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 rwwff » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 21:04:32

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

How soon we forget history....


Actually, I think it is the fact that we don't forget history that insures that futile conflicts won't be fought. Japan's gamble is the closest you can come to a debatablly futile effort (from a '41 Japanese reference frame), and we all know how horribly that turned out for them.

Since that era, the world has scrupulously avoided direct fights between major powers for specifically this reason. Simple example that gets on people's minds the most... If the US and China went to war over ME oil. China would end up with no imported oil, and the central committee folks know this. The US would end up with no imported oil, and the exec&congressional powers know this. Who would end up victorious? India. So the US and China (and those we've pulled into our Pacific Cartel), play a dance of dollars instead, slowing stripping India of its ability to keep up; each of us producing what we're really good at, and the US keeping the flow of dollar denominated oil into the market secure.

This dance is only going to get tighter as the pressure rises on oil supplies.

Does it suck, in a way, to choose to dance till the closing song with a communist oligarchy and abandon the world's largest democracy. Sure. But China is an asset, and India is a leach; thus the dance card is set. No reason to pretend otherwise.
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: East Texas

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

Unread postby Gridlock » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 21:14:13

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).


Agreed that they are in the global economy, but they don't sing from the song sheet. What are the timescales for their collapse that you are talking about? 5 years? 10?

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.


Agreed. But I’m not sure that was this debate. It was whether the world would go to war over oil.
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, 21:49:13

Gridlock wrote: Why in hell’s name would Bush say ‘America is addicted to oil’.


Pablum and misdirection.

Why aren’t you in Iran/Saudi already


Be patient.

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.


There is a massive amount to made with renewables as well. Problem is, fossil fuels meet the demand while rrenewables do not.

Had Iraq turned out different then I wouldn't be arguing.


What do you mean differently? They still have the 2nd largest reserves and we are still there building many permanent military bases.

We are never going to leave. Ever.

The 2,500 deaths and the billions spent?

Price of doing business.
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, 21:56:24

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

How soon we forget history....


Actually, I think it is the fact that we don't forget history that insures that futile conflicts won't be fought.


So, what were the Gulf War and Desert Storm all about?

The spread of Democracy?

The conflicts have begun, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq.

You forget that it is not reason that starts or stops wars, it is 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 rwwff » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 21:57:10

MonteQuest wrote:The 2,500 deaths and the billions spent?


We sacrificed 25 times that for a nuthin in South East Asia. I can't imagine that anyone thinks that Iraq is a less valuable prize than Vietnam.
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: East Texas

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 21:58:01

Gridlock wrote: It was whether the world would go to war over oil.


The world has, and will always go to war over oil.

What is the alternative?
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 rwwff » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 22:11:23

MonteQuest wrote:
rwwff wrote:Actually, I think it is the fact that we don't forget history that insures that futile conflicts won't be fought.


So, what were the Gulf War and Desert Storm all about?


A very successful effort to insure that adequate oil for the US, China, and Japan will be traded in dollars over the course of the next decade; and probably longer. Not futile at all. Futile is where you can not achieve your objective and harm yourself in the process. When Bush proclaimed "mission accomplished", yall might not have understood it, but he was absolutely serious and correct.

The spread of Democracy?

Oh please. I honestly hope you never believed that stinky pile of camel poo.

The conflicts have begun, starting with Afghanistan and Iraq.
You forget that it is not reason that starts or stops wars, it is power.

And its close cousin, greed. Which we in the US have in staggering quantities. So, no, I do not forget. Reason serves power and greed, it does not master them.
abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: East Texas

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 22:19:52

rwwff wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
rwwff wrote:Actually, I think it is the fact that we don't forget history that insures that futile conflicts won't be fought.


So, what were the Gulf War and Desert Storm all about?


A very successful effort to insure that adequate oil for the US, China, and Japan will be traded in dollars over the course of the next decade; and probably longer. Not futile at all. Futile is where you can not achieve your objective and harm yourself in the process.


And since when did that ever stop a war or a battle? Tell that to the warmongers of the past. They didn't listen then and they won't listen now.

So, what's your point? Is it futile to fight to secure energy to power your economy and provide for national security?

You cannot seriously be positing that we will simply set back and let China outbid us for energy do you?
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 rwwff » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 22:48:38

MonteQuest wrote:
rwwff wrote:A very successful effort to insure that adequate oil for the US, China, and Japan will be traded in dollars over the course of the next decade; and probably longer. Not futile at all. Futile is where you can not achieve your objective and harm yourself in the process.


And since when did that ever stop a war or a battle? Tell that to the warmongers of the past. They didn't listen then and they won't listen now.

Your statement does not demonstrate that the effort in Iraq is futile. The Iraq occupation, and its follow on "status of forces" arrangements remain strategically and economically vital. Besides, why would we want to stop any of our current battles/wars?

So, what's your point? Is it futile to fight to secure energy to power your economy and provide for national security?
Absolutely not. But you fail to understand the definition of "your economy".

You cannot seriously be positing that we will simply set back and let China outbid us for energy do you?
Whats to outbid? Californians are easily able to outbid Kansans for oil; it certainly isn't the end of American Capitalism when they do so. China and Japan are as interwoven into the US economy as is Illinois; the only thing that could really hurt the US is if the Arabs decided not to trade adequate oil in dollars. And thats why the troops are there, thats why the permanent bases are in Iraq; thats why we need Israel, thats why we risk whole carrier battle groups cruising that puning excuse of a seaway between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Just as Japan would attack over denial of oil; so would we; but we wouldn't be attacking China, we'd be attacking Riyadh and Tehran. Attacking China would be futile. Crushing an overshot country like Arabia or Iran, would be trivially easy, and gruesome beyond description. In our little Pacifica DollarLand, our job is software, sophisticated largescale machinery, agriculture, *AND* power projection.
abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: East Texas

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

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 23:26:57

rwwff wrote: Whats to outbid?


Whats to outbid? In a world of declining energy availability, you think business as usual will continue as one country outbids another for the energy necessary to it's economy?

China is flush with money, we are bankrupt.

What is your point?

We will not fight over access to the remaining fossil fuels?

We already are.
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 rwwff » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 23:47:52

MonteQuest wrote:
rwwff wrote: Whats to outbid?

Whats to outbid? In a world of declining energy availability, you think business as usual will continue as one country outbids another for the energy necessary to it's economy?

China is flush with money, we are bankrupt.


You're starting to dream big. The US isn't even close to bankrupt. As long as the Chinese are buying that oil in dollars, its all golden.

What is your point?
We will not fight over access to the remaining fossil fuels?
We already are.


Of course we're gonna fight and we currently are fighting, and will continue to fight for decades to come; but we aren't gonna fight the Chinese. Sheesh. That is my point.

However, if we're gonna fight a big player, it will be India. Some might say we've already begun, considering the impacts that the combination of sea level rise and the mass conversion of grain into ethanol could likely have on India.... Starvation, storms, innundation... could be bad. Maybe even eventually bad enough to compare with Japan's 1941 situation... What happens when millions of Indians start dieing of starvation while Americans are filling their Expeditions with ethanol? How long till GW decimates croplands in India? Coastal innundation and resultant pollution releases replacing shrimp and fish and oysters with a great slag of green or red algae.

Strategic rule: Don't pick a fight you can't win, when there is an equally profitable fight available that you can win.


Haven't you ever asked yourself why Pakistan gets better press than India??? Preparing the PR space for the inevitable, perhaps?
abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: East Texas

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

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 01 Jul 2006, 23:59:10

Gridlock wrote:
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).


Agreed that they are in the global economy, but they don't sing from the song sheet. What are the timescales for their collapse that you are talking about? 5 years? 10?
2002 they had a 9% contraction, 2003 they had an 8% contraction. It was an immediate effect, presumably because of their high reliance on oil exports, and on their internal use of oil.

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 » Sun 02 Jul 2006, 00:07:04

rwwff wrote: The US isn't even close to bankrupt.


There is an old saying, "Cast not your pearls before the swine."
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 rwwff » Sun 02 Jul 2006, 00:37:47

MonteQuest wrote:
rwwff wrote:The US isn't even close to bankrupt.
There is an old saying, "Cast not your pearls before the swine."


Sayings are cute, but they prove nothing.

Granted, I kinda wish you were right, cause I don't particularly approve of the tack we've been on for the past twenty years or so. But, just because I disapprove doesn't mean I should bury my head in the sand and pretend the US doesn't have the steam to make this all happen.

But as it is, 5mbpd of production adds more than enough inertial force to the US juggernaught to see all these things come to pass. Its just a simple synergy, the US can print as many dollars as it wishes, and the US produces 5mbpd of oil. That oil is worth a certain amount in any currency, it can't be undone or made to disappear, and it will continue for at least 25 more years.

Again, I wish you were right, but you're not, and this is gonna get way ugly.

