Page 17 of 19

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Jul 2006, 22:28:05
by rwwff
MonteQuest wrote:We will have to cope and adapt....and learn some hard lessons about sustainabilty and the earth's carrying capacity.


You give people too much credit. We already know the lesson. We've just decided that we don't care, and that the eventual costs are acceptable.

Why should Joe Schmoe care if some peasant can't purchase nitrogen fertilizer made from NG, ten years from now. Joe likes heating his home to a toasty 72F when its below freezing outside.

The hard part in all this for us, will be watching countries that can't produce internally... They have no moderating buffer between them and a catastrophic depopulation event; when push comes to shove, the US will be producing oil and gas long past the point that most countries are going to go belly up.

Do we get to keep driving cars and SUV's for convenience.. no. Will we, in the US, starve? no. Will we have the courage to shut down immigration and shoot people that try to enter? I don't know. I wonder if more states might adopt Texan law in response.

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Wed 19 Jul 2006, 23:10:09
by MonteQuest
rwwff wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:We will have to cope and adapt....and learn some hard lessons about sustainabilty and the earth's carrying capacity.


You give people too much credit. We already know the lesson. We've just decided that we don't care, and that the eventual costs are acceptable.

Why should Joe Schmoe care if some peasant can't purchase nitrogen fertilizer made from NG, ten years from now. Joe likes heating his home to a toasty 72F when its below freezing outside.



Yup. Like I said: Too much asset inertia and cultural direction.

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Thu 20 Jul 2006, 03:14:39
by TonyPrep
rwwff wrote:Will we, in the US, starve? no.
Yes. Many are likely to. Producing some oil and gas does not imply that you can keep up the crop yields, to the levels required. There is enough land, once top soil has recovered (in a few centuries), but, until then, starvation is a possibility for many.

Tony

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Thu 20 Jul 2006, 15:51:48
by Graeme
Monte, TPTB are aware of the problem and they are doing something about it. Look at the recent G8 meeting where it was shown that there is very encouraging degree of international cooperation over energy. I can't give an adequate response in a few minutes partly because I haven't read the Hirsch report. I'll come back in a few days (I have other commitments) to comment on this further.

If the decline rate is very modest, and we gear up renewables, nuclear, massive conservation and efficiency efforts world-wide, we might muddle along in a massive recession as we are forced to powerdown and re-look at our perceptions about growth and an obsolete standard of living.


We might avoid a "major" event that leads to a depression.


Maybe your position is softening a little.

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Thu 20 Jul 2006, 19:25:22
by MonteQuest
Graeme wrote:Monte, TPTB are aware of the problem and they are doing something about it.


Yup, sure are; invading sovereign nations where the oil is and establishing a military footprint to make sure it keeps flowing west.

Maybe your position is softening a little.


No, still as laid out in Post -peakoil; the Slow decline?

The longer we wait to gear up a massive mitigation program, the worse our chances become.

It's like watching grass grow, isn't it?

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 06:58:15
by Ludi
Graeme wrote:Monte, TPTB are aware of the problem and they are doing something about it. Look at the recent G8 meeting where it was shown that there is very encouraging degree of international cooperation over energy. .


Really? I thought oil companies were making record profits, where's the cooperation in that? Or is there international cooperation to ensure that oil companies make record profits?

I'm just not seeing any encouraging degree of anything, myself. I guess I'm not looking hard enough with a magnifiying glass.

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Mon 24 Jul 2006, 11:44:12
by ca2devri
greenworm wrote:You can inteplant shade loving crops with hemp, all the carrots and lettuce you can stomach.


Wow, that's ignorant.

Please point me to the varieties of carrots and lettuce that are shade loving. Sounds wonderful. In fact, point me to any food crops that can be grown in the shade.

A lot of people talk about how to grow food without having ever done so themselves. What scares me the most is they might be people in power, making decisions.

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Tue 25 Jul 2006, 04:02:36
by Graeme
Ludi, The main areas of international coooperation are with the opening up of markets for (predominantly fossil and nuclear) energy development.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1356823.htm

Monte, I've now had a brief look at the Hirsch report. It appears to me to be mainly a warning to start preparing asap. There is much incertainty over the timing of peak oil, and the nature of, and time required to implement, mitigation measures. There are many measures that are not included in his report. These are being posted as news items almost daily on this board. But I take your point though that progress is very slow.

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 19:30:39
by MonteQuest
Graeme wrote:Monte, I've now had a brief look at the Hirsch report. It appears to me to be mainly a warning to start preparing asap. There is much incertainty over the timing of peak oil, and the nature of, and time required to implement, mitigation measures. There are many measures that are not included in his report. These are being posted as news items almost daily on this board. But I take your point though that progress is very slow.


They are not included because they are inconsequential and will have little effect on the Big Picture. Locally and individually, they may be lifesavers.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 21:51:26
by bodigami
Jack wrote:
(...)

Really, it would be so much easier to let nature take its course, and permit disease and famine to do their useful work in the third world. Then, with some powering down and serious population control, we in the developed countries could enjoy something of a good life.


I'm glad nature won't differentiate between "1º and 3º World". For nature all homo "sapiens" in this current age are nothing more than a virus. However nature can heal itself when the virus is neutralized (and that include Kathrina for example, "genious").

Re: Do you have an

Unread postPosted: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 22:17:34
by MonteQuest
zensui wrote:The worst is one comment along the lines of "mass death in the 3º World and just worst quality of living in the 1º World" hell no! That self-centered attitude has done humanity no good.
Do you mean this quote?
Montequest wrote:No, I expect the third-world to suffer a massive die-off and the standard of living here in the US to massively decline, entailing some die-off (elderly and infirm) but more chaos.
Self-centered? Where do you get that idea? That statement is based upon sound science, not some attitude.

It is a prediction of where things may just go. It comes from this thread:
There has been a continuous debate about whether or not there will be a die-off of the human population post-peak oil. I think there is great confusion regarding this. Will there be a massive increase in human mortality across the globe overnight? It is possible, but in my opinion, not very likely, unless we nuke the oil fields. I think that what we will see will reflect the inequity in the world today; the difference between the haves and the have nots.

The inevitable die-off necessitated by overshoot will apply differently depending upon where you are in the Petri dish. In the third-world, the inability to purchase or grow food will cause starvation, malnutrition, and markedly increase the death rate. Many starving countries rely on exports of cash crops to survive. They won’t be able to afford IMF debt, nor the energy required for irrigation, petrochemicals, or fertilizers.

In the 1st world, our standard of living will decline markedly. In some ways, modern civilization has allowed us to redirect or satisfy the desire to reproduce by allowing us to acquire things—material possessions—in place of having children. Our "material infant mortality" will increase dramatically. I see an end to NASCAR and long commutes, long-haul trucking, and an implosion of our urban sprawl and financial systems. Unemployment will rise beyond belief. People will have to actually work for a living, rather than live off investments.


The post-peak die-off; The MonteQuest scenario

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 22:26:42
by Jack
zensui wrote:I'm glad nature won't differentiate between "1º and 3º World". For nature all homo "sapiens" in this current age are nothing more than a virus. However nature can heal itself when the virus is neutralized (and that include Kathrina for example, "genious").


Nature won't, but the flow of goods and services will. And that is sufficient to my purpose. 8)

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 22:31:25
by Jack
zensui wrote:
Jack wrote:(...) and engineer a dieoff of large numbers of third worlders.
I won't start insulting you, but that ideas are plain sick. Do you realize that Cuba is orders of magnitude better prepared for Peak Oil than the USA?
In some way, perhaps. In other ways, no. Anyway, Cuba is small - there is a large 3rd world population available.
Given the choice between my comfort and their survival, I choose to protect my comfort. Alas, not everyone has the same priorities. But I've no doubt that they will, in the fullness of time, adopt my attitudes.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 22:39:05
by rwwff
Jack wrote:Given the choice between my comfort and their survival, I choose to protect my comfort. Alas, not everyone has the same priorities. But I've no doubt that they will, in the fullness of time, adopt my attitudes.


I think those in charge, on both sides of the aisle, already have adopted that attitude; though most can't quite seem to say the words out loud. Ask oneself, which is more important to the politicians in America, biofuels/ethanol, or food aid to the developing world.

We're gonna keep more and more of our own grain, buy as much of their grain as possible, and we're going to turn it into c*** no one can eat.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postPosted: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 22:46:52
by Jack
rwwff wrote:I think those in charge, on both sides of the aisle, already have adopted that attitude; though most can't quite seem to say the words out loud. Ask oneself, which is more important to the politicians in America, biofuels/ethanol, or food aid to the developing world.

We're gonna keep more and more of our own grain, buy as much of their grain as possible, and we're going to turn it into c*** no one can eat.


My compliments on your perceptions.

People are loathe to stare reality in the face - both the politicians and the voters who elect them follow my path. They just won't admit it.

[smilie=evil7.gif]

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 23:01:10
by Zardoz
zensui wrote:Hi (this is my first post in this forum)...


...so you don't know about Jack. He denies it, but some of us feel he goes on like this just to bait folks, and that in actuality he isn't really quite the demon he wants us to think he is.

I (want to) think this is a hobby for him.

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 23:08:33
by Jack
Zardoz wrote:
zensui wrote:Hi (this is my first post in this forum)...


...so you don't know about Jack. He denies it, but some of us feel he goes on like this just to bait folks, and that in actuality he isn't really quite the demon he wants us to think he is.

I (want to) think this is a hobby for him.


Ouch! That really hurts. What did I ever do to you? :cry:

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Thu 27 Jul 2006, 04:39:17
by Doly
rwwff wrote:without the population reduction, you can't get the civilized powerdown.


That's what I don't agree with. People accept the 500 million limit as gospel, when it's pretty much pulled from thin air.

Cuba suffered a pretty radical powerdown, and their population didn't reduce to a fraction of what they were.

I think we can powerdown with the current population. I accept that we shouldn't let population grow beyond current numbers because it would soon become unsustainable. But I don't accept that current numbers are unsustainable.

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Thu 27 Jul 2006, 05:52:24
by TonyPrep
Doly wrote:But I don't accept that current numbers are unsustainable.
They may not be. There seems to be good supporting experience that, for example, something like 4000 sq ft are needed for each person, living on an enhanced vegan diet, and using a biointensive growing method. I haven't done the numbers but I suspect that could, in principle, support all 6.5 billion people.

However, not everyone wants to live a strict vegan diet, enhanced or not. Population is not stable at 6.5 billion. Top soil is badly degraded. Fresh water is a problem in many places. Climate change is producing more frequent extreme weather events.

It might be possible, Doly, but is it at all likely?

Tony

Re: Do you have an "acceptable" solution to peak o

Unread postPosted: Thu 27 Jul 2006, 06:25:42
by manu
Get to a farm asap. Start to buy bulls, cows, or an ox.