Peak Oil News and Message Boards

2040 is right around the corner. If we're really going to avoid collapse, we'd have to see evidence of mitigation long before-hand. If we don't, then I'd say some form of collapse would be unavoidable.

This is all part and parcel of the need to never close off avenues of hope even when the statistical odds of that hope dwindle.

dolanbaker wrote:It's important the remember that people did react to the US oil peak of the early 1970s, consider what our consumption of oil would be now if nothing had changed and we still had uninsulated houses with oil fired boilers, cars that did 15mpg on a good day, oil fired electricity generating stations and the list goes on...

The report does say " industrial civilisation ", so it isn't too gloomy but it does reinforce the fact that the correct reaction will avoid a catastrophe.

Well, is t that what LTG has been saying loo these 40 years?

What is the reality of the correction so far?

See what I'm saying?

Exactly right what Newf states. For the past 25 years or so we have had strong indications of climate change, of mounting environmental problems, of the coming of peak oil, of a unsustainable economic model. We have also had Cassandras coming out warning. Okay, so where is the appropriate reaction. I am not saying it is too late, I am saying it is getting closer and closer to it.

Here is a simple example of out throwaway society and how some are rebelling against it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02v58rd
To end the dominance of throwaway fashion on the high street, we must 'go back to the times of our parent's era when we expected to pay a reasonable price for clothes,' says fashion retail commentator Karen Kay. 'We've been swept away by the pile them high, sell them cheap cycle', she said. Tom Cridland makes sweatshirts which he guarantees for 30 years. Regarding Princess Anne's outfit at Ascot this week, which she previously wore over 30 years ago, he said, 'we need to promote the idea that wearing the same outfit again and again isn't a crime'.
To end the dominance of throwaway fashion on the high street, we must 'go back to the times of our parent's era when we expected to pay a reasonable price for clothes,' says fashion retail commentator Karen Kay. 'We've been swept away by the pile them high, sell them cheap cycle', she said. Tom Cridland makes sweatshirts which he guarantees for 30 years. Regarding Princess Anne's outfit at Ascot this week, which she previously wore over 30 years ago, he said, 'we need to promote the idea that wearing the same outfit again and again isn't a crime'.

The English royalty have an unusual attention to the "want not waste not" mentality that was drummed everyone in the UK during world war II, but it has its roots in the Victorian mentality that everything was valuable and shouldn’t be wasted.

It is this type of thinking that needs to be encouraged to enable life (as we know it) to continue, while at the same time rebelling against the "use it up and throw it away" society that is currently being promoted!

Resources have to become valuable and not wasted again!

My Wife recently read a book which was making the case that 19th century industrialist were known for thrift and economy, think Scrroge or Henry Ford. But later industrialist, starting with Oldsmobile, embraced consumerism and planned obsolescence. Supposedly Olds promoted the yearly style changes to encourage folks to buy a new car every year. I suppose the whole GM Progression through the brands was an extension of that, but also stating your place in society with some conspicuous consumption thrown in.

Can't recall the correct name, Looking for America or Finding America, it's on the boat so not at hand.

Perhaps we could say that thrift went out with the Edwardian era?

P.S. found a related link, 1927, so that makes it a bit post Edwardian.

http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histori ... el-change/

Modern capitalism would fold like cheap lawn chair if people only purchased what they needed, style went stagnant and things were made to last from one generation to the next.

Perhaps we could say that thrift went out with the Edwardian era?

Not really, where I Currently work, we are engaged in a task of clearing out the storeroom of "stuff" that the previous manager decided was "useful!" Clearly a man after my own heart! But, we ran out of space ! So we are just throwing it all away!

Having said that, I have managed to "save" some stuff!

My parents were depression era kids, they saved all kinds of stuff. Hundreds of gallon mayonnaise jars Dad saved from the dumpster. Mom had tons of newspapers from the JFK as assassination. I literally had dump truck loads of crap, and I mean crap!

Now I'm trying to move onto a boat! Oi vey!

When I worked for the railroad the old timers would save all kinds of stuff, actually hide it. During the Pennsylvania bankruptcy they LITERALLY sold the brass arms and numbers from the clocks in the Philadelphia 30th street station. So the men saved all kinds of stuff, hid it under piles of junk. We had a car drive into a storeroom, and it hit an entire switch machine buried under old rope and such. Reading guys were the same, they hid hundreds of relays under the floor of a warehouse in Norristown.

But hell, those were tough times. In Philly we had no heat in the headquarters building. So it was common practice for men to pick up tie stubs and burn them in makeshift stoves, for heat. SEPTA and ?Amtrak were using magneto phones, you may have seen them, hand crank party lines, up into the 90's, I have gone to antique/collector places to find sure parts. Mid 1980's into the 90's.

Newfie wrote:

Graeme wrote:UK Government-backed scientific model flags risk of civilisation’s collapse by 2040

The model does not account for the reality that people will react to escalating crises by changing behavior and policies.

medium

"Reality", what reality? It can't be a reality if it's still lol in the future. It's a POTENTIAL, perhaps likely, or perhaps unlikely.

F'ing people can't think critically anymore.

Come on Newfie. You're playing semantics games. The reality quoted is about the nature of people -- i.e. how they react, and simply extrapolating that CURRENT reality into predicted future behavior.

Playing semantics games isn't a valid condemnation of critical thinking. (It is, of course, sophistry). If you disagree with the assertion, how about a real argument?

For example, here's one -- given how slow societies are to do anything about serious planetary issues like AGW and pollution, expect future policy changes to be glacial (and therefore FAR too slow) until it is far too late.

Lore wrote:Modern capitalism would fold like cheap lawn chair if people only purchased what they needed, style went stagnant and things were made to last from one generation to the next.

If people only obtained and used what they needed, then people (especially in the first world) would have a FAR lower material standard of living. Under ANY system.

Or do you think being socialists or whatever economic system the far left prefers would magically make us all frugal and rich at the same time?

Outcast,

I disagree, I think the word "reality" in the above context is very important.

"The model does not account for the reality that people will react...." Used in this context it make a (unsupported) supposition that people WILL react, and it implies they will act in a positive way. It treats the future as a known fact e.g., "of course people will do the right thing."

By doing so it implies that the projections Of their own work are not really serious, they don't reflect a potential reality, because the reality is people will change.

This is hardly calm,dispassionate analysis of the data.

Also, and importantly, especially since we are on the topic of LTG, is that the CURRENT REALITY is we are taking a BAU approach, in short if we extrapolate the CURRENT REALITY (BAU) then we are UNLIKELY to react. Quite the opposite of what that sentence predicts.

It is also dismissive of considering what changes should be contemplated, no need to, because the "reality" is bad things won't happen.

I often am sloppy with words myself, it gets me into trouble. So, guilty as charged, no superiour attitude. This incident just caught the wrong way and I reacted strongly. Still, I feel my position correct, if not politically correct.

Sometimes words really do matter.

Most mainstream economists are still wed to the idea of limitless growth on a limited planet, but they put lipstick on that pig by calling it 'green growth,' 'sustainable growth,' or some similar absurdity.

Here are some articles addressing the issue:

Premises for a New Economy
Marglin et al 2010
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_sdkp ... tement.pdf

For now, I pull this passage from this report to emphasize that, as enormous as GW issues are, they represent only one portion of the multidimensional sh!t storm we've gotten ourselves into:

the growth regime of the past is problematic. The CO2 barrier is only one of many constraints: without absolute decoupling, continued growth on a global scale at historical rates will sooner or later bring us up against barriers such as toxification, exhaustion and pollution of fresh water supplies, and loss of genetic diversity, not to mention shortages of raw materials, or, equivalently, sharply increasing costs of raw-material extraction.

In short, succeeding beyond our wildest expectations with respect to energy will stabilize the climate, but will also exacerbate these other problems and bring us more quickly up against other barriers to the planetary safe operating space—and perhaps barriers that have not yet been identified.

Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature

Costanza et al 2012
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/c ... Nature.pdf

No, economic growth and climate stability do not go hand-in-hand

http://grist.org/politics/no-economic-g ... d-in-hand/

Green Growth is a Fantasy

http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-green- ... a-fantasy/

And in case anyone had any doubts, we don't have much of any 'carbon budget' to 'spend' on 'green growth':

Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?

A: YES

When analysts say we have just 400 billion tonnes of carbon left that we can safely burn to stand a good chance of keeping global warming below 2 degrees, they usually are not factoring in permafrost thaw or Amazon forest die-back effects. That 400 billion tonne allowance should probably be reduced to 300-350 billion tonnes once we take the permafrost and tropical forest feedbacks into account.

And, when we hear that we have just 35 years left at current emissions rates before we cross the dangerous climate change threshold, we should reduce that time limit by five or 10 years, since nature will be quietly boosting our carbon emissions over the coming decades.

That effect hasn’t yet been factored into most of the studies.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/are-we ... udget.html

The key concept I think is the conflict between consume and sustain; one meaning use up and one; preserve/perpetuate.

I'd like to see PO.com instigate a new minimalism where itty Bitty houses, tiny jobs, small income, small consumption is cool.

I'll start:
Income last year= $24k (12k/person)
Kids = 3 (well, 3 for DW, 1 for me, LoL)
SqFt = 1,200 / 50x100 lot
miles driven = 4k x 25-30mpg (total guesses, excluding moving)

Theme Song

The Ontario Green Energy Act was very much premised on the idea that it would create lots of jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector. In other words, promoting renewable energy was just another way to keep the economy growing. Many other countries that came out with generous feed in tariffs, especially for solar pv, had the same idea. It really didn't work out the way the government had hoped in Ontario.

Pops wrote:The key concept I think is the conflict between consume and sustain; one meaning use up and one; preserve/perpetuate.

I'd like to see PO.com instigate a new minimalism where itty Bitty houses, tiny jobs, small income, small consumption is cool.

I'll start:
Income last year= $24k (12k/person)
Kids = 3 (well, 3 for DW, 1 for me, LoL)
SqFt = 1,200 / 50x100 lot
miles driven = 4k x 25-30mpg (total guesses, excluding moving)

Theme Song

You are doing better than us Pops. But we will improve next year when retired.

In our own defense we do have our wood lot "sequestered" which should count for something.

Income last year: 36K (me alone before tax) part time job (remember danish tax is approx 50% and price levels about twice of U.S.).
Wife is an energy sink taking education.
Kids: [email protected] (both of us)
House: 1300 sq.ft (extra 800 being built), property: 17000 sq.ft
miles driven excl. work: about 2000km (me) 15000km (wife) @62 mpg (same car)
Electrical usage: 7000KWh/y - solarpanels produced 6000kwh/y.

Ya know, this whole "Green" thing ticks me off.

First of all, absolutely none of it is sustainable in the least. The way I look at it, the societies of North America before 1492 were more or less sustainable. Yes there were several booms and busts, but they were mostly localized and recovered from them quickly. I would have to say that the way the Northeast tribes, for instance, were living was sustainable over the long term. They even had a policy to consider the impact of their decisions on the seventh generation after them, we worry about next quarter.

Green economy or green growth they probably both mean, I would imagine, solar panels. If you think solar panels are in any way sustainable, you have another think coming. I was just reading about how solar panels are made and one of the ingredients is boron. Here's a nice, sustainable boron mine:

How "green" is that?
And oh yeah, it was also phosphorus, too. Hey, don't we need that stuff to like, uh, fertilize our food? I keep hearing there is not that much of that to go around. You wanna recharge your phone or eat?

And then, titanium dioxide.


But ok, since I'm getting bored, you must be too, so here's the rest of the process:

The solar module consists of the silicon semiconductor surrounded by protective material in a metal frame. The protective material consists of an encapsulant of transparent silicon rubber or butyryl plastic (commonly used in automobile windshields) bonded around the cells, which are then embedded in ethylene vinyl acetate. A polyester film (such as mylar or tedlar) makes up the backing. A glass cover is found on terrestrial arrays, a lightweight plastic cover on satellite arrays. The electronic parts are standard and consist mostly of copper. The frame is either steel or aluminum.

Read more: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Solar-C ... z3g19ZWrvB

Sounds to me like there's fossil fuel components in there, and some standard metals. Do I need to post an iron or aluminum mine picture to make my point? Please note that without the extra energy background of fossil fuels, those mines would not exist. Not to mention all the GHG emitted during the mining and manufacturing processes probably cuts in half the "green" claims of solar panels.
Oh, I forgot to add, the silicon has to be refined to 100% pure by heating it up to 2400F... I hope you don't think they're using solar for that heat. More GHGs... green my posterior.

I'm sorry, I think that if you use it and it doesn't grow from the ground every year or so, it's just not sustainable.

Ask me where I got this attitude, go ahead...

I won't keep you in suspense. It's because I've posted and lurked (and read many, many, many of the excellent links you folks supply) for 10 friggin' years.

Thanks for that, by the way.

Thought I'd bump this old thread.

Beyond specifics like flying and meat/dairy eating, there is just plain old consumption of crap that is mostly driving the world rapidly into oblivion. One part of that which is particularly bad wrt GW is all the transport that moving 11 billion tons of crap a year involves.

Now you can get a nice visualization of all that moving sh!t around.

(Some wit once, when it was pointed out that Denmark sells some thousands of pounds of a particular kind of cookie to the UK, while the UK sells a similar quantity of another kind of cookie to Demark, opined, "Why not just swap recipes?? )

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11503152/s ... routes-map

Pops wrote:The key concept I think is the conflict between consume and sustain; one meaning use up and one; preserve/perpetuate.

I'd like to see PO.com instigate a new minimalism where itty Bitty houses, tiny jobs, small income, small consumption is cool.

I'll start:
Income last year= $24k (12k/person)
Kids = 3 (well, 3 for DW, 1 for me, LoL)
SqFt = 1,200 / 50x100 lot
miles driven = 4k x 25-30mpg (total guesses, excluding moving)

Theme Song

There is more than one route to more sustainable living.

My income is relatively large ($100K to $200K on average), though inconsistent, since the vast majority of it comes from investment income (from 35+ years of saving, investing, and living on a small fraction of my total income. so I don't apologize for that).

However, I have no kids. My house, miles driven, etc. compare closely with yours. I focus on buying very little consumer cr*p and having a small energy footprint by doing common sense things like minimizing heating/cooling, travel, etc.

I only spend a small fraction of my income on myself. I spend much more on taxes, my sister's family (via gifts), helping friends (via gifts) and charity than I do on myself -- and yes, I still save (and invest the savings) when I can -- a lifetime of ingrained habits dies hard).

Spending money on "stuff" generally equates to a larger carbon footprint, so to me, this both helps people and avoids the carbon footprint of most of "the stuff". I've never understood why big cars, houses, and fancy stuff are equated with happiness -- once I'm warm, dry, fed, have decent medical care, basic clothes, etc., climbing Maslowe's heirarchy has very little to do with spending money aside from having access to media.)

One doesn't have to be an idiot and live large like Al Gore, just because one has a larger income.

joewp wrote:Ya know, this whole "Green" thing ticks me off.

First of all, absolutely none of it is sustainable in the least. The way I look at it, the societies of North America before 1492 were more or less sustainable. Yes there were several booms and busts, but they were mostly localized and recovered from them quickly. I would have to say that the way the Northeast tribes, for instance, were living was sustainable over the long term. They even had a policy to consider the impact of their decisions on the seventh generation after them, we worry about next quarter.

Green economy or green growth they probably both mean, I would imagine, solar panels. If you think solar panels are in any way sustainable, you have another think coming. I was just reading about how solar panels are made and one of the ingredients is boron. Here's a nice, sustainable boron mine:

How "green" is that?
And oh yeah, it was also phosphorus, too. Hey, don't we need that stuff to like, uh, fertilize our food? I keep hearing there is not that much of that to go around. You wanna recharge your phone or eat?

And then, titanium dioxide.


But ok, since I'm getting bored, you must be too, so here's the rest of the process:

The solar module consists of the silicon semiconductor surrounded by protective material in a metal frame. The protective material consists of an encapsulant of transparent silicon rubber or butyryl plastic (commonly used in automobile windshields) bonded around the cells, which are then embedded in ethylene vinyl acetate. A polyester film (such as mylar or tedlar) makes up the backing. A glass cover is found on terrestrial arrays, a lightweight plastic cover on satellite arrays. The electronic parts are standard and consist mostly of copper. The frame is either steel or aluminum.

Read more: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Solar-C ... z3g19ZWrvB

Sounds to me like there's fossil fuel components in there, and some standard metals. Do I need to post an iron or aluminum mine picture to make my point? Please note that without the extra energy background of fossil fuels, those mines would not exist. Not to mention all the GHG emitted during the mining and manufacturing processes probably cuts in half the "green" claims of solar panels.
Oh, I forgot to add, the silicon has to be refined to 100% pure by heating it up to 2400F... I hope you don't think they're using solar for that heat. More GHGs... green my posterior.

I'm sorry, I think that if you use it and it doesn't grow from the ground every year or so, it's just not sustainable.

Ask me where I got this attitude, go ahead...

I won't keep you in suspense. It's because I've posted and lurked (and read many, many, many of the excellent links you folks supply) for 10 friggin' years.

Thanks for that, by the way.

yeah, I am with you on this one. If you want to be really green and sustainable then you have to build a home that doesn't need much in the way of external energy. You also have to make it as passive as possible so it gets its temperature control directly from the environment. That still leaves you with the open questions of running water, sewage disposal, food supply and on and on and on.

If we had a Billion humans who could spread out and live passive sustainable that would possibly work, but with 7.4 Billion of us and counting 'green' living becomes more and more of an oxymoron each day.