The US and China are gonna eat India and Indonesia alive. Look on the bright side though; you'll get your desired population reduction.
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: East Texas

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

Unread postby Gridlock » Sun 02 Jul 2006, 05:04:45

Pablum and misdirection.


Blimey, so Bush has just declared his battle-plan for the next decade to the millions of global anti-war protesters? This is gonna be fun.

Be patient.


I think being patient is very important. Saudi is a virtual state of the US, and Iran, not a chance IMO, (Russia/China get rather p*ssed, Venezuela shuts off all the oil, Pandora’s box is opened). The CIA referred to the current US admin as ‘the crazies’. Even Zbig has criticised them.

There is a massive amount to made with renewables as well. Problem is, fossil fuels meet the demand while rrenewables do not.


Is there any point in time when renewables will meet demand in your opinion?

What do you mean differently? They still have the 2nd largest reserves and we are still there building many permanent military bases.

We are never going to leave. Ever.

The 2,500 deaths and the billions spent?

Price of doing business.


Agree we are never going to leave. But the political/economic/military cost has been huge.

Still want to understand why one has to ask for your book, you'd save alot of time if you just published it online and advertised the link.
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 Gridlock » Sun 02 Jul 2006, 05:16:07

You cannot seriously be positing that we will simply set back and let China outbid us for energy do you?


And you are seriously positing that the US will wage a war with China over it? Why did the cold war never become a conventional war?
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 Gridlock » Sun 02 Jul 2006, 05:29:11

2002 they had a 9% contraction, 2003 they had an 8% contraction. It was an immediate effect, presumably because of their high reliance on oil exports, and on their internal use of oil.


What have oil prices looked like meanwhile?
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 » Sun 02 Jul 2006, 12:23:41

Gridlock wrote: Is there any point in time when renewables will meet demand in your opinion?


No, not at this population level and degree of affluence. While many energy sources are renewable, they are not sustainable. Only energy generation directly from the sun, wind, and water temperature differential can be sustainable.

Biologist Jeffrey Dukes calculated that the fossil fuels we burn in one year were made from organic matter “containing 44×10 to the 18 grams of carbon, which is more than 400 times the net primary productivity (NPP) of the planet’s current biota.”(1) In plain English, this means that every year we use four centuries’ worth of plant photosynthesis stored as carbon.

This tells us that biofuels can never be more that a very small contribution even if maximized, not to mention that is is industrial agriculture dependent upoon soil mining and fossil fuels to exist.

We consume 40% of the earth's NPP already. How much more can we take from the other lifeforms of earth?
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 » Sun 02 Jul 2006, 12:39:58

Gridlock wrote:
You cannot seriously be positing that we will simply set back and let China outbid us for energy do you?


And you are seriously positing that the US will wage a war with China over it? Why did the cold war never become a conventional war?


I am saying that the world will fight over the remaining fossil fuel resources. Who and where remains to be seen. But since China and the US are the big users with the big armies...connect the dots.

It may start with the US coming to the aid of Japan as China and Japan fight over the oil and gas in the east/south China sea.

Have you not been following the news?

Oil may fuel Sino-US conflict

China's quest for oil in the Middle East is threatening US energy and security interests in the region and increasing the risk of a conflict between both nations, analysts say.


Link

China-Japan oil race inevitable

Japan has been kept on edge by China's increasing oil demand in the past two years. Objectively speaking China is a country with relatively rich energy resources. However, in terms of make-up, China is currently rich in coal but short in oil and gas. China's oil consumption has been growing at an annual rate of around six percent over the past decade while that of the output was only 1.5 percent. However, China surpassed Japan to be the second oil importer in the world.

An indisputable fact is that both China and Japan are confronted with the same scarcity of energy and an surprising convergence.

Link


The cold war was over ideology, not energy.
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 » Sun 02 Jul 2006, 15:11:50

No, not at this population level and degree of affluence.


And personally I think if something is going to give, it will be affluence, though I would like to see a steady decline in population which will probably result from the loss of affluence as medical costs etc soar and I’d hope Government incentives to reduce the birth-rate. Sorry I mistyped something ealier on, I meant that a loss of affluence does not mean a reduction in happiness, although it does as you approach the level of poverty.

Have you not been following the news?


Yes, a lot of it is extremely scary, particularly the links you provide. I’d expect a lot of covert operations and back room deals before they undertake something that may lead to destruction of both nations, similar to the cold war. I’d also expect that many other countries will keep out of it.

I don’t deny it’s a huge problem. But what motivates collective action is not, IMO, what you described in the population reduction thread.
User avatar
Gridlock
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri 05 May 2006, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests