Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Have Even A Partial Solution?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

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

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 16:25:11

Cabrone wrote:He has a good point that the government and corporations can make a huge difference to reduce our energy intensive lifestyles.
Governments, yes. Corporations, no. Business exists to make a profit and to increase that profit year after year. That will have to change. Corporations must aim to be neutral in terms of resource usage - whatever resources they use must either be renewable (at least at the rate they are being used) or be returned to the environment in some way (i.e. no net usage of non-renewables). I don't think any business in the world would do that and it means a completely different society, in my view. When societies near the end of (or a markedly reduced capacity to extract) resources, then that society has to change to a new way of working. If that doesn't happen, then I see collapse as inevitable.
Cabrone wrote:apply taxes to motorists based on carbon output
That would be seen as unfair by many who can't afford to just ditch their cars. I think that kind of scheme would have to be preceeded by a government (i.e. a tax-payer) handout to get all cars fully serviced and, as far as possible, tuned to minimise emissions and maximise fuel efficiency, before starting to tax, perhaps based on the car getting no worse (on both those factors) year on year (or more frequently). Cutting speed limits and enforcing them (coupled with a large effort to inform people of the reasons) would be an additional benefit. There could also be incentives to move to more efficient vehicles but unless people see it as fair on the vast majority, it wouldn't get suppport. However, this kind of thing is just a delaying tactic, more radical change is needed in the long run, though energy saved must be ploughed into restructuring society to a sustainable position.

Population increases also need to be halted.

I don't expect any of this to happen.

Tony
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 16:58:23

Zardoz wrote:I have a problem with planning for the future. I can't get motivated to do anything about it for one very simple reason: None of us know what's going to happen.


I can empathize with this. However, we do know some things:

1. The cost to access energy is going to go up no matter what new energy sources we develop.

2. The ability to support our current population, affluence, and growth will decline.

3. We will need to downscale everything we do to be able to cope and adapt.

4. The socio-economic upheaval will create chaos.

5. We will fight over the access to the remaining energy.

How it plays out will depend upon the rate and magnitude of change.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16587
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

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

Unread postby Gridlock » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 17:11:05

5. We will fight over the access to the remaining energy.


Who is we? Many countries have remained fiercely independent over the past century, and prospered as a result. Other countries have absolutely nothing to offer to a war (what was the country that offered monkeys in the coalition of the willing?).

Bush said "America is addicted to oil". Doesn't seem to make sense if you are about to kick-off about it.

Nukes seem to remain a deterrent.
User avatar
Gridlock
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri 05 May 2006, 02:00:00

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 17:15:04

Cabrone wrote: For me, the biggest obstacle is not the people, it's the powers that be. They do not want change. They have the clout to make huge changes but they want to keep their power bases and are willing to push us all to the edge just so they can sustain their positions.


How do you know they have not run the numbers and concluded that the changes people wish would happen cannot happen fast enough or on a scale large enough to avoid a major socio-economic upheaval?

You conclude that the warnings laid out by the Hirsch Report are not real? Do you also assume that peak oil is years or decades away?

If not, then we don't have time to mitigate and avoid a major socio-economic upheaval.

So, what do we do?

We do everything we can to ensure more supply of fossil fuels from the only remaining abundant supply; the Middle east.

"As Willie Sutton the bank robber said when asked why he robbed banks, 'because that's where the money is'."

The Middle East is where the oil is.

"The American way of life is not negotiable."
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16587
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 17:17:18

Gridlock wrote: Who is we?


Everyone who can.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16587
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

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

Unread postby Gridlock » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 17:28:46

Everyone who can.


Or, maybe everyone who needs to. Or thinks that they'll prosper as a result. Even the CIA referred to the current US admin as 'the crazies'. Can't see personally how they can start another war, without MAJOR civil disobedience.
User avatar
Gridlock
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri 05 May 2006, 02:00:00

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 18:24:01

Gridlock wrote:
Everyone who can.


Or, maybe everyone who needs to. Or thinks that they'll prosper as a result. Even the CIA referred to the current US admin as 'the crazies'. Can't see personally how they can start another war, without MAJOR civil disobedience.


Who doesn' t need energy?

What do you mean "start"?

We have been engaged in one for years now. Ever hear of Iraq?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16587
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

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

Unread postby Gridlock » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 18:55:17

Who doesn' t need energy?


I think it tends to get weighed up in a cost/benefit analysis, in terms of going to war.

What do you mean "start"?


Probably my imagination, but Saddam was going to start-it in 45 mins. No doubt the Iranians will soon have that potential too.

We have been engaged in one for years now. Ever hear of Iraq?


Indeed. I think the CIA has a nice term for that too, ‘blowback’. Or perhaps they should now call it ‘global blowback’. We reap what we sow. Now the US/UK is going to have to get cosy with it, and the American way of life becomes negotiable.
User avatar
Gridlock
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri 05 May 2006, 02:00:00

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 19:13:30

Gridlock wrote:
Who doesn' t need energy?


I think it tends to get weighed up in a cost/benefit analysis, in terms of going to war.


C'mon, eat or starve is pretty clear.

Name one country that is independent of globalization short of the hunter gatherers.

Let's bring it down to the big users, China, India, Europe, the US, and the greater Asian growth.

They will fight for the remaining resources. Everyone else will be caught up the melee.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16587
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

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

Unread postby Ludi » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 19:18:17

MonteQuest wrote:
Gridlock wrote:
Who doesn' t need energy?


I think it tends to get weighed up in a cost/benefit analysis, in terms of going to war.


C'mon, eat or starve is pretty clear.

Name one country that is independent of globalization short of the hunter gatherers.

Let's bring it down to the big users, China, India, Europe, the US, and the greater Asian growth.

They will fight for the remaining resources. Everyone else will be caught up the melee.


It isn't a question of what they "will" do, or "might do" - this is what they ARE DOING. We ARE at war in the oil-rich Middle East. This is a present FACT.
Ludi
 

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 19:22:24

Gridlock wrote:Probably my imagination, but Saddam was going to start-it in 45 mins.


The Iraq invasion was planned long before 9/11. That is a matter of public record.

From my book:

Montequest wrote:The report, titled, Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century, written by the neo-conservative think tank Project for the New American Century spelled out the genuine rationale for a war on Iraq.
The document declared that the U.S. would have to assume military control of the Persian Gulf region, whether or not the Iraqi regime posed a threat. (http://www.newamericancentury.org)
It stated: “The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”


Montequest wrote:“America, declared Paul Wolfowitz, must be ready to go to war, and many should be prepared to die.” “No threats to our “global dominance” will be tolerated - that will be the “dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources [oil] would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16587
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

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

Unread postby Gridlock » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 19:41:00

C'mon, eat or starve is pretty clear.


Ouch, sign me up for the draft. It’s that clear-cut isn’t it?

Name one country that is independent of globalization short of the hunter gatherers.


I'd go for Venezuela, though I don't see the relevance in terms of war.

Let's bring it down to the big users, China, India, Europe, the US, and the greater Asian growth.


All absolutely dependent on each other, to continue the growth paradigm.

They will fight for the remaining resources. Everyone else will be caught up the melee.


Not if it is futile they won’t, I figured we we’re all gonna die in the Cuban missile crisis. But I agree it’s a possibility, as is meteor impact, pandemics etc. Oh Monte, can you publish your book on-line please? Or explain why we have to ask you for it?
User avatar
Gridlock
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri 05 May 2006, 02:00:00

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 20:04:45

Gridlock wrote:
Name one country that is independent of globalization short of the hunter gatherers.


I'd go for Venezuela, though I don't see the relevance in terms of war.


They import nothing they can't make at home? Doubt it. Scarcity breeds poverty and poverty breeds conflict.

Oh Monte, can you publish your book on-line please? Or explain why we have to ask you for it?


Why does it matter as long as you get it? You have to ask for it because it isn't published on-line.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16587
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 20:10:47

Gridlock wrote: Not if it is futile they won’t...


How soon we forget history....

From my book:

After Hitler invaded the U.S.S.R. in late June 1941, and Japan occupied the rest of Indochina, FDR froze all Japanese assets, thus cutting off trade, including oil. Without oil, Japan could not long continue the war against China; without oil, the Japanese Empire would wither and die. Japan made numerous efforts to negotiate using diplomatic measures to avoid war, but the U.S. rejected their offers. Six days before he cut the oil lifeline, he was warned in a memo from the navy chief of war plans that “doing so would lead promptly to Japanese action against the Philippines, which would involve us in a Pacific War.”
An oil embargo was an “economic war” against an oil-starved nation, and FDR had a moral duty to inform the nation that he had pushed Japan into a corner where Tokyo must yield to America’s demand─or attack. But FDR did not do so. In an August poll, Americans, by 76 percent to 24 percent, said stay out of war with Japan.
On October 30, 1941, in a campaign speech in Boston, FDR made this amazing statement: “And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I will give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again. Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”


On November 25, 1941, Secretary of War and CFR member, Henry L. Stimson wrote in his diary: “In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot, we realized that, in order to have the full support of the American people, it was desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there could be no doubt in anyone’s mind as to who were the aggressors… The question was, how we should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing too much damage to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition.”
The next day, America demanded that Japan relinquish all conquests since 1937, withdraw all her troops from both China and Indochina—and in effect abrogate her Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy—as the price of lifting the embargo. To Tokyo, this was an ultimatum.
Thus the day of reckoning came for the Empire of the Sun; diplomatic surrender and humiliating retreat from China, and the end of their reign as a great power—or a desperate lunge south to seize the vital resources for which Japan was starving. But first, they had to neutralize the one force that could prevent them from doing so: the U.S. battle fleet riding at anchor at Pearl Harbor.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16587
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

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

Unread postby Gridlock » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 20:17:35

They import nothing they can't make at home? Doubt it. Scarcity breeds poverty and poverty breeds conflict.


Seem to be quite happy at the moment to me. Think they will be for a while yet. The correlation between happiness and wealth tends to breakdown once you go below the poverty level. Do you think that is happening there?

Why does it matter as long as you get it? You have to ask for it because it isn't published on-line.


It’s free right? I’m just wondering whether you have to become a convert first? Why not stick it out there on the big www?
User avatar
Gridlock
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri 05 May 2006, 02:00:00

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 20:34:50

The point I am trying to make is that TPTB have looked at the facts and concluded that war over the resources is imminent. They don't have time to waste on alternatives, conservation, or efficiencies. We must secure future supplies of fossil fuels, not only for economic growth, but for national security.

Take ExxonMobil, the #1 oil company in the world. What do they say?

From the 2005 Financial & Operating Review:

ExxonMobil wrote:Fossil fuels will continue to provide the majority of energy through 2030. These are the only fuels with the scale and flexibility to meet the bulk of our global needs over the next 25 years.

Oil is uniquely suited to transport needs; there is no practical alternative to oil on a global scale in the near term.

Wind and solar energy growth will likely average about 11 percent per year, driven by subsidies and related mandates. Even with this strong projected growth, their share of total energy in 2030 will be only about 1 percent.


So, if fossil fuels are the only energy source that can practically scale to meet demand, and solar/wind will only contribute 1%, it doesn't require a rocket scientist to deduce that securing more oil is the only "acceptable" solution.

Biofuels is PR bullshit to massage the masses.

So, the choice comes down to a powerdown or a war over the remaining fossil fuels.

I think we will get both.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16587
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 20:38:23

Gridlock wrote: Seem to be quite happy at the moment to me. Think they will be for a while yet. The correlation between happiness and wealth tends to breakdown once you go below the poverty level. Do you think that is happening there?


You miss the point entirely. Someone else care to bring him up to speed?

It’s free right? ?


Yes, my book is free.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16587
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

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

Unread postby Gridlock » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 20:52:58

The point I am trying to make is that TPTB have looked at the facts and concluded that war over the resources is imminent. They don't have time to waste on alternatives, conservation, or efficiencies


Then someone better give Paddy Fitzgerald his P45. Why in hell’s name would Bush say ‘America is addicted to oil’. Why aren’t you in Iran/Saudi already

So, if fossil fuels are the only energy source that can practically scale to meet demand, and solar/wind will only contribute 1%, it doesn't require a rocket scientist to deduce that securing more oil is the only "acceptable" solution.


Not if there is a massive amount of cash to be made over renewables. I believe it comes down to cost/benefit sadly. Had Iraq turned out different then I wouldn't be arguing.
User avatar
Gridlock
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri 05 May 2006, 02:00:00

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

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 20:57:38

Gridlock wrote:Seem to be quite happy at the moment to me.
But they are highly reliant on their oil export revenues. Their economy collapsed after an oil strike in 2002, partly because of lack of energy and partly because 80% of export earnings disappeared. They are in the global economy, not isolated as you seem to suggest. But even allowing for a few examples of less dependence on the global economy, most nations will suffer due to any global economic downturn. And the poor will probably suffer most (at least to begin with).

Tony
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

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

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 21:01:51

Gridlock wrote:
So, if fossil fuels are the only energy source that can practically scale to meet demand, and solar/wind will only contribute 1%, it doesn't require a rocket scientist to deduce that securing more oil is the only "acceptable" solution.


Not if there is a massive amount of cash to be made over renewables. I believe it comes down to cost/benefit sadly.
The scale of growth required for renewables to make a dent is gigantic. It doesn't matter how much money can be made, it ain't gonna scale up quickly enough, even if there was enough energy to support such scaling, which there doesn't seem to be.

Tony
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests