Inexpensive oil or the lack there of.

YourFatAuntSusan

So. Peak Oil.

Wikipedia defines Peak oil as:

“The point or timeframe at which the maximum global petroleum production rate is reached. After this timeframe, the rate of production will enter terminal decline. If global consumption is not mitigated before the peak, the availability of cheap conventional oil will drop and prices will rise, perhaps dramatically.”

As of November 1, 2007, production trends have shown a peak in oil production occurred in July 2006.

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net states:

“What all of this means, in short, is that the aftermath of Peak Oil will extend far beyond how much you will pay for gas. To illustrate: in a July 2006 special report published by the Chicago Tribune, Pullitzer Prize winning journalist Paul Salopek described the consequences of Peak Oil as follows:
. . . the consequences would be unimaginable. Permanent fuel shortages would tip the world into a generations-long economic depression. Millions would lose their jobs as industry implodes. Farm tractors would be idled for lack of fuel, triggering massive famines. Energy wars would flare. And carless suburbanites would trudge to their nearest big box stores, not to buy Chinese made clothing transported cheaply across the globe, but to scavenge glass and copper wire from abandoned buildings.

Journalist Jonathan Gatehouse summarized the conclusions of Oxford trained geologist Jeremy Leggett, author of The Empty Tank: Oil, Gas, Hot Air, and the Coming Financial Catastrophe, in a 2006 Macleans article as follows, emphasis added:

. . . when the truth can no longer be obscured, the price will spike, the economy nosedive, and the underpinnings of our civilization will start tumbling like dominos. "The price of houses will collapse. Stock markets will crash. Within a short period, human wealth -- little more than a pile of paper at the best of times, even with the confidence about the future high among traders -- will shrivel." There will be emergency summits, diplomatic initiatives, urgent exploration efforts, but the turmoil will not subside. Thousands of companies will go bankrupt, and millions will be unemployed. "Once affluent cities with street cafés will have queues at soup kitchens and armies of beggars. The crime rate will soar. The earth has always been a dangerous place, but now it will become a tinderbox."

So, what is the D&D take on things?

tldr; Affordable oil going to be a thing of the past, it means more than expensive gasoline. (no gasoline?)

FirstComradeStalin

I don't think we've experienced peak oil yet. It's coming, and maybe in the next 10~20 years, but we're not at it right now. I mean, the only evidence we have of a peak is a one-year decline, which anyone proficient in statistics will tell you is not enough.

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud

Man, people were talking about it hitting peak two years ago.
We keep discovering new oil sources. We have to bleed it dry for a while still.

YourFatAuntSusan

I will agree that a one year decline is not enough to come to a concensus that we've reached the peak, but humor these two scenarios:

1)It's wrong and the peak is 10 years away.
2)It’s right but we don’t know it yet because the data is still too “new”.

If the first option is the correct one, 10 years is not a long time. For the sake of argument let’s say 20 years. There aren’t a whole hell of a lot of promising technologies that can be rolled out to change the entire face of our oil driven economy.

It the second option is the right one, it’s too late.

Irregardless, if history has taught us anything, humanity will not face up to a situation until it’s already in full swing. I’ve casually mentioned peak oil to coworkers in conversation by saying something like “Oh hey, oil isn’t renewable. I wonder what will replace it?” and I get responses such as, “There’s enough oil for another million years” or, “The government will fix it.”

YourFatAuntSusan

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud wrote: »

Man, people were talking about it hitting peak two years ago.
We keep discovering new oil sources. We have to bleed it dry for a while still.

But the sources that are being found are unconventional sources and cost much, much more to get and refine than conventional. Take the supposed find in Brazil. This is considered ultra-deep pre-salt era oil which is more than 23,000 feet down. 6000 ft of water, 10000 ft of sand and 6000 ft of salt.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7086264.stm

If big oil is willing to go through that trouble for the oil, that's a pretty clear warning sign. And even if they manage to get to it, the amound of oil there is inconsequential. 4 billion barrels. Current demand is 80 million barrels per day and rising.

Rhan9

Well, necessity is the mother of invention (or was it laziness, I can't remember). Anyhow, if it comes clear that we're going to run out of oil soon, people would panic and churn out some alternative means relatively quickly. That's at least what I think. People tend to ignore things until it smacks them in the face, but after that they seem to come up with solutions pretty quickly.

Malkor

Rhan9 wrote: »

Well, necessity is the mother of invention (or was it laziness, I can't remember). Anyhow, if it comes clear that we're going to run out of oil soon, people would panic and churn out some alternative means relatively quickly. That's at least what I think. People tend to ignore things until it smacks them in the face, but after that they seem to come up with solutions pretty quickly.

I agree with this, but 'quickly' is vague and relative considering how long we've depended on oil, like the difference between me telling my kids about gas and my kids telling their grandkids about how hard it was 'back in the day'.

YourFatAuntSusan

Rhan9 wrote: »

Well, necessity is the mother of invention (or was it laziness, I can't remember). Anyhow, if it comes clear that we're going to run out of oil soon, people would panic and churn out some alternative means relatively quickly. That's at least what I think. People tend to ignore things until it smacks them in the face, but after that they seem to come up with solutions pretty quickly.

In 1997 there were over 600 million motor vehicles in the world. If present trends continue, the number of cars on Earth will double in the next 30 years. How quickly can you develop, manufacture, distribute and purchase/replace 600 million vehicles? This is excluding the fact that the manufacturing plants are run and derived from oil. As are the parts for the non-oil burning cars.

Malkor

Also as of right now what's the motivation for most people here, in China, and other oil loving countries to soak up the cost that real change would bring? Consumers don't look down the road, they are concerned about right now. They said over $3 a gallon would spur people to use less, but people have just shrugged it off.

Gooey

Do not confuse "peak oil" with "easy oil". We no longer live in the era where we find oil by drilling ontop of rolling hills like we did 100 years ago. We no longer live in the era where we find oil by drilling shallow vertical wells based off primitive geo maps. We live in the era where it takes a bit more ingenuity and technology to drill wells with a large/long exploitation. A 1-year decrease in production does not mean we have hit peak oil. Huge deposits are out there that we are beginning to drill (GoM Lower Tertiary) or don't have the technology yet to drill (deepwater finds beyond 10k ft. depth).

YourFatAuntSusan

Malkor wrote: »

Also as of right now what's the motivation for most people here, in China, and other oil loving countries to soak up the cost that real change would bring? Consumers don't look down the road, they are concerned about right now. They said over $3 a gallon would spur people to use less, but people have just shrugged it off.

$3/g is the norm. As will be $4/g, $5/g, $6/g etc until your average working family can't afford the fuel up their car and the farmers can't afford to fuel their farm equipment.

Kriz

gas prices don't shoot up because oil is running out.

it's caused by the assholes who bid up the prices on the futures market every time they hear even a whisper of "peak oil".

or, if you're feeling a little paranoid, it's the oil companies and their bullshit tactics of, "uh-oh, this refinery: needs long, drawn-out maintenance/had a natural disaster occur nearby, looks like it'll be more expensive for say, two or four months!".

YourFatAuntSusan

Kriz wrote: »

gas prices don't shoot up because oil is running out.

it's caused by the assholes who bid up the prices on the futures market every time they hear even a whisper of "peak oil".

or, if you're feeling a little paranoid, it's the oil companies and their bullshit tactics of, "uh-oh, this refinery: needs long, drawn-out maintenance/had a natural disaster occur nearby, looks like it'll be more expensive for say, two or four months!".

So do you argue the fact that oil is a finite resource and that global production will plateau?

Satan.

YourFatAuntSusan wrote: »

Rhan9 wrote: »

Well, necessity is the mother of invention (or was it laziness, I can't remember). Anyhow, if it comes clear that we're going to run out of oil soon, people would panic and churn out some alternative means relatively quickly. That's at least what I think. People tend to ignore things until it smacks them in the face, but after that they seem to come up with solutions pretty quickly.

In 1997 there were over 600 million motor vehicles in the world. If present trends continue, the number of cars on Earth will double in the next 30 years. How quickly can you develop, manufacture, distribute and purchase/replace 600 million vehicles? This is excluding the fact that the manufacturing plants are run and derived from oil. As are the parts for the non-oil burning cars.

This is starting to move into a gloom-and-doom scenario that I'd like to see backed up by studies. I'd rather not assume we're going to double motor vehicles in the next 30 years unless scientists/economists/statisticians believe that to be true.

Rhan9 makes an excellent point. People are generally self-serving, and will figure out a way to ramp up production of alternate sources if they really start feeling the pinch. I work a minimum wage job and I have no trouble filling the tank on my car. Sure, it was nicer when gas was half the cost it is now. In the US, we're lucky enough to enjoy pretty cheap gas. The price of petrol just hit 7.96 in Britain. If that was the cost here, I think we would have seen more rapid development of an alternative fuel source.

Kriz

YourFatAuntSusan wrote: »

Kriz wrote: »

gas prices don't shoot up because oil is running out.

it's caused by the assholes who bid up the prices on the futures market every time they hear even a whisper of "peak oil".

or, if you're feeling a little paranoid, it's the oil companies and their bullshit tactics of, "uh-oh, this refinery: needs long, drawn-out maintenance/had a natural disaster occur nearby, looks like it'll be more expensive for say, two or four months!".

So do you argue the fact that oil is a finite resource and that global production will plateau?

no, I (and others in this thread) argue that declaring we'll never ever find as much oil as we did last year is premature, and there are many factors which contribute to the current trend of rising prices.

Qingu

I don't understand why people need to travel so much nowadays with the internet.

My mother is an arbitrator and she has to drive and fly all over the place for hearings. I have hope that in ten years, all of that will be handled over video conferences.

I take the bus to work every day to do a job I could easily do at home. I'm sure many more people drive to work every day from the suburbs to do office jobs they could do at home, linked up to the company's servers with the internets.

I have faith that the internet will save the world from peak oil.

But I don't have faith in Jesus.

MikeMan

YourFatAuntSusan wrote: »

Irregardless,

Not a word.

Sorry, I'm being snippy today.

In any event, worst case scenario is that oil prices rise until we all switch off of gas entirely.

YourFatAuntSusan

Satan Himself wrote: »

YourFatAuntSusan wrote: »

Rhan9 wrote: »

Well, necessity is the mother of invention (or was it laziness, I can't remember). Anyhow, if it comes clear that we're going to run out of oil soon, people would panic and churn out some alternative means relatively quickly. That's at least what I think. People tend to ignore things until it smacks them in the face, but after that they seem to come up with solutions pretty quickly.

In 1997 there were over 600 million motor vehicles in the world. If present trends continue, the number of cars on Earth will double in the next 30 years. How quickly can you develop, manufacture, distribute and purchase/replace 600 million vehicles? This is excluding the fact that the manufacturing plants are run and derived from oil. As are the parts for the non-oil burning cars.

This is starting to move into a gloom-and-doom scenario that I'd like to see backed up by studies. I'd rather not assume we're going to double motor vehicles in the next 30 years unless scientists/economists/statisticians believe that to be true.

http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/display.php?selected=31
And if you want to know where they got their data from:
http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/data_sources.html

While that article doesn't say it's going to double, it's still an obscene number to have to replace with an alternate fuel source.

This isn't simply a vehicle problem either. Farms are shutting down because they cant afford to operate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092407.stm

Global food stocks are running low and rich nations should not take security of supplies for granted, argues Les Firbank. In this week's Green Room, he outlines his vision for sustainable farming amid the uncertainties we face in the 21st Century.

Last i checked, BBC wasn't a Doom and Gloom website. (well, the news may be) A byproduct of rising fuel prices are less people who can afford it while already operating on an already tight budget.

There are three main reasons:

-increasing use of crops for bio-energy, especially in the US
-increasing demand for meat and milk products in the developing world (livestock are often fed grain and seeds, even if for only part of the year)
-poor harvests around the world following droughts and floods

. . . relying on corn for our future energy needs would devastate the nation's food production. It takes 11 acres to grow enough corn to fuel one automobile with ethanol for 10,000 miles, or about a year's driving, Pimentel says. That's the amount of land needed to feed seven persons for the same period of time. And if we decided to power all of our automobiles with ethanol, we would need to cover 97 percent of our land with corn

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99487&page=1

Satan.

Last I checked, you didn't cite your sources in the first place which is why I called it "gloom and doom". Thank you for the links, I'll read through them once I'm home.

Al_wat

The whole thing about "how quickly can you replace 600 million cars?" is that new cars are being built all the time. Hydrogen cars are being developed, and assuming we use renewable resources to power these hydrogen cars then we will still be able to drive.

The thing is its not going to be an integer change... it will be gradual. Companies are already starting to switch to new technologies. If there is a pretty hard impact of peak oil, then for a while energy will be harder to get and more expensive... but the technologies to use that energy for transportation will exist, and we will just ramp up renewable energy as well as nuclear power.

As far as plastics and things like that, we can obtain those from biological sources, as well as existing sources like land fills.

One thing you can bet on is that when resources start to get scarce, landfills will be utilized for materials.

Quid

Assuming we've hit peak oil I doubt the number of vehicles will continue to increase at the current rate. Alternatives seem much more likely.

I am annoyed that this is going to cut severely into my plans for travel in the future. The internet is no substitute for visiting a fish market in Qatar.

Al_wat

The real thing that scares the shit out of me if things start getting rough is the possibility of major resource wars.

I mean, worst case scenario we might be in for some hard times for a few years but we will pull through. The technology is being developed today and there are a lot of capable people out there. I'm just worried about the reaction of the "masses" when guided by political (read: inept, incompetent, idiotic, insane) will.

YourFatAuntSusan

Al_wat wrote: »

The real thing that scares the shit out of me if things start getting rough is the possibility of major resource wars.

I mean, worst case scenario we might be in for some hard times for a few years but we will pull through.

I don't see that as a worst case scenario, I see that as a fairly good scenario because hard times are almost a guarantee. If we can pull through without major conflict I will be suprised.

Azio

There are plenty of remaining sources of oil still left. We're never going to literally "run out". With new explorations such as the Athabasca tar sands we will continue to see plenty of oil production, but what we won't see, at least not directly, is the sharp jump in the amount of energy and effort and environmental devastation required to extract that oil. Most new explorations are scraping the bottom of the barrel of the earth's accessible oil reserves. We'll start to see oil that's simply more expensive because it costs more to extract and refine, and eventually Alberta's natural landscape will be fucking decimated by their greed, and we'll be like "fucktards, we told you that would happen".

Al_wat

Azio wrote: »

There are plenty of remaining sources of oil still left. We're never going to literally "run out". With new explorations such as the Athabasca tar sands we will continue to see plenty of oil production, but what we won't see, at least not directly, is the sharp jump in the amount of energy and effort and environmental devastation required to extract that oil. Most new explorations are scraping the bottom of the barrel of the earth's accessible oil reserves. We'll start to see oil that's simply more expensive because it costs more to extract and refine, and eventually Alberta's natural landscape will be fucking decimated by their greed, and we'll be like "fucktards, we told you that would happen".

This is one of the reasons I want to get into some kind of environmental technology.

Well.. that and $$$$$

Gnome-Interruptus

Honestly, fuel prices should go up more. Once people start realizing that maybe they should walk the couple of blocks to get groceries and walk back instead of driving, then people will start to conserve.
Or maybe only doing large shopping trips once a month, instead of picking up one or two items every day.

I would like to see the Feds redirect their oil & gas subsidies into alternate fuel funding. Of course a certain amount would have to be left for farmers fuel credits / low income heating & electric costs.

Also, if transportation really starts to suffer, maybe some of the Farm subsidies where people are paid to NOT GROW CROPS will change, since it will actually be worthwhile to grow and buy local.

Qingu

Quid wrote: »

I am annoyed that this is going to cut severely into my plans for travel in the future. The internet is no substitute for visiting a fish market in Qatar.

You say that now, but remember in 10 years we'll all have PS5s, with real-time ultra-bump-mapping and electro-nose-plugs for ultra-realistic fish head smell and eyeball texture.

Savant

If you look at peak oil from an economic standpoint (which the paranoia sites don't), then it isn't all that scary as long as the loss of cheap oil doesn't happen overnight. Being forced to switch off oil immediately in a small timeframe like a year would be a catastrophe, but over the course of a decade or decades it would maybe cause some stagflation or at worst a depression.

The alternatives to oil exist, it's just that they haven't replaced oil for a number of reasons: they aren't economic at the current price of oil, they require an investment of infrastructure which may make them uneconomic, they are being used but not as a full replacement, or the companies/governments have just not gotten off their asses and done it yet. With oil slowly becoming more expensive, those barriers start to go away.

Example: you can get biodiesel at about $4 a gallon from a weed which does not compete with the foodsupply or take up much fertilizer.

Quid

I'd like to see legitimate mass transportation. Not the half assed crap in most cities.

Malkor

Once gas prices go up, then the price of everything that needs to be transported goes up as well. That's the real problem with our dependence on oil and makes it insidious. It's not just that the average person uses alot of gas, but that everything that person buys has a cost in oil as well.

SithDrummer

Gooey wrote: »

A 1-year decrease in production does not mean we have hit peak oil.

This. It's appalling that someone would think that based on a single year of mild decline.

Also, though not unexpected that everyone jumps at the singular "olol fuel" result, petroleum/oil and gas also go into a heck of a lot of other, different substances also common in everyday living - plastics, for one.

Azio

Al_wat wrote: »

Azio wrote: »

There are plenty of remaining sources of oil still left. We're never going to literally "run out". With new explorations such as the Athabasca tar sands we will continue to see plenty of oil production, but what we won't see, at least not directly, is the sharp jump in the amount of energy and effort and environmental devastation required to extract that oil. Most new explorations are scraping the bottom of the barrel of the earth's accessible oil reserves. We'll start to see oil that's simply more expensive because it costs more to extract and refine, and eventually Alberta's natural landscape will be fucking decimated by their greed, and we'll be like "fucktards, we told you that would happen".

This is one of the reasons I want to get into some kind of environmental technology.

Well.. that and $$$$$

Yeah, that Baird fuckwad can claim that the economy will be devastated if oil stops being a huge cash cow for rich Albertans, but if Canada becomes an innovator and exporter of green technologies we will make a lot more money, and will enjoy much more permanent rewards, than if we instead choose to just sell the oil until it runs out.

Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud

We can power everything by steam!
Like in final fantasy!

Oh god we are doomed.

YourFatAuntSusan

SithDrummer wrote: »

Gooey wrote: »

A 1-year decrease in production does not mean we have hit peak oil.

This. It's appalling that someone would think that based on a single year of mild decline.

Also, though not unexpected that everyone jumps at the singular "olol fuel" result, petroleum/oil and gas also go into a heck of a lot of other, different substances also common in everyday living - plastics, for one.

While that quote was taken out of context, I can see where it can be misinterpreted. The problem is, most Peak Oil sites say that Peak Oil has been reached while we do not know if it has yet. Even if it hasn't yet, it will at some point. Whether it already has or won't for another 15 years is open to debate. Either way it's an inevitablity. Hopefully there is time to make preparations.

The way I look at it, if I prepare for the worst it it's win-win to me. If i'm right, I have a semi-self sustainable outlook on life which is saving me money. By looking at this from a rational point of view whether I agree with peak oil or not I see that something has to change.

We've put in a garden and grown a decent amount of our own food, we drive much, much less, we heat our home with wood grown and cut from out own managed woodlot and raise our own chickens for eggs and meat.

The problem is that nobody nowadays wants to do the work to reap the benefits. If you can drive to a supermarket and buy your food and throw your laundry in a dryer and pay for heat and water and watch your Desperate Housewives and drive around in your SUV, why change, right? Why put effort into growing your own vegetables when you can buy them for $1.29/lb? Why ride your bike when you can drive?

ElJeffe

YourFatAuntSusan wrote: »

While that quote was taken out of context, I can see where it can be misinterpreted. The problem is, most Peak Oil sites say that Peak Oil has been reached while we do not know if it has yet. Even if it hasn't yet, it will at some point. Whether it already has or won't for another 15 years is open to debate. Either way it's an inevitablity. Hopefully there is time to make preparations.

So why are you so insistent on harping on peak oil as definitively happening sometime in the next 20 years? Peak Oil will happen some time between now and infinity. The 20-year-oh-noes number is something routinely plucked from the air by people who want to make damned sure that their argument is scary as possible. Peak Oil might happen tomorrow, or next year, or ten years from now, or a thousand years from now. Theoretically, we may develop some super-awesome replacement for oil before we start to run out, in which case Peak Oil will never actually happen. Granted, that's probably unlikely, but it's still a possibility unconsidered by all your gloom-and-doomers. Recall that people thought we had/were about to hit Peak Oil about 30 years ago. Then technologies took off and we started going after oil that was previously thought to be unobtainable.

A key aspect of Peak Oil is that it's impossible to know when it's coming. It's impossible to even accurately ballpark it, because it depends on whether or not we find oil sources that we don't yet know exist. It's like walking into a house, looking at the cat figurines in the living room, and trying to come up with an accurate estimate for how many cat figurines are in the entire house. The only way to know is to go from room to room and look, and you won't know you've found them all until you've exhaustively searched the entire house. You could look through every room but one, assume you're just about done, and then open the last door and find endless crates of gaudy feline knick knacks. It's fundamentally impossible to say.

The way I look at it, if I prepare for the worst it it's win-win to me. If i'm right, I have a semi-self sustainable outlook on life which is saving me money. By looking at this from a rational point of view whether I agree with peak oil or not I see that something has to change.

Sort of subjective. Yes, preparing for the future is a good idea. But consider that the worst that can happen to you, personally, is that a meteor falls on your house tomorrow and kills you and your family. To what extent do you prepare for that? Are you foolishly unprepared if you don't drop tens of thousands of dollars erecting a meteor trampoline to bounce incoming debris back into orbit?

Same with Peak Oil. The absolute worst case scenario is dire but unlikely. The more likely bad scenario is inconvenient but doable. The best case scenarios require pretty much no effort on our part. Mild precautions and subtle trends towards more efficient and inexpensive energy solutions that obviate our need for oil are a good idea, but mostly for reasons that have little to do with Peak Oil. Freaking out and spending obscene amounts of money and effort planning for a catastrophe that will likely never happen isn't any wiser than ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away.

If you can drive to a supermarket and buy your food and throw your laundry in a dryer and pay for heat and water and watch your Desperate Housewives and drive around in your SUV, why change, right? Why put effort into growing your own vegetables when you can buy them for $1.29/lb? Why ride your bike when you can drive?

Exactly! Which reminds me, I need to hurry and finish my work here so I have time to load some non-organic vegetables into my 4Runner and get some laundry done before I pipe House through about 1000 watts of high-end A/V equipment.

FirstComradeStalin

YourFatAuntSusan wrote: »

SithDrummer wrote: »

Gooey wrote: »

A 1-year decrease in production does not mean we have hit peak oil.

This. It's appalling that someone would think that based on a single year of mild decline.

Also, though not unexpected that everyone jumps at the singular "olol fuel" result, petroleum/oil and gas also go into a heck of a lot of other, different substances also common in everyday living - plastics, for one.

While that quote was taken out of context, I can see where it can be misinterpreted. The problem is, most Peak Oil sites say that Peak Oil has been reached while we do not know if it has yet. Even if it hasn't yet, it will at some point. Whether it already has or won't for another 15 years is open to debate. Either way it's an inevitablity. Hopefully there is time to make preparations.

The way I look at it, if I prepare for the worst it it's win-win to me. If i'm right, I have a semi-self sustainable outlook on life which is saving me money. By looking at this from a rational point of view whether I agree with peak oil or not I see that something has to change.

We've put in a garden and grown a decent amount of our own food, we drive much, much less, we heat our home with wood grown and cut from out own managed woodlot and raise our own chickens for eggs and meat.

The problem is that nobody nowadays wants to do the work to reap the benefits. If you can drive to a supermarket and buy your food and throw your laundry in a dryer and pay for heat and water and watch your Desperate Housewives and drive around in your SUV, why change, right? Why put effort into growing your own vegetables when you can buy them for $1.29/lb? Why ride your bike when you can drive?

The fact is that most people don't live in Nova Scotia. Most people live in urban environments with 9-5 jobs that they have to drive 20 or more miles through horrendous traffic to get to. They can't do what you do. Now, most people agree that something needs to be done. But what we're saying is that the amount of time we have to shift to greener technology is quite provably longer than you are implying, and that the transition will actually be quite natural.

MKR

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

Honestly, fuel prices should go up more. Once people start realizing that maybe they should walk the couple of blocks to get groceries and walk back instead of driving, then people will start to conserve.
Or maybe only doing large shopping trips once a month, instead of picking up one or two items every day.

I would like to see the Feds redirect their oil & gas subsidies into alternate fuel funding. Of course a certain amount would have to be left for farmers fuel credits / low income heating & electric costs.

Also, if transportation really starts to suffer, maybe some of the Farm subsidies where people are paid to NOT GROW CROPS will change, since it will actually be worthwhile to grow and buy local.

For most people, it's not "a couple of blocks" to get groceries. It's a 20 mile round-trip for me.

To answer the most likely counter ("So move closer to the city"): Millions of buildings for the people who currently live in rural areas won't just spring up overnight.

YourFatAuntSusan

Not to revive the thread, but I found an interesting quote which is fairly relevant.

It is too late now to bring any would-be alternative energy online in time even if one did exist, which it doesn’t. But if it did, we would require decades to switch our economy into it, assuming that it works, which is a big leap of faith against any shred of proof. And the hour is late and we are at peak and still the economists and politicians still placate us with “they will think of something” and “market forces will drive technological solutions”. But what if oil and gas are the last game in town? EROEI just doesn’t get measured by our wishful economists. What did Lenin say, “Economics is the opiate of society”? Of course I misquoted Lenin a bit just to make a point.

http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/ulsak_01.htm
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/ulsak_02.htm
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/ulsak_03.htm

MKR

YourFatAuntSusan wrote: »

Not to revive the thread, but I found an interesting quote which is fairly relevant.

It is too late now to bring any would-be alternative energy online in time even if one did exist, which it doesn’t. But if it did, we would require decades to switch our economy into it, assuming that it works, which is a big leap of faith against any shred of proof. And the hour is late and we are at peak and still the economists and politicians still placate us with “they will think of something” and “market forces will drive technological solutions”. But what if oil and gas are the last game in town? EROEI just doesn’t get measured by our wishful economists. What did Lenin say, “Economics is the opiate of society”? Of course I misquoted Lenin a bit just to make a point.

http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/ulsak_01.htm
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/ulsak_02.htm
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/ulsak_03.htm

The premise is flawed. We can mass produce hydrogen with bacteria now. I'm assuming this article was published before the recent breakthrough?

Edit: Yes, 2005. No wonder.

Edit2: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=hydrogen+bacteria&btnG=Search

Malkor

Even if it was too late to save our current levels of production and consumption, it wouldn't be like the 'Dark Ages' of modern times. People adapt, and the world's not going to turn into Mad Max.

Unknown

This content has been removed.