

Read his statement here:

http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Rubbish.html

[BobWallace]

Let's throw in a bit more...

Birth rates worldwide dropped from 2.65 in 2000 to 2.55 in 2006.

Replacement birth rate is 2.33.

Unless 2000 and 2006 are not representative of what is happening we're moving fairly quickly toward zero population growth. And not because gas tanks are empty.

And, as we've seen in so many 'developed' countries, once people get control over their reproductive processes and urbanized they keep moving toward 'one child per couple'.

[KevO]

Scientists From Around the Globe Join ABC News in a Forum on Surviving the Century By SARAH NAMIAS, June 12, 2008:
Are we living in the last century of our civilization? Is it possible that all of our technology, knowledge and wealth cannot save us from ourselves? Could our society actually be heading towards collapse? According to many of the world's top scientists, the answer is yes, unless we take action now.

This September, in Earth 2100, a dramatic ABC News 2-hour broadcast, the greatest minds across the globe will join together in a countdown to the year 2100 to tell us what we must do to survive the next century … And what may happen if we don't.

The time to act is now, "We really have less than a decade to start getting this right. If we're still dragging our feet in 2015 I think it really becomes at that point almost impossible for the world to avert a degree of climate change that we simply will not be able to manage without intolerable cost and consequences."

In order to avoid this chilling future, we have to first imagine it. In an unprecedented Internet event, ABC is inviting people from around the world to bring the future to life

Video and more text here

[DomusAlbion]

Oh My! James Howard Kunstler on ABC News.

The end truly is at hand.

[benzoil]

Oh My! James Howard Kunstler on ABC News.

The end truly is at hand.

He survived the Colbert Report without using the word "clusterF**k* so maybe he can make it through an ABC Special, too.

I dislike the "End of the World" reference though. There's a big cognitive difference between the End of the World and the End of Western Civilization. For instance, the End of Roman Civilization did not mean the End of the World. I think it makes people act differently. The latter implies that there are no more tomorrows. The former means that there are more tomorrows (so do whatever youwant), but you might not be there to see them (unless you prepare).

As the PO meme makes its way into the mainstream we should expect some serious morphing of what it means from what we all think it means. For one thing, we in the PO community aren't 100% settled on it yet. For another, "we" won't be defining the debate anymore. It will be the idiot pundits, politicians and neighbors that we've tried in vain to warn already. Who knows what'll happen.

[mos6507]

Any time you permanently rip someone out of the comfort of their daily life it is going to feel like the end of the world in the sense that there will be so much grief over the loss of lifestyle that they will feel their life is over.

[benzoil]

Any time you permanently rip someone out of the comfort of their daily life it is going to feel like the end of the world in the sense that there will be so much grief over the loss of lifestyle that they will feel their life is over.

I know what you mean, but it's not truly terminal. People have come to feel that they have a right to economic class security. They don't, of course, and it will feel like a death of a thousand cuts for most people. Still, the last thing we need is people making short term decisions based on the world ending. Making short term decisions as if there were no long term consequences is what got us into this mess in the first place.

[Novus]

If they are not going to talk about Peak Oil then the whole broadcast is a waste of time. Climate change is nothing more than whole lot of hot air and distraction. They mention 2015 but I think by then we could already be collapsed. For most people this will be the end of the world. The sun will still rise in the year 2015 but you just won't be there to see it unless you are a hardcore survivalist and on top of that get lucky.

[patience]

Without oil, our current civilization dies back to some pre-oil level. Without a livable planet, we as a species become extinct. I guess it depends on how badly we can hose it up before we run out of stuff to burn.

[Denny]

Without oil, our current civilization dies back to some pre-oil level.

The coal era was not really all that bad! Maybe not so good for breathing, but most people survived the smog.

[Novus]

I am not convinced global warming is entirely a bad thing. We are cooler today than the world was during the medieval warm period when the Arctic Ocean was ice free and England was a major wine producer.

[biofuel13]

The time to act is now

The time to act was 30 years ago. Too little, too late.

+1 Way to little, way too late.

[TheDude]

If they are not going to talk about Peak Oil then the whole broadcast is a waste of time.

Didn't you watch the trailer?



For the US in 2015:

Increasing international demand for oil and industrial metals is creating record high prices and worldwide shortages.

[KevO]

I am not convinced global warming is entirely a bad thing.

you will be!